Father Figures and Bad Choices

[A. Vulgarweed]

No: HPFGUIDX 38186

>   From: "Hana" <gohana_chan02 at lycos.com>

>>One explanation for his protectiveness of Harry is his "life debt" to
>>James.  Is that all?  I have no idea because we have little background on
>>Snape.  We do know that Snape is a former Death Eater who knows how
>>Voldemort treats people and knows what Harry has to expect from fighting
>>him.  The way he treats Harry could be a harsh way to force him to mature
>>so that he'll survive any encounters with the Dark Lord.  If everyone
>>coddles Harry and treats him like the "wonderful boy who lived" then
>>would he really be prepared for the harshness of dealing with Voldemort?
>>Isn't that part of Dumbledore's reasoning for leaving Harry with the
>>Dursleys?  He didn't want Harry to grow up being treated like he was
>>special (though I don't know if he expected the level of abuse that Harry
>>grew up with, but then again, the abuse made him a stronger person who is
>>less likely to go for the "power-hungry, bully" type people and more for
>>the "defender-of-the-weak" type ones).
>
>The same goes for getting expelled to some extent.  If Harry gets
>expelled, he won't be a threat to Voldemort due to lack of magic and he
>may not become a target (especially if he vanishes into the Muggle world).
>Now, I admit that this second line of reasoning is flawed, and is a lot
>less likely since Voldemort might want to hunt Harry down simply for
>revenge, but it is still a possibility.

The discussion of father-figures in Harry's life is great! I agree with the
idea that all these very different wizards play different aspects of the
father-figure--of which the hated authoritarian is very much a significant
part. But you'll note that, except for Arthur Weasley, none of them
actually *are* fathers (that we know of), anybody's father. So they're free
to be more one-dimensional in relation to the children in their charges
than an actual father, who had to do it all, would be. I frankly don't see
Sirius getting disciplinary on Harry. Protective, yes, when he sees genuine
danger, but discouraging what he sees as harmless hijinks?....nah. (And we
know he's not always the best judge of that!). And by the time he clears
his name and is able to act freely as a father figure, Harry will be old
enough that he won't be in such need of a "father" and might see him as
more like an older peer; after all, he was already in puberty when he *met*
the guy; it's not like Sirius raised him. Dumbledore _could_ assert his
authority, but also mostly chooses not to. Lupin tries weakly once or
twice, but he's a bit of a pushover. Snape IS pretty much the only one who
lays down the law (and I think he has BOTH protection and dominance as his
goals when he does it), and he often does it badly enough that I can
understand why he doesn't get the respect he so clumsily demands. I don't
think Vernon Dursley's on the radar at all; I agree with the poster who
said awhile back that Harry's written him off completely, I doubt that he
means anything more to Harry than that jerk who sends him the tissue for
Christmas and makes his summers miserable.

So who does this leave, setting the limits of what Harry can achieve? Who
establishes the boundaries of the world in which he operates, beyond which
he truly cannot go? I think that would be Voldemort.

As for the expulsion thing, I take that with a pound of salt. I'm pretty
sure Snape knows that expelling Harry would be a death sentence (for
possibly the only person who will be able to defeat Voldie when he's fully
trained, so before then possibly a death sentence for him is one for the
entire wizard world as well) and that Dumbledore would never ever ever do
it (yet another reason for Snape to think that he's a coddled golden boy).
It's simply the most horrible and plausible thing he can use to threaten
Harry with; (the sooner Harry figures out it's an empty threat the better
off they'll both be).


And Debbie writes:

I don't find it impossible
>to believe that Lucius might not carry out more of Draco's desires, such as
>targeting the Grangers or their neighborhood for attack, at Draco's
>suggestion.
>
>Nevertheless, though I am very close to thinking that Draco has gone over the
>edge beyond redeemability, I find it very difficult to accept the premise
>that a 14-year-old child is irredeemably evil, notwithstanding that a
>psychologist for an inner-city juvenile detention center told me just last
>week that in her opinion such cases do exist.  It seems unacceptable in books
>marketed to children, especially one that expressly emphasizes one's choices
>over nature and ability as a determinant of character.

