James and Sirius as Bullies (WAS: student!Snape keeping Lupin's ...)

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 181207

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> Again, if we're going to be strict about what we see on the
> page about the Marauders and Snape, at this point we have:
> 
> Detention cards that indicate hexing of other students:
> 
> James and Sirius: 1.
> Snape: 0.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yep, that we do in the detention boxes picked by Snape. I read the 
> explanation upthread that it still supposed to be objective, but I 
> did not quite get the reasoning.

Montavilla47:
Let me try, then.

What may be confusing is the absurd why that Hogwarts is storing
these files.  They are filed by *date*, that is, either in the order that
the offenses were committed, or in the order that the detentions 
were assigned.

This isn't a very useful way of storing detention slips.  Ideally, you 
would want them filed by student (so that you could track their
behavior or by type of offense (to help in assigning consistent 
punishments).  But no.  Wizards store things by *date.*

So, the boxes Snape chooses cannot only contain detentions
assigned to James and Sirius (and Lupin and Pettigrew), but 
contain *all* detentions assigned to any student in Hogwarts
during the time period Snape has chosen.  

Now, Snape isn't being entirely objective.  He's choosing a 
specific starting box, and a specific ending one.  For all we
know, Snape could have been hexing people right and left 
in his first three years at school, and in his seventh year, 
and he's only having Harry only look at the fourth, fifth, 
and sixth years.  But that's only speculation.

What isn't speculation is that Snape is making Harry look
at all the detentions assigned in the school during a 
specific time period, and that Harry sees proof that his 
father misbehaved with "regular jolt."  In this context, the
most obvious connatation of "regular" is that he sees 
James's name every X number of cards.  

That X number is probably between 5 and 20 cards.  But 
again, that's only a guess.  If you want to put it at 50 or 
100 cards,I wouldn't object.  The main point is that it's
more than *once.*

> > Montavilla47:
> > I suppose we really ought to a working definition of what 
> constitutes 
> > bullying.  I don't think it can be limited to hexing.  So, in the 
> interests 
> > of common ground, I'd like to throw out a few guidelines...
> <SNIP of the examples, read them UPTHREAD>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I snipped the examples, but I have a question, do you consider all 
> of them bullying or not bullying?

Montavilla47:
Not really.  I consider all the categories valid.  I wouldn't consider all
of the examples given as bullying.  But I think they could all be 
considered bullying.

For example, I think giving Neville a canary cream or the first year
students beta-pustilles is questionable as bullying.  

Also, is it bullying to spy on Draco if he doesn't know that you're 
doing it?  Is it necessary to have the victim *know* that he's being
harassed in order for it to qualify as bullying?

> Alla:
> 
> Oh, of course we do not have anything as dramatic to show that Snape 
> could dish it out back to Marauders as we have Pensieve scene. But 
> for me the circumstantial evidence are enough to conclude that he 
> indeed could.

Montavilla47:
I can definitely agree with you (and, in fact, I do).  But what I don't 
really understand is why you're eager to go with "circumstantial 
evidence" when it comes to Snape misbehaving, but demand direct
evidence in the case of James and/or Sirius?

We have plenty of circumstantial evidence about James and Sirius
bullying Snape and other students on occasions other than SWM 
and the Prank.  Why deny that evidence?

Alla:
> The biggest piece of circumstantial evidence to me was not even the 
> Sectusemptra, to me the biggest piece was the fact that as it turns 
> out Snape was hit with Levicorpus in Pensieve scene. The hex of his 
> own invention was turned back at him. To me it implies that while he 
> was a victim in that scene, he certainly could have been an agressor 
> before. IMO of course.

Montavilla47:
He certainly could have.  Or he might not have.  But it's not any more
implied than the "apprehensive" looks from the students being 
due to fear of becoming victims of James and Sirius if they stick up 
for Snape in SWM.

Alla:
> And frankly I am not surprised that we do not have anything as 
> dramatic piece of dirt on Snape in his youth as we have on Marauders 
> in their dealings with each other. I cannot quite explain why I feel 
> this way, it has to do with character's ambiguousness. No, I do not 
> think that Snape was unresolved at the end, of course he was. I 
> promise I will come back to this part later when I am able to 
> explain it more clearly.

