Sadism or not WAS: Re: Lack of re-examination

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 186613

> a_svirn:
> Which is exactly why I find this "murderer at heart thing", as you say, so disturbing. I believe saying that bullying Neville and making him suffer emotionally constitutes sadism does rather stretch a conventional definition of the term.

a_svirn:
What bothers me though is that McGonagall who delights in bullying Neville and making him suffer emotionally every bit as much as Snape does somehow escapes the same "sadism" charge. Why? Is it because we are told that she is really a "big softie" very deep down? This is a nice circular argument we have there: because she is not "predisposed" to sadism she is not a sadist and therefore what she does is not sadism by definition.

Alla:

And that is precisely why I do not want to get involved in the "murderer at heart" thing. I absolutely believe that there are character traits people are predisposed to and born with. I observe it on my niece and nephew. My niece was screaming if stranger as much as smiled at her when she was three or four months old and she is incredibly shy. My nephew is one year old today and He is **completely different** in that regard. He is smiling at everybody, he is not shy at all. And he was showing it just as my niece was when he was couple months old.

But of course whole nature/nurture debate is significantly more complicated then that. All that I am saying that I do not find the **idea** of person being predisposed to some things and not to others to be disturbing, that's all.

But to go back to Potterland, um, where are you getting that Mcgonagall escapes charge of sadism (from me at least) for the reason you described?

I agreed in the past that what Mcgonagall does to Neville here is completely horrible and yes, I think borders on abuse.

But I believe in my mind that what Snape does is worse and I think it is a bona fide reason regardless of how I feel about characters.

McGonagall does **NOT** single out Neville when she is asking "which incredibly foolish person", doesn't she? I believe that **anybody**, anybody who would have confessed would have gotten exactly same treatment from her.

So, while I do not like the treatment that she gives Neville, I totally think that she does not give a swat whom she disposes punishment to. While I think Snape very much does. I mean, cutting horned toads? Threatening to poison Trevor? Snape would have no chance to give anybody same punishment for the very simple reason that nobody else HAS a toad, no?

So, yes, I just think what Mcgonagall does here simply cannot be described as sadism and thus not very relevant just as you seem to believe that what Snape does is not sadism.

JMO,

Alla