Sadism or not ? McGonagall and her punishments

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 186727

Shaun:
> I don't read them as being intended to provide a McGonagall moment - I read 
> them as being intended to emphasise to the reader the special nature of what 
> is about to happen in the life of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and 
> Wizardry - and to emphasise it in a way that a great many of the books 
> readers have direct experience of.

Magpie:
I think that's definitely a part of the scene too. I would just say that the McGonagall line, if it's bringing up memories of these kinds of things, not only reminds me of special moments, but reminds me of teachers being insulting. Parvati obviously understood it to be a special moment too. That's why she wore a special hairclip.  
 
 
Shaun:
But I do think it's very likely that it's intended to use that 'dress 
> code' and concepts that are quite familiar to many British children reading 
> the book (the requirement to be in good order on special occasions at 
> school) to emphasises that is not a normal day at Hogwarts.

Magpie:
And surely to show us that Parvati is excited about the new students coming and wants to look pretty and special for them and McGonagall knows that and is annoyed by it.

Shaun:
> 
> Go back four or five pages to where Professor McGonagall tells Neville not 
> to reveal he can't cast a simple switching spell on someone from Durmstrang. 
> That one, I agree shows how tense she is as its primary purpose. But I don't 
> see it in this paragrap.

Magpie:
So you think telling someone the clip they've obviously put on because they think it's pretty makes them look ridiculous is the standard way of telling them they're not complying with the dress code? Why not just say "Take out that hair clip, Patil?" I think JKR's choice of words there is pretty clear.

Shaun:
> 
> You are correct, by the way, the Goblet of Fire does show a student wearing 
> a hat in class (Parvarti in a Charms class), but that doesn't mean they are 
> still not a special item of clothing. 

> Shaun:
 
> Well, for readers coming from a British perspective (and though I'm 
> Australian, the education system I grew up in was heavily influenced by that 
> of England, and I'm also extremely well read on British education), matters 
> relating to uniforms are just as much a cultural construct that are very 
> possibly relevant to any discussion of a school story set in Britain) and 
> which we would tend to understand far more instinctively than Americans 
> would. 

Magpie:
I'm not convinced that the point I was making is different in American schools vs. British and Australian schools. As an American student, I see Harry's not being punished or at least reprimanded for flying in class after the teacher told them not to, her buying him a broom for himself when there was a rule against first years (I misused the word freshman anyway--I forgot that happened first year, so in American schools Harry wouldn't be a freshman until 4th year) having brooms at all and putting him on the Quidditch team when first years aren't allowed to try out for them as special treatment because McGonagall is getting something she wants out of it.

I may not have gone to a boarding school outside the US, but I've seen and read enough about that situation to know that stuff like this is just as familiar to British and Australian students as it is to American ones. Justifications that it was legal by school rules because McGonagall can bend them in certain ways isn't surprising. Of course the people in charge can override a rule when they get something out of it.


> Magpie:
> > Wow. If I was a kid in that school who said McGonagall broke the no brooms
> > for first years rule for Harry and some teacher told me that no, she only
> > bent the rules, I'd just take that as proof that the teachers weren't fair
> > and I shouldn't expect them to be.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Whereas I, as somebody who as a boy attended a school with some very strict 
> rules, and who saw some of them bent on occasion and had the reasons 
> explained as to why it happened, see this as, in fact, teachers acting 
> fairly, and dealing with the reality that a rule that works in 99% of cases, 
> doesn't necessarily work in 100% of cases.

Magpie:
How is the teacher acting "fairly" by buying Harry a broom, exactly? What is it that doesn't work for Harry having to wait until 2nd year to have a broom at school and bring his own rather than having the school buy a top of the line broom for him? This is hardly letting somebody leave early because they live far away. (I don't quite understand why an actor's career is threatened by taking out his earring for a few hours a day, but again, that situation doesn't fit Harry's being given a broom.) McGonagall "bends" the rules for Harry because she wants to beat Slytherin at Quidditch. Understanding why she bent the rules in Harry's case doesn't make it fair. I don't think there's a single student in the book that thinks it's fair. On the contrary, the students who talk about it all pretty much agree it isn't.

I can also give examples from my school where rules were enforced differently for different students and students knew why and found it unfair. That happens too.

