Is Snape Abusive?
#41
Darq Ali Wrote:Random comments:[snip]

Random indeed and none of which answers or even addresses the questions that we've reached at this time in the discussion. Essentially, what does Dumbledore knew (or what we think he knew), and then what actions he does or doesn't he take.

I will refer you to the last four paragraphs of my post immediately above this one to spell out succintly where this puts us in terms of Snape's nature as abusive or not.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#42
*sigh* I'm having a busy day. I will get back to your paragraphs but something else I wanted to say:

You claim I am incorrect that some things we can apply to real life, and realistic literature, cannot be applied to fantasy. I disagree.

I do agree we only respond to characters we can identify from our real life. I have known several "Snapes", though none were, of course, real wizards. But once again, this is besides the point of my comments.

You quoted the Sir A.C. Doyle statement about eliminating the impossible from a situation, leaving what is left {however improbable} and the solution to a mystery. Yes. And one think I liked about the S Holmes mystery stories was that the author gave all the clues in the text. You had all the information Holmes had to solve it.

Some writers don't do that. They pose a mystery, and only their detective can solve it, which he does. In the final paragraphs he solves the case, by listing his observations which no one else made ......... No reader can solve such a puzzle ahead of the detective of the tale at hand, if the clues are not included in the text. Those fictions don't interest me so much. I like a fair chance to solve the riddle, which no reader has if the Author does not include every clue the detective uses in the text as it goes along.

The HP books are one great mystery, and in each seperate installment of Harry's tale has been a major mystery and often several smaller ones, too. Sometimes, JKR leaves us clues. But often, they are meaningless because of the magical nature of Potterverse.

I mentioned the very artful weaving of two "Vanishing Cabinets" into several books, prior to their major use in Book Six. As soon as Draco explained to Dumbledore what he had done, all the pieces fell into place. The damaged Cabinet at Hogwarts, we read about who and how and why it was damaged. That there was also a cabinet in Borgen and Burkes, we knew that too ......... Harry had hidden in it. And so on.

But none of those clues "added up to" an answer to the riddle of how Draco would get Death Eaters into the school that we could solve ahead of JKR's explaination, because the explaination is magical and specific to Potterverse. I've heard the term "Vanishing Cabinet" before; but I don't know what it is supposed to do. I still don't know what a single Vanishing Cabinet is properly used for in Potterverse .......... to get rid of garbage, maybe? [But if this is so, why didn't Harry "vanish", or end up in Hogwarts, when he hid in the Cabinet at Borgen & Burkes' shop? The one at the Hogwart's end wasn't damaged at the time he did that.]

Anyway, we all knew what the Cabinets were all about, and much of their history, after Draco explained it. But we couldn't guess before JKR explained it {through Draco} because our life experiences don't include information on Vanishing Cabinets, magical devices which do not exist in our real world.

Both Potterverse and Middle Earth have "goblins". But they are very different creatures. JKR's goblins share little with those of Middle Earth; and we cannot guess the behavior of one kind, by what we know if we've read about the other. What the goblins of JKR's world will do is what she says they will do, for the magic of Potterverse is in her head. Other than short stature and an ability to take care of themselves, I don't see JKR's 'goblins' sharing anything with Tolkien's goblins.

I don't know if Potterverse contains any Balrogs. If so, I don't know if they are like those from Middle Earth, or not; and if a Balrog is named as a magical creature in Book Seven, I will have to await what JKR tells me of its behavior and cannot rely on what I know of Balrogs from reading Tolkien. Likewise, I know that the dragons of Middle Earth and those of Potterverse are more alike than, say, the goblins of each respective world; but I have to see what JKR's dragons do to know how they'll behave. Tolkien's dragons could talk, they covet treasure, but neither is a trait of a Potterverse dragon, and so on.

When magic is involved, only the author can say what "might be" in the world they create. For example, in P of Azkaban, Harry, Sirius etc are attacked by Dementors and Harry is unable to summon his Patronus in a powerful enough form to ward them off. But across the lake he sees someone who sends a real and powerful Patronus to save them all. He thinks it is his father!

Here is a mystery: Who saved Harry and Sirius etc from the Dementors? Can the reader figure it out?

Logic says, "A wizard who can do a patronus", but no more. Perhaps there is an unknown relative, a cousin of James? Someone who looks a lot like James by chance? Or, maybe the story that James is dead is untrue? O, wait, this is a magical world .......... perhaps the dead James can save his son? All of these things crossed my mind, and some of them, JKR has actually used in other stories [for example, the "echos" of the dead James and Lily aid Harry to escape LV at the close of Goblet of Fire, so yeah, the dead James did aid his son in another story].

Only after we have read this chapter is the mystery of the wizard who sent the Patronus revealed: It is Harry himself. He can be two places at the same time, because of the Time Turner Hermionie has been using all year; and he looks like James, because Harry does look like James {except he has his mother's eyes}.

