Snape as noble sadist/some spoilers for Cold fire trilogy again WAS

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 168352

> Magpie:
> Leaving aside whether Snape is or isn't sadistic, sure I think a 
sadistic 
> person could be noble--hypothetically. Sadism is, I believe, 
getting 
> pleasure (usually sexual pleasure) out of inflicting pain on 
others. If the 
> person doesn't *act* on this feeling by hurting others, if they 
repress it, 
> they could be noble--if they're repressing it because they know 
it's wrong, 
> they're doing it for a good reason. Behaving in a sadistic way 
isn't 
> noble--it would be a pleasure-seeking act. But a noble person with 
a 
> sadistic streak could exist, especially if they struggled with it.
> 
> One problem in the HP-verse, imo, is that sadism is pretty common 
in the 
> books to varying degrees.


Alla:

Leaving aside whether Snape is sadistic or not  for a second as 
well, I actually agree with you hypothetically - that sadistic 
personality can be noble but only under certain circumstances and 
only, I would say in fiction. I am still yet to meet real life 
sadist who would struggle with their instincts, but I certainly saw 
that in fiction. Do I think it applies to Snape? Not for a second, I 
do not, but here is again the example from dearly loved "Cold fire" 
trilogy by C.J. Friedman.

Gerald Tarant is someone who has a part inside of himself  that just 
**has to** feed upon young women's terrors both emotionally and 
physically. If he does not *feed**, he will eventually die, it is 
that simple.

Now, the reason why it so come to be is totally his fault, nobody 
else's. But it turns out that the spark of humanity left in him is 
**enough** for him to change enough to try and not feed upon these 
young women for certain period of time and eventually never.

So, certainly I call it a spark of nobility in sadist. But again, do 
I apply it for a second to Snape? No way. Why? Because I see no 
proof whatsoever that Snape just **has to** mistreat innocent kid or 
die, or do anything like that.

That is why I am guessing ( and it is really just my assumption so 
feel free to correct me if I am wrong) why vampire Snape was so 
attractive to many people. I mean, really he is **vampire**, he poor 
dear just cannot help himself, he needs to feed on kids negative 
emotions or something, so the fact that he does not turn those kids 
into vampires must mean that he is so very noble.

Again, maybe not, that is just my wild guess and not directed to you 
and not even specifically to Pippin, even though I remember her 
being a big fan of Snape as vampire. It is just a general 
speculation.

But I cannot tell you how very pleased I was when JKR said that NO 
Snape is not a vampire, that meant to me that she blocked another 
avenue to let Snape off the hook for his deeds. IMO of course. It 
was actually funny, because at some point I thought that Snape as 
vampire could be fun because of his relationships with 
Marauders,LOL. Vampire, werewolf, you know? But when I realised how 
it can be argued that Snape just cannot help himself, I hated this 
theory with passion.


 
> Magpie:
<SNIP>
I'd need to see the canon where 
> Snape actually *demands* that Harry be expelled--I remember Snape 
saying 
> once how he had no power to expel Harry therefore he couldn't do 
it. <SNIP>


Alla:

Ask and you shall receive :)

"Be warned Potter- any more nightime wanderings and I will 
personally make sure that you are expelled. Good day to you" - 
PS/SS, p.269.

By the way, Snape saying that he could not personally expel Harry 
does not mean that he cannot convince the people who can do it IMO>




> Magpie:
> I believe the comparisons were there only to show the kinds of 
punishments 
> that teachers have given in canon, only to show that Snape isn't 
always 
> operating at that level of punishment. He could go further, iow. 

<SNIP>


Alla:

Yes, Snape can go further, but sadism -1 to me does not become less 
sadism if we are able to see sadism -100.

JMO,

Alla