That Bloody Man Again WAS Re: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis

[nrenka]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:

<snip>

> Or you might not. But if not, please could you point to the 
> supporting evidence that Snape's words display his character?

It's a little loosey-goosey--that I admit.  But when we have a fairly 
consistent picture of someone who enjoys being verbally abusive (or, 
if you prefer, somewhat nasty) to his inferiors, shouldn't we take 
that as partially indicative of character?  You might castigate me 
for too much reliance upon interviews (I think they're a great 
heuristic), but I keep thinking about the statement that children 
aren't fooled by a teacher like Snape--that they know abuse of power 
when they see it.  So if you take abuse of power in the classroom 
seriously (which I am perhaps overinclined to do, because it hits too 
close to home), and combine it with Snape's own peculiar ideas about 
fairness and respect, you get an essential aspect of character.  I 
wouldn't be so hasty as to say it's the only one, but I think it's 
often given short shrift in the rush of evaluating only actions.  I 
lean on this far more now than I would have been comfortable before, 
because JKR's universe is such an essentialist one (which bothered a 
lot of people out there, this time around.)
 
<snip>

> So there's a stylistic difference between narrator pov description 
> and Harry pov description.

Point taken.  I recall some similar efforts to try to establish that 
every time Snape's eyes glittered that he was lying, but such 
consistency came to naught.

> Pip!Squeak:
> And again, you are picking and choosing your evidence. I take a 
> through line with the character through the entire series, and you 
> reply 'oh, that doesn't count, because *I* only want to consider 
> the last two books'.

Being as I began to focus upon the idea that maybe Snape has been up 
to something considerably different, I thought that was fair.  I 
should have made the transition clearer.
 
> Incidentally, my concrete evidence did include the last two books. 
> What was done concretely for the Order in OOP? According to 
> Dumbledore, 'he [Snape] informed the Order as soon as possible 
> about what you had said. It was he who deduced where you had gone 
> when you did not return from the Forest...' OOP Ch.37 p734 British 
> hardback.

Hardly unproblematic, if you want to go with Neri's past reading of 
there being a noticable and significant time gap in the course of 
events.  I don't know whether it's meaningful or simply JKR messing 
up with maths, but it seems right up your alley. :)

> Nora:
> > Bellatrix offers Harry instruction in how to better perform the 
> > Cruciatus Curse, and I don't see anyone making that argument that 
> > she's teaching out of the goodness of her heart. :)
> > 
> 
> Pip!Squeak:
> True. However, I note that Bellatrix is busily trying to Crucio 
> Harry back at the time (along with aiming some other spells that 
> blow bits off statues). Actions versus words. Snape's physical 
> actions support that he's trying *not* to hurt Harry. Bellatrix's 
> physical actions support that she *is*. Hence my argument that one 
> is teaching, the other is not - there's supporting evidence. 

Agreed, it's different.  However, I'm left decidedly unsure of 
Snape's sincerity...well, to be honest, I'm always unsure of Snape's 
sincerity, being as there are times it would be very Good for him to 
be sincere, and times that it would not, natch.  Maybe he's been 
trying his damnedest to teach the idiot kid the whole time, but just 
doesn't understand how to.  If that's the case, for such a supposedly 
brilliant man he's really an awful pedagogue, or maybe he just 
doesn't know how *important* it is.  Spies are supposed to have good 
people skills to avoid getting killed, right?

-Nora says the word of the day is: performativity