> 
> Magpie:
> > It's not necessarily a bad thing, but I thought this thread was
> > originally about what McGonagall humiliating Neville and insulting
> > Parvati because she found that emotionally satisfying--just as
> > Snape does when he humiliates and insults students.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> That seemed to be one of the points being made yes - and I disagree with it. 
> I don't believe Professor McGonagall humiliated Neville or insults Parvarti 
> because she finds it emotionally satisfying. I think what she does to 
> Neville is intended as discipline - she's angry, she has a reason to be 
> angry, and she sees no reason why the student responsible for her anger 
> should be spared it. She wants to correct their behaviour. I also don't 
> particularly feel she insults Parvarti - not if she is enforcing a valid 
> rule - a student who has broken a rule deserves to be made to feel bad about 
> it - though I agree she does let her personal view show.

Magpie:
She's not being made to feel bad about breaking the rule (if one exists, no one in canon ever makes reference to such a rule), she's being made to feel bad about her taste in hairclips and desire to look pretty for the new boys showing up.

How do you feel about Snape, btw, when he makes Harry feel badly about things?

> Shaun:

> With Parvarti, though, it's much more straightforward. Assuming that 
> Professor McGonagall is enforcing a genuine rule, making a 14 year old girl 
> who is deliberately and knowingly breaking that rule out of a desire to 
> elevate herself above her peers (to make herself appear more cool or 
> prettier or whatever the aim is - I've never been a teenage girl!) feel 
> embarassed and silly is a pretty effective way to deal with the situation.

Magpie:
Yes, it is. I'm just not willing to make McGonagall out here to be demonstrating her excellent teaching philosophy in all these cases. You've mentioned that JKR assumes her audience will recognize a lot of the details of British boarding school life in the books. It seems to me that part of that life she hits pretty hard is teachers exhibiting their own personality through teaching, so just as biased and self-absorbed as any of the students.

> Magpie:
> > No, she was insulted. McGonagall was focused on how she wanted
> > her students to come across, got angry that Parvati was the
> > flirty girl she always was trying to make a different sort of
> > impression, and snapped at her that she looked ridiculous.
> > Just as Snape doesn't punish Hermione in the "I see no
> > difference" scene, he just insults her.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Totally different situation in my view. Hermione had done *nothing* wrong in 
> that scene. Quite the contrary in fact, she had tried to prevent Harry doing 
> something he shouldn't. In no way, could his comment be seen as justified by 
> anything.

Magpie:
But some behavior of Hermione's would have justified it? 
 
> Shaun:
> 
> You don't and I don't - but I think some people do. They want Professor 
> McGonagall to have not shown any sign of anger or irritation or any emotion 
> at all in disciplining Neville and Parvarti. Or, to be fair, they probably 
> don't want her to show *negative* emotion - I doubt anybody seriously thinks 
> teachers shouldn't show warmth and kindness and things like that.

Magpie:
I'll let those people speak for themselves if they really think she's supposed to be an automaton. But by admitting that you would be showing "a little from column B" in calling a student disgusting doesn't that admit that a teacher can do something because it's emotionally satisfying in the way they enforce a rule? You seem to be saying that it's unfair to say that McGonagall could find it emotionally satisfying to tell Parvati what she thinks of girls like herself who use a visit from a foreign school as a potential dating situation. Lupin would presumably have told Parvati to take the thing out of her hair without the shaming aspect. Even if shaming is a perfectly valid form of discipline, I think McGonagall naturally uses it because of her personality. Just as other teachers choose that method at different times with different reactions to it. Lupin's shaming of Harry in PoA does not, imo, shows more reluctance iirc.

Shaun:
> 
> That's quite a common position - a lot of people seem to think (and more 
> important seem to think that there's some sort of 'rule' or 'evidence' or 
> 'theory' or 'policy') that teachers should always be nice and kind and 
> fluffy and comfortable - and never say anything negative, never raise their 
> voices, never reprimand a child, never do anything that might upset a 
> child... it's a Mary Poppins idea.

Magpie:
And I haven't seen this nice, fluffy idea in the thread so it still seems like strawman. none of the teachers at Hogwarts seem to feel they need to be positive all the time, and readers don't seem to expect it either. 

Btw, Mary Poppins was anything but light or fluffy. She, too, was written as blatantly hypocritical, vain and unfair, wasn't she? The humor wasn't in her being a perfect nanny but in kids seeing that.

Shaun: 
> The balance is going to be different for different teachers. That's more a 
> matter of style than anything else.

Magpie:
And what does "style" mean here? Because all I'm saying is that the "style" of teaching for every teacher at Hogwarts basically means that the teacher takes their own personality and channels it through their teaching. It's not just picking a philosophy out of a book. If a teacher is in life snippy and impatient they're going to be a more snippy and impatient teacher compared to someone else. I think JKR shows personal flaws and strength mirrored in teaching style.

I think we see this with McGonagall throughout canon. Whether or not everything she does is defensible, which I think it obviously is, doesn't make her always acting out of the better interests of a kid.

-m