Now, we were given clues about Hermionies' use of the Time Turner through the book, which made sense when the Time Turner was finally revealed. Until it was, no reader could come up with the solution to the mystery, because the solution is magic, and a specific kind of magic of Potterverse.

I did a four year degree in college in 3 years, by taking {with permission} a much larger class load than other students. I actually once took a class I never attended. I knew the prof. I stopped by his office, he gave me the assignments, and I turned them in. I passed with a perfect grade but never attended one lecture. Thus, it was no problem for me to read that Hermionie was taking classes which met at the same time. I did the same myself in the real world, and I had no Time Turner to allow me to live the same hour twice over, being in two places at once. Nor could I "know" that was the solution to the problem JKR has for Hermionie, which leads to Harry later being able to fend off Dementors from the other side of the lake, and have him see himself doing so.

The reader must rely on the Author to tell them the reality of a magical world. JKR has said in Potterverse, 'dead is dead'. If so, then Dumbledore, unlike Gandalf, isn't coming back. In LOTR, we did see Gandalf fall, though his fall did not equal instant death. We presumed the fall, or the engagement with the Balrog, would kill him ...... and it did. But Gandalf was a "higher being" who was sent to Middle Earth for a purpose. Those who sent him, also sent him back. This we cannot know until the Author tells us, because Tolkien sets the Rules of life in Middle Earth. JKR has already told us the rules for Potterverse are different, so her old wizard with the long white beard isn't returning, as Gandalf did.

Now, with regards to Snape, and Dumbledore, we can speculate as to what "might be" with regards to their relationship. Did Dumbledore think Snape was "just peachy" as a teacher? Was Snape's behavior as a big bully and all around nasty piece of work an act an part of a plan? We can speculate, but only what JKR says is true. Magic is part of the answer of many of her riddles, and magic of her invention. "Truths" of our own world, and of other magical worlds, do not apply to the world JKR describes. We have to wait her explainations. We have to accept her answers.

Electronics and computers and so forth would be obvious devices in many places in the JKR stories, but Hermionie explains many times that they aren't useful at a place like Hogwarts, because 'there is too much magic in the air'. Apperation is another answer to many riddles ........ but conviently, you cannot apperate in or out of Hogwarts, and so on. Logic based in our world does not apply, elimination of the "impossible" does not apply. Things possible here are sometimes not possible in Potterverse {electronic bugs}, but many things utterly impossible here, are totally possible there ........ sometimes ......... but only when JKR says so.

It is all up the the Author. We cannot puzzle it out nor declare her "wrong". We can speculate that Snape was part of a magical plan of Dumbledores, and that his Bad ***** behavior was all an act. Other answers we cannot imagine are possible, however, because this is a Magical World. Anything is possible if JKR says it is, and some things possible here, aren't possible there.
Reply
#43
Darq Ali Wrote:*You claim I am incorrect that some things we can apply to real life, and realistic literature, cannot be applied to fantasy. I disagree.

Uhhh, no, this is not what I said . . . errr, meant. And since you disagree, I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant either! I will rephrase your statement (regarding my position): "that some things we can apply to real life, and realistic literature, can be applied to fantasy."

If I'm wrong (in which case you actually agree with me) in my editing, feel free to correct it. :daisy:

Hey, I'm not gonna persuade you, and actually that's just fine. If you're to be believed, and "[t]he "logic" of our wor[ld] does not apply to Potterverse", then by that measure, Snape most assuredly cannot be judged to be abusive, derisive or culpable of misusing his power by anyone applying "[t]he "logic" of our wor[ld]", or referncing any events or measures "of our wor[ld]". :leech:

After all, it's Rowling's world, not ours! :bg:

Quote:Now, with regards to Snape, and Dumbledore, we can speculate as to what "might be" with regards to their relationship. [snip]

I'll refer you to my previous statement, "Where Rowlings hasn't provided a hard and fast statement, there is certainly room for discussion and analysis." [emphasis added]

Quote:. . .nor declare her "wrong".

Never said we would. In fact, I believe I was one of the people defending Rowlings regarding her explanations for some of the seeming errors, inconsistencies and strange occurances (or outright errors but which Rowlings had waved/waived off). <shrug>

However, I will again refer you to my above statement, "Where Rowlings hasn't provided a hard and fast statement, there is certainly room for discussion and analysis." [emphasis added]

Side Note: If you add emphasis to one of your own quotes, do you still need to note the change as you would if you were quoting someone? Hmmm . . .

Quote:We can speculate that Snape was part of a magical plan of Dumbledores, and that his Bad ***** behavior was all an act.

Great. Then let's speculate . . . oh, wait, I've already been doing that! In regards to the discussion at hand, I refer you to the point(s) at which we've arrived as I specified previously:

What did Dumbledore know (or what we think he knew), and then what actions did he or didn't he take?

