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

[juli17ptf]

No: HPFGUIDX 188584


> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Alla,
> 
> who does not attach any significance whatsoever to the fact that Snape's abuse is less than Dursleys' and for whom a character who is engages in any degree of abuse is quite a disgusting one.
> 
> P.S.
> I wonder why the character who abuses *less* is supposed to get a cookie because his behavior is less disgusting by comparison with more vile character? I know another character whom I think of as much more despicable abuser  than Snape – Umbridge. But you know, I measure Snape's actions by what *he did*, not how many LESS despicable things he committed. Just imagine that we would not have Umbridge and Dursleys in the story for a second. If there is nothing to compare Snape's actions to are they better somehow? Not to me definitely not.
> 

Julie:

Snape's actions are what they are, irrespective of how 
they compare to the actions of others. Not better or worse.
As you say, his behavior is less disgusting than the more
vile characters. Which assumes (correctly, I'd say) that
he is less vile a person and has more good in him than 
those more vile characters. 

I also don't think anyone is giving Snape a cookie because
of his unfairness and verbal abuse toward Harry. In fact,
he gets the cookie for protecting Harry, for making a promise
that he keeps right to the end of his life, for risking that
life and ultimately dying to keep said promise, and for 
becoming someone who "saves those he can" even though such
action doesn't directly serve honoring his specific promise.
I'll even take the cookie back from Snape for never getting
over his bitterness and taking it out on children, especially
Harry. So Snape is cookie-less.

And now the comparison. The Dursley's never get a cookie.
They don't do anything positive for Harry, or for anyone 
beyond themselves and their immediate family. And they lose
a cookie for deliberately and hatefully mistreating Harry.
Just so Umbridge. No cookies for her since she never did
anything honorable or worthwhile. And she loses a cookie
for her sadistic abuse of Harry with that blood quill,
among other things. So the Dursleys and Umbridge end up
-1 in the cookie department.

Then there are the -2 cookie people, the ones who not only
never did anything good for someone outside of family, but
deliberately and often with great pleasure hurt and kill
others. Greyback, who hunts children. Bellatrix, who kills
wantonly, along with her fellow unreformed and unrepentant
Death Eaters like McNair, Dolohov, the Carrows, etc. Barty
Crouch Jr, certainly. And Peter, who betrayed his friends,
resurrected Voldemort, and worst of all killed an innocent
teenage boy without hesitation or a hint of remorse (the 
latter is worth a million nasty comments of Snape's, IMO).

Voldemort? I suppose we'll top out at -3 on the cookie
scale, since he's done more evil by leaps than anyone 
else. Though I agree with you that it's difficult to 
relate to his evil on an emotional level, given that he
is such a chest-thumping idiot. 

For me comparison doesn't change anything. I still see 
Snape's good actions as essentially cancelling out (or
atoning for) his bad actions. I don't see that for the
others I've listed, most who had few if any good actions
to note.


Julie