Yup. I live in a city that has more than its fair share of teenage killers
(lost a friend to one by stray bullet a few years ago, even--they were
14-year-olds on bikes shooting at each other with their notoriously bad
aim). It's unfair to judge anyone that young (or for that matter, anyone at
all) as utterly beyond redemption, and this leads to a natural tendency to
downplay the magnitude of the consequences of choices made by the underage.
But the problem with this is that teenage killers' victims are no less dead
than anyone else's. Now of course Draco hasn't killed anyone yet, but he
certainly has made choices--he makes 'em every time he opens his mouth. So
far there's not the slightest indication of any kind of moral questioning
going on in there. None. Nada. And Draco isn't a hungry, poverty-stricken,
uneducated kid from the wrong side of the tracks who's never had any
options, either: he's a spoiled little rich brat who has never failed to
choose the path of least resistance except when it gives him the
opportunity to mess with somebody. I am NOT saying his redemption is
impossible. Only that it is going to require a LOT of Bang, or else I shall
castigate JKR for the writerly crime of inflicting an unrealistic
redemption out of the blue (e.g., Lucas/Vader) for the sake of creating an
uplifting moment for the kiddies (which a lot of kids won't like, being
naturally rapacious as they are and hoping to see the bully who's
terrorized and pissed off the heroes throughout the whole series get
bloodily whacked). I hope not. And being too squeamish to draw blood and
thus being a failure as a Death Eater doesn't count as "redemption,"
either--I mean, I personally think the SINGLE BRAVEST THING anyone has done
in the entire series so far is Peter Pettigrew cutting off his own hand for
Voldemort. Honestly. Could I jump in front of a quick and painless AK to
save someone I loved? Could you? Maybe. Could either one of us _cut off a
hand_, with a knife? I doubt it; I know I couldn't. (That's why I think
Peter _was_ a Gryffindor. He has courage, all right. Courage, in and of
itself, is not inherently morally "good." It just means a certain power to
face things and attempt difficult acts). But that's not a redemption by any
stretch.


Geez, I'm afraid that sounded ranty. I wish you could see the big grin on
my face.

>
 His epiphany, if any were to occur, would be more likely in my
>view to come if he is required to do something difficult, like engaging an
>equal opponent in a confrontation.  To date we have never seen him do
>anything but back down from his threats when pressed, starting back in PS/SS
>when he failed to show up for the wizard's duel.  If he ever felt personally
>threatened, I think he would break down, perhaps blurt out things he
>shouldn't, in effect forcing him to switch sides in acknowledgement of the
>fact that he'll never get the respect of his father.  It's not heroic, but
>IMO it's the best we can reasonably expect from Draco.
>
>Debbie

Yup, I agree. So far. And we're more than halfway through.
>
Penny:

>Well, others have commented on this already, but I'll just say that I
>would find it terribly disappointing if a series that is all about
>*choices* portrays a *child* who is irredeemably evil from the age of 11
>onward.  He's only 14 in GoF.

I don't think a 14-year-old is a child, exactly. Certainly the wizard world
doesn't: he's less than three years away from legal
adulthood/full-wizard-hood. He's only gonna have that excuse, if it counts
as one, for a very little while longer.

>Severus Snape apparently was able to make a life-altering change at a much
>older age, so why not >Draco?  Why is it not believable that an author who
>uses a theme of free choice so readily would set it >up so that a
>character, once seemingly on a set path but then later exposed to the true
>nature of evil >and its implications, might make different choices on his
>road toward maturity & adulthood?

I don't think it's unbelievable at all, but...we don't really know anything
about the circumstances that got Snape to change. But I'll bet they were
pretty horrible; I think if Draco is going to change, his catalyst will be
also. So far, we haven't seen anything. So I'm really only commenting on a
what a loathsome little sh*t Draco is so far. Now, Snape, mind you,
although he is technically a Good Guy, is also a loathsome big sh*t (which
is why I love him), so if Draco becomes a saintly social worker I will be
very skeptical. We don't know how alike they really are, though. We know
that Draco comes from an extremely rich family that buys him everything he
wants (although the Dursleys aren't rich exactly, the parallels with Dudley
still jumped out at me); did Snape? I get the impression not, although I
don't think there's any canon either way. We also get the impression that
Draco is rather more physically attractive than Snape ever was, which among
teenagers makes a huge amount of difference in who has status and power and
who doesn't. So my tendency is to believe that Snape probably had more
quasi-legitimate reasons for resenting the universe than Draco does--IS
there a difference between someone who wants power because he's never had
it and is desperate for a taste, and someone who wants power because he's
always had it and believes he's entitled to it? Not to their victims--but
to anyone else, one is easier to sympathize with than the other; one winds
up there because of low self-esteem, the other because his self-esteem is
entirely too high.


Penny again:

>I suspect Draco is just following the party line (his parents or at least
>Lucius).  Once he's actually put >into a position of seeing the real-life
>consequences, he *might* make a different choice.  I also don't buy that
>everyone's basic character is fixed by the age of 14.  It's my experience
>that most people do a tremendous amount of changing & growing after they
>leave home for the first time -- generally college or first job or
>whatever, ages 18-29 are times of huge change for many people.

Well, the kids in question here have left home for the first time at 11.
But I do see your point. I think where we differ is I'm not sure I *want*
Draco to be redeemed, from a literary standpoint.

AV


So, I remain optimistic that Draco *can* be redeemed.  The possibility is
there, but of course, it's anyone's guess as to where JKR might be going
for certain.
>
>Penny
>