Nature of Sadistic Behavior: was:Re: Lack of re-examination

[mesmer44]

No: HPFGUIDX 186596


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> > Steve wrote:
> > > >
> > > Harry cast the spell to punish Amicus for what Amicus was doing to Minerva.  Where in canon does it say Harry cast the spell as sadistic torture or that he enjoyed casting the spell in a manner that would indicate he was a sadistic person?  I don't see Harry Potter as sadistic.  
> > 
> > Carol responds:
> > I don't think that anyone is arguing that Harry is a sadistic person, only that he had a sadistic moment that we don't see him regret.
> 
> <snip> 
> > Again, I'm not saying that Harry is a sadist. I'm saying that, under the extreme pressure of Voldemort's impending arrival, he had a sadistic moment. It would be absurd to compare him with Umbridge or Barty Crouch, much less Bellatrix or Voldemort, and say that he's as much of a sadist as they are. <snip>
> 
> a_svirn:
> Which is precisely why no one agues it. I agree with pretty much everything you've said, and I only picked on Pippin's thought that a sadistic person punishes sadistically because it leads to further questions, i.e. does a non-sadistic person punishes non-sadistically? Simply by virtue of him or her being non-sadistic? And if a non-sadistic person does on occasion punish sadistically, where does it leave us? 
> 
> I feel uncomfortable with this sort of divorcing a person's actions from his or her, well, nature, I guess. That's exactly why I, for example, cannot buy Dumbledore's asserting that Draco's not only "not a killer at heart", but even somehow `innocent' even though he demonstrably is not innocent. He's innocent; we are invited to believe, because of his inner qualities. It doesn't matter what he does – at heart he's "not a killer". Of course it's true only to a point – if he kills by his own hand his inner qualities would change. From which fate he is saved by Snape whose soul Dumbledore is willing to risk for whatever reason.  
> 
> Honestly I'd take a murderer at heart who abides the law in practice over an innocent at heart who's running all over the place plotting and executing murders with various degrees of success any day. I also think that when a non-sadistic person like Harry indulges in sadism --it's just plain wrong. It feels even worse somehow than when a sadistic person does it. Precisely because Harry can restrain himself, but chooses not to. And because it rather blurs the line between those two types of persons, if only momentarily. What baffles me is that no one in the series apparently thinks so. 
> 
> 
> > Carol, hoping that Harry will not look back with pride on that moment
> 
> a_svirn, rather doubting that Harry will spare it a thought.

Steve again:

I'm going to take off my HP fan hat and put on my Counselor hat for this one. (Or at least try to). A sadist acts sadistically most of the time and has a pattern of sadistic behavior. Sadists are at times, however, capable of acts that at least pass for acts of kindness and consideration for others. Their motivations for doing these acts are usually different than the motivations of kind and decent or non sadistic types of people. Sadists sometimes are kind to others to attone for previous acts of violence or harm. Sometimes there are certain types of people for which sadists are simply compelled to do acts of kindness towards. But, in general, sadists are very dysfunctional and often psychotic individuals. 

Good and decent normal people have a conscience, yet are at times capable of harming others or in doing acts of violence. This is rare however, and happens usually under extreme stress and because of some kind of provocation. It's reactionary and usually brief, and rarely is serious to the extent of murder or extreme violence. (When murder or extreme violence does occur with someone who isn't normally sadistic or violent, it's a case essentially of "temporary insanity" or a brief break from sane and normal behavior into insane and abnormal behavior. Unfortunately, the results are the same for the victom). People who aren't sadists are able to draw the line and stop themselves before really severe acts of violence occur.  Sadists don't have that degree of self control.  Sadists don't have as active a conscience as non sadists do.

Harry isn't sadistic by nature, but did in anger do a violent act towards another person and did to some degree enjoy, or at least intend on doing so. Normal people do that kind of thing at times.  It doesn't make them a sadist or a dysfunctional person. But Harry isn't normal.  He's a wizard during a wizard war and his act was done under extreme stress to a person he had reason to hate for denegrating a person he cared about and revered. It was a random act that was the exception to the rule of his usually kind behavior rather than another sadistic example of a pattern of sadistic behavior.

Truly sadistic people will not be able to refrain from acting sadistically very long. It's an addiction and has to have an outlet.  Truly good, decent and normally kind people will feel guilty for any act of violence as well.  They will think about it, will hopefully talk about it and achieve closure and forgive themselves and move on. I don't know if Harry did or didn't do this, but after reading hundreds of thousands of words about him, I feel he is the kind of person who would in some way feel remorse for any act of unkindness.  Afterall, remorse is a concept he was most familiar with.

I hope what I wrote didn't confuse you more...lol.  You did ask very poignant and perceptive questions. Too bad we couldn't ask JKR them and see what her responses were.

Steve, who believes that Harry won't do another crucio curse again.