Sadism or not ? McGonagall and her punishments

Sun May 17 22:13:48 UTC 2009

No: HPFGUIDX 186625

> a_svirn:
> I find it hard to believe that she didn't enjoy picking on students, even if she didn't smirk. I mean, why do it in the first place, if you don't like it?  <SNIP>

Alla:

Huh? I certainly do not characterize McGonagall's behavior as picking on students "all the time". As to why do it if you do not like it? Maybe because if you are a teacher, it is your job to discipline your students, whether you like it or not.

Again, please do not get me wrong. I characterise Snape's behavior as abuse and sadism, however, however I certainly realize that not everybody sees it same way - I am just saying that I interpret text as such. I gave an example of why I see Snape as enjoying himself - we are often treated to his smirking when he deals with Harry. I am sure the argument can be made that narrator misinterprets Snape's expressions, for example and thus we do not know whether he is enjoying himself now. HOWEVER, there is a textual support for my intepretation of Snape enjoying himself and I am asking you for textual support of McGonagall enjoying herself, because "why do it if she does not like it", does not really feels like textual support to me. The answer to me is simple - she may do it because she feels she has to.

Believe me, I do NOT like the punishments that Hogwarts employs, really. I think they are cruel and dangerous. I know that they are in line with tradition of British Boarding schools of recent and not so recent past and they fir the story, but I do not like them at all.

But this to me is totally different issue from how different teachers employ them - out of necessity or because they are enjoying themselves.

I agree that Minerva is wrong from time to time as to how she deals with students. I however do not see a single sign of her enjoying herself when she disperses punishments. My opinion of course.

a_svirn:
Here is a pretty girl exited and full of anticipation waiting for international delegations to arrive. And McGonagall snaps at her so that everyone would hear 'Miss Patil, take that ridiculous thing out of your hair.' I am not saying it's super cruel, but this is exactly the sort of pettiness we are invited to dislike in Snape. Certainly, she didn't *have* to do it. <SNIP>

Alla:

Same sort of pettiness? Not in my opinion at all. I mean, I certainly agree that it was wrong of her to do so, to comment on teen's girl appearance. However, however in my time when I went to school we were all have to wear uniforms ( you know - brown dress, etc). If we were expecting important guests in school and my school principal would have thought that I put something on me which makes me look wierd, I would not be surprised at all if she would snap at me. Again, it was wrong of her, she is a woman and should know better, but really, I can totally see how she just wanted her students to look nice in front of international guests. Again, it was a celebration, they were not supposed to wear regular robes, I know, but I still think that this was her motivation.

a_svirn:
Snape used Neville squeamishness to bully him with horned frogs? McGonagall did the same with Lavender and mice. And Lavender had lived though the trauma of loosing a pet bunny. (Ok, a bunny is not quite the same as a mouse, but still probably close enough to make an impressionable person uncomfortable. And Ron used to have a pet rat, which *is* pretty close.) And while Snape threw "idiot boy" at Neville, she called Lavender silly girl for being squeamish. I suppose `idiot' is somewhat worse than `silly', but that's a kind of difference without much distinction, really. <SNIP>

Alla:

Could you please remind me where it happened? I would like to reread it please  if you do not mind and could you please remind me if she knew that Lavender lost her bunny? Thanks.

a_svirn:
Does she *have* to make Neville suffer for something that is so obviously out of his control – bad memory? Quite the contrary – she has to absolutely make sure that certain adjustments are made to make things easier for him. Instead, she goes out of her way to make life difficult for him and misses no opportunity to draw everyone's attention to his condition.

Alla:

Goes out of her way? You mean that one punishment? I agree that she did not have to do that, but she did it once. I mean, he had to do it for what? A month? I agree it was bad, but again, I think going out of her way to make his life miserable is a bit of stretching. My opinion of course.

a_svirn:
Oh, and by the way, if she had done her duty the situation with the stolen passwords wouldn't have occurred. So not only her punishment was abusive, she was actually scapegoating Neville.

Alla:

Yes, she was. All I am saying is that she was not singling him out IMO, I think she would have given the same punishment to anybody.

> a_svirn:
> No? But what was the point of this punishment in your opinion? 

Alla:

Um, what was the point of Harry"s detention with Snape? What was the point of whipping the students in the past? What was the point of Ron's detentions?

I would think the point of the detention is to punish a student. I certainly do not think that Hogwarts" punishments carry any educational points or something. But neither do I think that all of them are being used with the reason to enjoy students" sufferings.

a_svirn:
You'll agree, I am sure, that it was quite extraordinary thing for her to do. Someone/-thing in the Forest was killing Unicorns – a kind of wizarding analogue of ritual killing of virgins or Christian babies – obviously that someone was not just evil and dangerous, but exceptionally so. And what does the deputy Headmistress do when this superevil lurking in the Forest? <SNIP>

Alla:

Funny though, the first time we hear about this evil being doing stuff, which I agree is extremely dangerous is not from McGonagall but from Hagrid. She considered what they did to be extremely dangerous, I think she wanted them to do some work in the forest which is dangerous, but with adult. I do not remember that she actually knew that somebody was killing Unicorns there.

You would tell me but she is a deputy headmistress, how could she not know and I would say that I would not find it surprising at all. Through the series we see Dumbledore keeping her out of the loop on plenty important things, plenty of order business, about Sirius' indentity, etc. Hagrid tells things to Dumbledore not to her most of the times, I would not be surprised if he chose not to share.

However, if she knew that was horrible of her, no questions about it, if not, I think it is no worse than many other Hogwarts punishments and if she used it because she felt she had to, I am okay with it. As much as I can be okay with Hogwarts' punishments, which is not much.

JMO,

Alla

(