Montavilla47:
Not to hand you weapons, but I think it could very well be that 
be because we're always looking at Snape's memories.  JKR was 
very emphatic that Pensieve memories are always objective, but 
when you are choosing a memory, it means that you get to chose
what's being seen.  

So, if Snape does have a memory of himself beating the pants 
off James, he's choosing not to show it anyone.

However, what he *can't* do, according to all the rules we know
about Pensieves, is create a memory or change SWM so that his
gang doesn't show up to duke it out with the Marauders when
they actually did.

Alla:
> There is another piece of circumstantial evidence to me is that 
> Snape was hanging out with people who all ended up being DE. So, 
> yeah, I assume that he was doing bad stuff with them and to other 
> people too.

Montavilla47:
By this logic, then Lupin was a bully, too.  After all, he hung with 
bullies, right?

Oh, and he eats people, too, since in HBP, he's hanging out with 
werewolves who do.

I'm snipping the parts about his possibly being a DE in school 
and picking on Neville, because I agree with both your points
here.  I think it's possible that Snape was recruited in school,
although I don't find it likely.


Alla:
> Since we did not find out anything personal in Snape's dealings with 
> Neville ( that he wanted him to be strong as second child of the 
> prophecy or something like this), I conclude that Snape always had 
> in him to bully people and I see no reason to think that he was 
> different in school.

Montavilla47:
I do.  Just because someone has it in them to do something, 
doesn't mean that they do it.  Everyone has a certain amount
of self-control.


> Montavilla47:
> Given the level of animosity we see James and Sirius show *in public*
> towards Snape, and the tactical advantages they had--advantages
> that allowed them to target him any time he was alone (the map) with
> the element of surprise (the cloak), yes, I think it is remarkable 
> that
> the two worst things they did to him was a public humilation (just
> before an important exam) and an attempted werewolf mauling.
> 
> Alla:
> Maybe that shows that no matter how high the level of animosity was 
> between them, Snape was NOT their only reason for living and they 
> were not obsessed with monitoring his every step? ( And I know you 
> did not said that he was their only reason for living, but the 
> argument that it is surprising how he made it through school to me 
> implies it)

Montavilla47:
Quite possible.  They did have other things to do, after all.  James
had Quidditch and he was more likely to use that Map to look at Lily's
dot than at Snape's.  Sirius was busy despising his family, buying
muggle girly mags, and fixing that magical motorcycle.

I can't help thinking, though, that Snape was at a serious disadvantage
in that whole "sneaking around after them," since they had only to 
look at their map to see his dot bobbing after them, darting behind
statues, and so on....

> Montavilla47:
> Hexing a younger student (younger meaning from an earlier year):
No one
> that I recall. Ginny hexes people older than she is. Fred and
George
> try out their candies on people younger, but I don't think that's
hexing.

>Magpie:
>Just to throw out one correction here, since you have doing things
>to younger people as a category I would say going after somebody
>younger than they are is pretty common for the Twins, whatever they
>happen to be doing. I would consider turning Neville into a canary
>or giving Dudley the tongue the equivalent of hexing because the
>result is pretty much the same. They hex Draco, Crabbe and Goyle
>along with the Trio in GoF and both try to physically attack Draco
>in OotP (Fred and Harry do beat him up, but George is held back by
>someone else), which seems like it would be the same type thing.
>Also one of them hexes Zach from behind, iirc, in the DA.

Montavilla47:
Thanks, Magpie.  I had put that in because it's such a common
school bully trope, but I blanked on the incidents you mentioned.
I also blanked on Draco taunting Ginny in CoS, which seems like
it ought be on the list somewhere. 

Perhaps "picking on younger kids" would be a better category
than "hexing younger kids."


> Magpie:
>Actually, when I think of moments where the victim's age is a factor
>it's almost always with regards to the designated bully characters--
>Harry brings up Dudley going after Mark Evans, Hermione notes the
>Slytherins pushing ickle firsties out of the way in OotP. But if
>someone's done something to deserve a hexing or a beating, age
>doesn't matter.

Montavilla47:
Unless you count Ron stealing a fanged frisbee from a firstie or 
pushing one out of a chair.