I will refer you to the last four paragraphs of my post immediately above this one to spell out succintly where this puts us in terms of Snape's nature as abusive or not.


Go crazy if you want! :party:
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#44
RobRoy Wrote:That leaves Dumbledore knowing and approving or Dumbledore knowing and not approving. Gamgee suggests that perhaps Dumbledore did intervene with Snape after certain events, and that Snape was, for a time, quelled. A dressing-down that served as a reprimand for poor performance, but not removal. This would then answer the question of Snape's status. Snape is abusive.

If Dumbledore knew and approved (or perhaps just didn't disapprove, yes, I know, another double negative), then that answers the question differently. Snape is not abusive.

Perception, of course, can be argued in this case to be reality. But intent, especially on this level, likely deserves some heavy weight of its own.

Help me out here, RR, because I'm just not getting this distinction. I fail to see how Dumbledore's approval, or lack there of, in regards to Snape's behavior changes anything. Snape's behavior towards the students is still the same either way.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#45
GamgeeFest Wrote:Help me out here, RR, because I'm just not getting this distinction. I fail to see how Dumbledore's approval, or lack there of, in regards to Snape's behavior changes anything. Snape's behavior towards the students is still the same either way.

Simple.

If Dumbledore knew and, as you suggested, intervened off-stage, then he did not approve and took actions to prevent future occurances. Thus, he saw Snape's actions as wrong. Snape is abusive.

If Dumbledore knew and if he approved of Snapes actions, for whatever reason, than even though the students' take on his behavior is abusive (or whatever shade inbetween), that is not what is intended. Snape is acting in a manner consistent with a particular strategy toward a specific end and perhaps even under orders. His intent is not to harm through his actions, but rather a means to confuse, obfuscate, distract and misdirect.

We don't prosecute undercover officers for playing the roles of drug dealers/buyers, gun-runners, prostitutes, counterfeiters, etc. We don't even consider their behavior (in accordance with whatever rules and regulations) in playing that role to be inconsistant with their position, bad or even an abuse of power.

So If Dumbledore knew and approved, then Snape is not abusive, but rather is putting on a front for the benefit of others.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#46
RobRoy Wrote:Simple.

If Dumbledore knew and, as you suggested, intervened off-stage, then he did not approve and took actions to prevent future occurances. Thus, he saw Snape's actions as wrong. Snape is abusive.

If Dumbledore knew and if he approved of Snapes actions, for whatever reason, than even though the students' take on his behavior is abusive (or whatever shade inbetween), that is not what is intended. Snape is acting in a manner consistent with a particular strategy toward a specific end and perhaps even under orders. His intent is not to harm through his actions, but rather a means to confuse, obfuscate, distract and misdirect.

We don't prosecute undercover officers for playing the roles of drug dealers/buyers, gun-runners, prostitutes, counterfeiters, etc. We don't even consider their behavior (in accordance with whatever rules and regulations) in playing that role to be inconsistant with their position, bad or even an abuse of power.

So If Dumbledore knew and approved, then Snape is not abusive, but rather is putting on a front for the benefit of others.

Or Dumbledore is abusive. Wink But that's a whole other topic.

Thanks for clearing that up. That makes sense.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#47
GamgeeFest Wrote:Or Dumbledore is abusive. Wink But that's a whole other topic.

Yeppers, hence the earlier concept of Dumbledore being in league with Voldemort . . . and no, I don't think that's the case! :drink:

Quote:Thanks for clearing that up. That makes sense.

Anytime.:crown:
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Fan Film: "Severus Snape and the Marauders" Michael 2 508 May 30th, 2016, 01:13 AM
Last Post: Michael
  RIP Professor Snape Paul Goode 3 707 January 17th, 2016, 09:44 PM
Last Post: badlands
  Video of Alan Rickman talking about playing Snape BookBug 0 510 January 24th, 2014, 11:58 PM
Last Post: BookBug
  Severus Snape poster for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2" Michael 0 837 June 1st, 2011, 01:15 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Is Snape Dumbledore's Man? [Spoliers for Deathly Hallows] Darq Ali 42 2,891 August 27th, 2007, 11:37 AM
Last Post: RobRoy
  Another Snape theory Paul Goode 37 2,252 July 9th, 2007, 05:10 PM
Last Post: AJ786
  snape is a good guy gbjefferson 78 3,287 September 12th, 2006, 06:45 PM
Last Post: Darq Ali
  snape loves lily?it exlpains everything! gbjefferson 16 1,537 May 31st, 2006, 08:32 AM
Last Post: abz_ob
  Harry Potter 5-Will we see Snape's Worst Memory? Pechark 26 1,698 December 21st, 2005, 04:24 AM
Last Post: Kwik silver 44
  My take on Severus Snape (Good or Evil?) - Highly SPECULATIVE Michael 19 3,135 November 26th, 2005, 04:29 AM
Last Post: Kwik silver 44

Forum Jump: