Choices/Snape as abuser, SKIP if not interested WAS :Re: CHAPTER

[juli17ptf]

No: HPFGUIDX 188579


> 
> Alla:
> 
> The difference between your position and mine is that I do not evaluate what Snape did to Harry by comparing it with what other people did to him. I completely agree that what Snape did pales in comparison to what Petunia did to him, I think it was much harsher abuse, although I happen to believe that if Snape was forced to take Harry in as so many fanfic authors speculated, he would have been treating Harry just as bad as Petunia did, but this is of course just speculation with no proof.
> 

Julie:
So if Snape had taken Harry in when Harry was 16 months old,
you think he would have made Harry sleep in a cupboard, never
bought Harry his own clothes, made Harry work like a house elf
and never let Harry interact with anyone else, and essentially
kept Harry in a state of perpetual starvation/malnutrition?

I kind of doubt it. Yes, Harry is James' child, but he's still
a baby, thus doesn't look "just like his father" yet (the way
Harry did when he came to Hogwarts at age 11, the same age as
James' when Snape first met him). In fact, he has his mother's
startling green eyes, certainly the most prominent feature of
any baby. This could well influence how Snape initially reacts
to Harry.

Additionally, Snape is not the same person he would be ten 
years hence. He is still in a highly emotive state of grief
and regret, and has promised to watch over Lily's child. If
that included raising said child, I think it is just as 
possible that Snape would see Lily in those green eyes and
it might--just might--change everything. Not that Snape is
a natural father (he certainly had no role models!), but it
isn't out of the question that he could grow to love Lily's
infant son. And once you grow to love someone, well, you 
cease to notice, or at least to care what or who they may
grow to look like.

I know it could have gone the other way too, that Snape
would not be able to let go of the fact that Harry is James'
son, as Petunia couldn't let go of the fact that Harry was
Lily's son (and she had Harry for years before he would
have caused any incidents by accidental magic, yet she did
not bond with him in the slightest, so she hated him for his 
association with Lily and the magical world from the very 
beginning). 

But even if Snape hadn't been able to bring himself to care
for Harry personally, I actually can't see him forcing Harry
to sleep in a cupboard, or denying Harry food or clothing.
That goes if for some reason Dumbledore had taken Harry away
from the Dursleys once Harry came to school. Even after Snape
saw Harry as James' clone, I think he would have made sure
Harry's needs were met, including decent clothing and sufficient
food. Which isn't to say lack of affection and verbal abuse
are in and of themselves not damaging. They are. But it still
something more than Petunia gave Harry. (And why I think her
wrongs against Harry are much, MUCH more deserving of harsh
punishment than any verbal abuse Snape may have delivered.)

One thing I enjoy in fan fiction is the exploration of what
might have been if circumstances (or sometimes even just one 
fateful moment) had been different. Snape, like many of the
characters, might have gone in many different directions 
if any part of his life had been different, from during 
his childhood, including his interaction with his peers and
the supervisory (supposedly) adults around him, right to his 
adulthood and the choices he could make and those that were
taken away from him. Which I think is true for all people. 
I don't think one is born with a propensity to do good or
evil (or has to have it "in" him to kill or torture, as we
all have it in us, if the circumstances are sufficient).
For most people some mixture of fear, mistreatment/degradation,
desensitization, and hopelessness for the future will push
them to the point where they can ignore their conscience
and their humanity. (Note that I said "some" mixture of the
above. It may take quite a lot for one person--hopefully
most people--and much less for another person to abandon
their conscience.) 

The issue of mental illness makes a gray area even grayer,
IMO. Tom had signs of a sociopathic personality from an
early age. He could recognize what was socially acceptable
(right) from what was unacceptable (wrong), but whether
there is or ever will be any rehabilitation that could 
"restore" him to a normal personality--i.e., allow him to 
care for anyone outside himself--is still a mystery as far
as I know, even in the 21st century.


> 
> Nikkalmati:
> <SNIP>
> In any case, I think "abuse" is too strong a word and should be reserved for
> cases of real harm.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, the difference between our positions is that I call it abuse based on Snape's intent and I believe JKR's words that Snape hated Harry till the day he died.
> 

Julie:
Snape hating Harry is how he feels, not what he intends with 
his words and actions. If he intends to hurt and humiliate,
which I agree he does at times, that is the form of abuse to
which you are referring, I believe. I think though that Snape
also often believes he is going to "shape" Harry up, get rid
of Harry's faults that are so similar to his father's--his
supposed arrogance, his rule-breaking that is so lamentably
ignored by the Headmaster, etc. And Snape even means to teach
Harry on occasion ("That is not as bad as it might have been").
After all, he knows the boy has to defeat the Dark Lord ;-)

Julie, 
who thinks it significant that Snape's abuse is verbal
and low-level in comparison to the Dursley's, and to what
Snape is certainly capable of and could have done if he'd
given full rein to his feelings for Harry.