Who suffers better in Potterverse - good guys or bad guys? WAS : Unbreakable vo

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 165639

Alla: 
> Does it mean that Rowling *has to** make Snape a good guy if she 
> wants to torture him?
> 
> 
> Pippin: 
> > The bad guys tend to suffer more permanent damage, but it's
> > usually off screen. Whatever happened to Umbridge, we didn't
> > see it. Ditto Crouch Jr, Quirrell, Karkaroff, Bella, Lucius, 
> Kreacher,
> > need I go on? 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Okay, but who says that Snape **has to** be tortured on screen? I 
> don't think that was Neri's original point, was it?
> 
> Say we learn that his head was cut off of screen - would certainly be 
> plenty enough to satisfy me for example. :)

Pippin:
How would Rowling manage that?

It would be anticlimactic if someone other than Harry sends
Snape to his final reward, seeing as how Harry has pretty much 
vowed to kill Snape if he gets the chance.

Neri's point, if I understood it,  was that Rowling doesn't like Snape, 
 so we shouldn't expect her to take a lot of trouble to redeem him.

My point was that those who don't like Snape and really want to see him
suffer should hope that he's a good guy, because the good guys get
tortured on screen more than the bad guys do. We've seen Snape tortured
already. I don't know if that hints at his true allegiance, but it certainly
did create sympathy for him. To judge by her interviews, JKR doesn't
want us to feel too sorry for the bad guys, so my guess is she won't
show them suffering very much even in DH. 

If semi-humorous scenes don't count as torture, then I guess 
the Dursleys and  Umbridge  haven't been tortured
on screen at all. If that's the case then I have to say I can't think of any
cases where baddies have been tortured except for Draco in the
bathroom, Wormtail and Avery. And they're characters who may
well be redeemed.

Pippin