I wasn't arguing that Snape's behaviour excuses Harry's refusal to speak (if it came off that way, I apologize), I was arguing more that his behaviour explains Harry's refusal to speak. Because we know for a fact that Harry didn't come to the conclusion that Snape was expecting an explanation from him; and Snape's behaviour explains why -- it's highly unorthodox to demand that Harry account for his behaviour after points had already been taken, because however deserving the punishment may be, what use is the explanation after the fact? It's not like the points are going to be given back. It's not like said explanation was demanded at a time when it could have actually made a difference. So that's why I think Harry didn't hear Snape's words as anything other than what they seemed to be, an insult.
Which is how we come to this...
It's an authentic communication, and Harry has the chance to reply and chooses not to.
...because it's starting to seem like a lose/lose situation no matter what Harry would have chosen to do. Because yes, he had the chance to reply. We know how he took Snape's opening statement, he was angry; let's face it, anything he would have said in reply would have been insolent. And we've seen Harry in situations like this before, where he did happen to talk back and thus acknowledge Snape as a person worth getting his opinion across to, and those scenes are still (correctly, IMO) viewed as Harry's being insolent and contemptuous of Snape's position. So...I don't know, was this what you meant by Snape always bringing out the worst in Harry, and vice versa -- no matter what Harry chooses to do, he's still showing a very ugly side of himself?
I guess I'm having a little bit of trouble getting behind the idea that ignoring someone = dehumanization, because...well I definitely agree that it shows a lack of respect, in a "you're not worth wasting my breath over" kind of way, but so often it is really the best response to a variety of different situations (this one included, imo).
I mean, if your infuriating boss at work starts railing at you because he is ticked off about something (that may or may not have anything to do with you personally), do you ignore him until he's done, or do you start railing back? What's the best choice? When spouses get ticked off at each other, they could either revert to the ignoring act, or they could keep fighting verbally, letting it escalate and acknowledging each other as people, though disrupting not only their own peace, but the peace of anyone else around them at the same time.
In GoF, Hermione completely ignores the Slytherin girls as they laugh at Skeeter's article, and is constantly telling the boys to do the same. Multiple times throughout they actually do attempt to take this advice, and ignore the Slytherin kids completely while the Slytherins acknowledge them as people ... but is this the less favourable option, below the option of acknowledging said Slytherins back and allowing the fight to escalate and become ugly and physical? I need someone to find me any instance in canon when the Gryffindors have not either become physical, or come very very close to it, on the times they have risen to the Slytherins' bait (at least the kids'). If they don't ignore them, this is what it comes down to, and this seems rather dehumanizing in itself. What's the better choice?
It's something I've never really looked at so closely before, but it's odd that both options are rather disrespectful in their own sense; most have called simply ignoring your nemeses 'taking the high road', but I guess when faced with antagonism, there really are very few ways to really take the high road, be the bigger person.
no subject
I wasn't arguing that Snape's behaviour excuses Harry's refusal to speak (if it came off that way, I apologize), I was arguing more that his behaviour explains Harry's refusal to speak. Because we know for a fact that Harry didn't come to the conclusion that Snape was expecting an explanation from him; and Snape's behaviour explains why -- it's highly unorthodox to demand that Harry account for his behaviour after points had already been taken, because however deserving the punishment may be, what use is the explanation after the fact? It's not like the points are going to be given back. It's not like said explanation was demanded at a time when it could have actually made a difference. So that's why I think Harry didn't hear Snape's words as anything other than what they seemed to be, an insult.
Which is how we come to this...
It's an authentic communication, and Harry has the chance to reply and chooses not to.
...because it's starting to seem like a lose/lose situation no matter what Harry would have chosen to do. Because yes, he had the chance to reply. We know how he took Snape's opening statement, he was angry; let's face it, anything he would have said in reply would have been insolent. And we've seen Harry in situations like this before, where he did happen to talk back and thus acknowledge Snape as a person worth getting his opinion across to, and those scenes are still (correctly, IMO) viewed as Harry's being insolent and contemptuous of Snape's position. So...I don't know, was this what you meant by Snape always bringing out the worst in Harry, and vice versa -- no matter what Harry chooses to do, he's still showing a very ugly side of himself?
I guess I'm having a little bit of trouble getting behind the idea that ignoring someone = dehumanization, because...well I definitely agree that it shows a lack of respect, in a "you're not worth wasting my breath over" kind of way, but so often it is really the best response to a variety of different situations (this one included, imo).
I mean, if your infuriating boss at work starts railing at you because he is ticked off about something (that may or may not have anything to do with you personally), do you ignore him until he's done, or do you start railing back? What's the best choice? When spouses get ticked off at each other, they could either revert to the ignoring act, or they could keep fighting verbally, letting it escalate and acknowledging each other as people, though disrupting not only their own peace, but the peace of anyone else around them at the same time.
In GoF, Hermione completely ignores the Slytherin girls as they laugh at Skeeter's article, and is constantly telling the boys to do the same. Multiple times throughout they actually do attempt to take this advice, and ignore the Slytherin kids completely while the Slytherins acknowledge them as people ... but is this the less favourable option, below the option of acknowledging said Slytherins back and allowing the fight to escalate and become ugly and physical? I need someone to find me any instance in canon when the Gryffindors have not either become physical, or come very very close to it, on the times they have risen to the Slytherins' bait (at least the kids'). If they don't ignore them, this is what it comes down to, and this seems rather dehumanizing in itself. What's the better choice?
It's something I've never really looked at so closely before, but it's odd that both options are rather disrespectful in their own sense; most have called simply ignoring your nemeses 'taking the high road', but I guess when faced with antagonism, there really are very few ways to really take the high road, be the bigger person.