Snape and Harry and expulsion LONG

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 188894

> Montavilla47:
> 
> Just so that you understand what I mean by the
> Harry Filter, I'll explain:
> 
> As Harry recognizes Snape approaching, he feels "a
> rush of pure loathing." This is not Harry Filter. This is
> simply describing what Harry is feeling, but it clues me (YMMV)
> into the presence of a filter coming up.
> 
> And immediately we have the filter describing Snape with
> "hooked nose" and "long, black, greasy hair." This negative
> type of description is not used Chapter Two, when Snape
> is viewed more objectively as merely having a "long, black
> curtain of hair." <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> So anyway, I do not see how the adding of "greasy" makes the description a filter, I do not see what is incorrect in this description, but now moving on to Harry being angry with Snape about Sirius. Yes, sure OF COURSE Harry is angry with Snape about Sirius. Harry is always angry with Snape about something, or almost always angry.  Sirius' death is a huge reason to feel angry and of course Harry is avoiding facing his own guilt here, sure. Yes, of course his anger builds up and builds up over the years. We differ greatly at how deserved this anger is, but of course I am not going to deny that the anger is there.
> 

Montavilla47:
I'm glad to see that we agree about something.  But I go
beyond the recognition that Harry is angry, because I think
Harry's anger towards Snape about Sirius's death is 
completely unjustified.  Snape *wasn't* responsible for Sirius
dying.  Harry wasn't either, but Harry's actions had a lot
more to do with it than Snape did.  

So, this instant fireball of loathing and hatred that Harry
feels upon the very sight of Snape?  Unjustified.  

And it colors the way Harry sees Snape's actions, words,
and very appearance.


Alla:
> However, I argue that Snape's very specific action greatly increased Harry's anger, that situation will be Snape making him go through the Great Hall as he was. I argue that Snape making that decision was abuse of his authority and done out of pure spite and desire to humiliate Harry. What does this have to do with Harry being angry at Snape about Sirius? I mean, I can make a case that Harry being angry with Snape after first lesson had a great relevance on how Occlumency lessons played out, I can make a case that Harry being angry with Snape after he talked about James in PoA was one of the build up of Harry's anger which lead to his anger in HBP. However, I do not see how this precludes me from discussing those accidents on their own. The bottom line, to me if say Snape did no do anything ELSE to Harry, him making Harry walk through the Hall was bad on its own.

Montavilla47:
By the time Snape gets around to sending Harry into the 
Hall, he's had an entire walk up to the castle with the sulkiest
seventeen-year-old in the world.  (And that's including
Draco!)  He's twice left opportunities for Harry to explain
what happened, and Harry defiantly sulked back at him.

And I'm sorry.  It's just not the most humiliating thing
in the world.  Or maybe it's just me.  

> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> Harry remains silent, seethes, and "knows" that
> Snape came to fetch Harry just so that he could
> have a few minutes to "needle and torment Harry
> without anyone else listening."
> 
> Oh, so many things wrong with that! 
> First off, we
> *know* that Snape came because Hagrid (Tonks's first
> choice) was absent.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Not to me, not too many things are wrong with it, I do not see filter at work here either. Snape wanting to torment and needle Harry to me does not preclude him also coming because Hagrid was not available and did he really come just because of that or because he wanted to? After all why not ask somebody else? He intercepted message did he not? Message which was not related to him, how about giving to the recipient?

Montavilla47:
I'm assuming that the message arrived in the Great Hall
when everyone was at dinner--since that's the most
logical place to find Hagrid at that time, and because
Snape specifically mentions the pudding.  

So, Hagrid is not there, we know because Snape tells us
that.  Who else would be there?  All the teachers including
Minerva, Dumbledore, and Snape, who are all in the Order.

It's Order business to guard the Chosen One, so I wouldn't
expect Snape to, say, fetch Filch to fetch Harry instead.  Filch
is a squib, which would make him useless were a Death Eater
to show up or something--or even if Harry were freaking out
and wanting to run off (why not?  He did it last year, didn't he?)

Minerva would the most logical choice to get Harry, since he's
in her House and she *is* an Order member.  On the other 
hand, she was badly injured a few months ago, and since she 
would be *right there* with Dumbledore and Snape, I'm going
to assume she had some reason for allowing Snape to go 
instead.

The most logical reason would be that all three of them heard
the message and Dumbledore simply told Snape to fetch Harry.

Oh, and by the way, looking for Hagrid to go fetch Harry is 
just a waste of time.  Why the hell would Snape (or Dumbledore
for that matter), want to have Harry standing outside the 
safety of the school wards any longer than necessary?  If 
Dumbledore did tell Snape to go rather than Minerva, it may
simply have been that Snape moves faster than she does.

Or, you know, it could have been that Dumbledore likes 
to needle and torment Snape by making him miss the pudding.


> Montavilla47:
> Secondly, we *know* that Snape
> had made a solemn, lifelong promise to protect
> Lily's child, and so he would feel obliged to make
> sure that the missing child was found and escorted
> to the castle (and we know he hates Harry so he's
> going to resent having to make this extra effort--but
> he's going to do it anyway, dammit!) 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Sure, Harry does not know that part, he still can be right about part that he does know, he reports objectively what he knows in my opinion.

Montavilla47:
Of course he reports what he knows.  And he doesn't
know everything.  Hence the filter!

> Montavilla47:
> And, thirdly, I'm
> pretty sure that Snape would rather "needle and
> torment" Harry in public than do it privately.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I cannot share your certainty I am afraid. He torments him in public sure, but I do not remember audience being present when he talked to Harry about James, personally I think he would happily torment him anywhere.

Montavilla47:
Would he torment him in a box?
Would he toment him with a fox?
Would he torment him in a house?
Would he torment him with a mouse?

Hehe!


> Montavilla47:
> Now, do I think that Harry shouldn't have felt that way.
> No. I think he's fine to feel what he feels. I'm just not
> going along on his particular emo ride.
> 
> Just like, although I may feel really bad for a four-year-
> old who gets dragged away to the car in front of a crowd
> full of strangers (or friends) by his parents. I know he's
> hurting. I know he's angry. But it doesn't mean I'm going
> to agree with him when he screams that his parents are the
> "meanest people ever!"
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Aha, I think I understand. You think Snape had a right to do what he did and Harry needed and deserved to get what he got, just as pouty four year old did? If so, I have no response, really. I am just getting another confirmation that where Harry and Snape are concerned we are reading different books.

Montavilla47:
1. Yes, Snape had a right to do what he did.  He's a 
teacher and it's part of his job to exercise authority 
over miscreant students.

2. Yes.  Harry was acting like a spoiled brat and he 
certainly should not have been indulged in that behavior.

3. I think we are.  Quite possibly I'm reading a different
book than the one JKR was writing.  But I stand by
my interpretation of this scene.  I'm not gong to say that
Snape's the epitome of goodness in this scene, but 
I don't think Snape is acting nearly as unjustly as 
Harry believes.

> Montavilla47:
> I will agree that Harry is humiliated. But sorry, I
> really can't take Harry's feelings seriously. Because all
> this humiliation is due to Harry's own actions.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> And now we come to what to me is indeed quite relevant. Would you mind elaborating on what Harry's actions his humiliation is due? Are you saying that Harry did something **worthy of punishment** that Snape has a right to impose a punishment on him here?
> 

Montavilla47:
Since you ask, yes.  Students are expected to behave
properly, even on the train to Hogwarts.  They are not 
expected to invade the privacy of other students through
the use of magical spying tools (not that Snape 
knows about that).

They are also not expected to go around breaking
other students's noses and hiding them with invisibility
cloaks--but Snape has no reason to know that Draco 
did that, either.

All he knows is that Harry has showed up late, that 
there's evidence that he was fighting with someone, and
that he refuses to explain any of his actions.

That's not even taking into account that the *entire*
Ministry, school, and Order has increased their security
tenfold in order to protect Harry Potter.  Have we 
forgotten the Ministry cars sent to fetch Harry from the 
burrow?  The Ministry guards sent to escort Harry from 
the cars to the train? The visible presence of aurors in 
Hogsmeade when the train arrives?  The new wards on 
the castle?  The probity probes going over every 
student's luggage?

And what does Harry do?  He gives everyone the slip
and traipses off in his invisibility cloak to do a half-
baked spying mission.  And this is not the first time
that Harry's done this.  He went missing in CoS, and
he snuck off to Hogsmeade in PoA.  And he ran away 
from school in OotP (with truly disastrous results).

When is this kid going to get the message that you 
DON'T GO OFF on lone wolf missions?  (Heh, never!)

Alla:
> Snape knows nothing of what occurred on the train (unless he read Harry's mind of course), all that he sees is that Harry is late and hurt  and you think  this is punishment worthy? If you do not want to respond to anything else in my post, could you please at least respond to this question? I just want clarification before I will probably bow out of this debate.

Montavilla47:
Late and healed and sulky and defiant.  Yep.
I think that's worth a short walk of shame.  

> Montavilla47:
> Well, Harry had already been healed of that
> particular injury, which Snape would probably know
> from Tonks's patronus. Or might surmise given that
> a) Tonks is a competent auror who would be unlikely
> to hand over an injured Chosen One without mentioning
> it and b) he's a competent healer himself and can
> tell the difference between an untreated injury and a
> treated one.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes he might have, or he might not know anything of this and see Harry with blood on his face and decide not to do anything about it. It is not like he has not done that in the past (not sending injured student to the nurse – Hermione's accident)
> 

Montavilla47:
It's also not like he hasn't done the exact
opposite.  Fetching stretchers for unconscious
students and enemies (before getting help
for his own head injury).  Healing Dumbledore's 
injury.  In the following chapters, he will provide
emergency care to Katie Bell and Draco Malfoy.

Since I know that Harry's already been healed, I 
don't see why I should be upset that Snape doesn't
send him to the nurse.  He didn't send Harry and 
Ron to the nurse in CoS, either.  And they had 
just been beaten up by a willow tree!