No: HPFGUIDX 152891
Leslie41:
> Yes, but I don't think it's accurate either. "Niceness" doesn't
> spring at all from any sort of humility. I think "niceness" (and
> manners, etc.) spring from a desire to do what is socially correct,
> and be socially accepted as a result.
Lanval:
Or from a simple, basic feeling of goodwill towards others -- and
likewise a reluctance to hurt others. Anything wrong with that?
And that's not to say that one should strive to be
insincere,fawning, or politically correct. Lord knows, 'nice' when
elevated to a 'cult' can result in astounding displays of hypocrisy...
> Nrenka:
> What we have here, people, is a failure to communicate.
>Leslie41:
>Not so much a failure to communicate as a failure to agree on a
>definition! Defining "nice" is probably as difficult as
>defining "good".
Lanval:
Yet the definition of the word does not seem to be quite as much a
problem, as the fact that, to some, it can only have ONE meaning, and
a negative one at that.
If nice = kind is an acceptable definition, then how can its total
absence in a person be considered not only positive ("being on the
right side is enough, being nice is a waste of time, etc....) but
actually be thought superior?
Leslie41:
I think what that patient said
> about being polite actually applies much more to the concept
> of "forgiveness". But that wouldn't be as convenient, considering
> what the patient did to House.
>
> As for Snape, like House he doesn't give a hoo about being socially
> accepted. I think the characters are actually very much alike.
In some ways. Though I find House quite a bit funnier, and a great
deal more likeable. Snape of course gets comparatively little screen
time in HP, hence this is not entirely a fair comparison. Maybe Snape
pets Mrs Norris when no one is looking. I wouldn't bet on it, though.
It also helps to remember that a large part of House's crankiness is
due to chronic excruciating pain. What's Snape's excuse again?
> > Lanval:
I don't see a shred of humility, or compassion,
> > evident in the man.
>
> Leslie41:
>
> Oddly enough, this makes me admire him more. Humility and
> compassion are actually emotions that reward those that experience
> them. We feel good about ourselves, and about our actions, because
> we perceive ourselves as humble and compassionate. My guess is if
> we did not feel good about ourselves for exhibiting compassion, we
> would quickly squelch the emotion. How many of us would perform
good
> works if we felt horrible about doing so? How many people would
> give to charity if it did not reinforce our own self-esteem?
Lanval:
Frankly, I'm quite at a loss for words here. If you truly believe
that every act of human compassion ever committed was done for no
other reason but pure selfishness, then we have indeed arrived at a
difference that can't be bridged.
Leslie41:
> As for him not being "compassionate," that depends on your view of
> compassion. Snape commits acts of compassion, even if he does
> not "feel" compassion, because it is the right thing to do.
Lanval:
Can you name one of those acts?
Leslie41:
My
> guess is that he would feel that wallowing in compassion doesn't
> solve anything. I'm reminded of T'Pau, the leader of the Vulcans
> (Star Trek: Original Series), who presides over the death match
> between Kirk and Spock in "Amok Time". McCoy complains that it's
> too hot and the air is too thin on Vulcan for Kirk to be able to
> fight effectively. She doesn't respond with "compassion." "The air
> is the air," says T'Pau. "What can be done?"
> That seems to me to be Snape's attitude in general. (We haven't
> brought Vulcans into this, but of course they show as well that it
> is very possible to be good without being nice.)
Lanval:
I'm not familiar with this episode, nor am I a Trek Fan, but I fail
to see what this Vulcan's 'deal with it' attitude has to do with
being 'good'. I'd call it being rational at best, supremely
indifferent at worst.
> Leslie41:
> A large ego that to my mind is well-deserved. It's
not "fashionable"
> to have a large ego in our modern age. It's not "admirable". But
> that's only a recent attitude. Most ancient heroes had huge egos.
Lanval:
Except Snape has not yet achieved hero status in canon.
> > Leslie41:
> > Not a reason for him to be humble, really. Any attempt at such
> > would only ring false. And though Snape may not be "humble,"
> > neither is he a show-off.
nrenka:
> On the other hand, he does tend to have a kind of invincible belief
> in his own perceptions of a situation being the right one. Witness
> his screaming fit both in the Shack and afterwards, which basically
> amounts to a Tom Cruise-esque "I know what's going on here,
> Hermione, you don't--don't be facile!" The irony is intentional,
> I'm sure.
Leslie41:
But of course that "invincible belief" is correct in this case, is it
not? Cite somewhere he has a hissy fit where he's NOT correct.
Lanval:
Er, the one Nora just mentioned? Snape has been canonically proven to
be completely, utterly wrong about Sirius.
>
> Leslie41:
> I don't think that is likely. Snape looked like "a plant grown in
> the dark". And never has he ever been shown to express any
> unrealistic ideas about his appeal, to students or anyone else. I
> think if he did love Lily he would not have dared to hope she loved
> him back.
Lanval:
A large number of listees would likely disagree, judging by the
recent Snape-is-a-sexy-beast posts...
> But I don't think he loved her. That's a romantic idea but not to
> my mind a logical one.
Lanval:
Far be it from me to ever think of the words 'Snape' and 'romantic'
in the same context! Whatever -- if anything -- went on between Lily
and Snape, it bears a distinct mark of creepiness for me.
Snape, IMO, displays the perfect personality traits of a stalker.
> Leslie41:
> I think all the explanation we need for Snape JOINING the DE is
that
> Snape was a tormented outsider, humiliated and violated by
> the "popular kids" in school. The appeal of the Death Eaters is
the
> same appeal of the "Trenchcoat Mafia", and the Nazis.
Lanval:
No. A loud, resounding NO. James and Sirius cannot be held
responsible for Snape joining the DE. To say that their actions
caused Snape pain is correct; to say that their actions contributed
to Snape's 'contra mundum' attitude, his contempt and rage against
everything and everyone, is possible. But to claim that we must look
no further than to Snape's status as a victim of James and Sirius
would be, IMO, simplistic beyond belief. And it, as usual, absolves
poor Sevvie of all personal responsibility.
> As for why he felt remorse, we don't have the details, but in truth
> we don't need them, really. Snape had an epiphany, where he
> realized that he was "better" than that, and that no matter how
> powerful and accepted he felt, what he was doing was wrong.
Lanval:
It's a possibility, certainly. One of many. I would argue, though,
that some of us do desire details. Snape having an epiphany
about being "wrong" is a concept that I find hard to swallow without
further explanation.