TBAY: Ambition in the WW and Untrustworthy Characters

Wed May 15 22:18:01 UTC 2002

No: HPFGUIDX 38783

Cindysphynx remarked, in part:

> The one thing Harry is ambitious about is 
> Quiddich.  <...>  

> No, it seems that Harry's Quiddich ambitions are motivated by a 
> desire for adoration and attention. <...>  So maybe 
> JKR is saying it is OK to be ambitious to impress strangers or an 
> attractive girl, but not to seek power or wealth?  

> Yuk.

Ha! But I guess she sees a teen crush as far more forgivable than 
greed for filthy lucre. Harry really just wants love...<sniff sniff>

Erm, as I compose this, Laura has already said the same thing: 

> Poor kid just wants to be loved.

Well, I was being sardonic about it. :-P

But I think also there is a level at which Harry just really enjoys 
Quidditch and the feel of flying. There is something a little bit 
guileless about his love of the game when it's not about trouncing 
the Slytherin. Is this also a UK cultural thing? <Paging David!> Is 
pleasure and ambition in playing sports seen as less untrustworthy 
than a desire to make money or climb the social ladder? 

Cindy again, on whether Moody is problematic or not:

> I'd love for Moody to 
> turn out to be more than the Bad Cop who is Good deep inside.  I 
> think I'd much prefer Evil To The Core And Fooling Everyone Moody.  
> I have a feeling that I'm not going to be allowed to vote on that 
> issue.  ;-)

Oh, I'll second you there. We need to agree on something, 
since...well, we don't agree on everything. Of Snape, I remark:

> >He seems committed to being a supporter of the cause that 
> >Dumbledore leads. 

And Cindy replies:

> See, this is where I have my doubts.  Snape is supposed to be an 
> ambitious Slytherin.  Yet he is supposed to be perfectly happy to 
> stroll around a dungeon telling kids when to add the rat spleen.  
It 
> just doesn't add up.

I've often wondered whether or not Snape would be teaching small 
children if he really had an unrestricted choice. It's not clear he's 
perfectly happy doing it. :-) I figure there are two possibilities. 
One is that there might be something extremely prestigious about 
teaching at Hogwarts; perhaps it marks you out as the best in your 
field. I suspect it does carry more weight than a grammar school 
teacher would in our culture, especially since there is no university 
level beyond. This is the only academia they have. The other 
possibility is that Snape must stay at Hogwarts, or chooses to stay 
for reasons other than teaching. Some of these we've discussed 
before: maybe he's there because it's the safest place for him to be 
shielded from angry ex-DE s (although it's not clear that he needs 
this), maybe he's there because Dumbledore needs to rely on his help 
at a moment's notice, maybe he's there because Dumbledore decided to 
take him under his wing at some point after he recanted and wants to 
provide him with emotional support and a stable environment. I 
personally wouldn't be surprised to find out that he'd rather be 
heading up some experimental potions department at the MoM if only 
this Voldemort business could have been sorted out permanently. But 
you see Cindy, he's *loyal,* he's *reformed.*

Cindy doesn't believe this:
> That's why I'm keeping my eye on Snape.  He might well be 
tolerating 
> his less-than-lofty position at Hogwarts for other reasons.  Evil 
> reasons.   Like he really *is* still a spy for Voldemort.

I was sort of hoping that Snape would not continue to be a red 
herring in future books because his potential for that had finally 
been exhausted. Apparently this is not the case, and perhaps Cindy's 
Snape is Ever So Evil stance points to many future arguments among 
the Trio as to whose side he's really on. 

If Snape has been biding his time for these 13 years waiting for LV's 
triumphant return then he possesses far more patience than he has 
ever demonstrated in canon.

> Why, by the way, are so few people willing to entertain the 
> possibility that Snape's conversion wasn't true?  

Without going off on too much of a tangent here, I'd say the short 
answer (for me) is that Snape's bad qualities offer far more of a 
point of identification than Voldemort's. With nearly every nasty 
thing Snape has ever done I've at least understood how he felt, 
whereas I've never wanted immortality or world domination. So if 
Snape turns out to be Ever So Evil then that makes me Ever So Evil 
too. And I just never budgeted for that.

> I mean, maybe the 
> reason he was able to return to Hogwarts at the end of GoF was 
> because Voldemort allowed him to.  Maybe Snape didn't prevent the 
> Dementor from sucking out Crouch Jr.'s soul because Crouch Jr. was 
> going to finger Snape as a DE who walked free.

<Porphyria, piqued, makes a sudden dive into rampant speculation>

But poor Snape wasn't worried about the Dementor because he trusted 
McGonagall, whose express job it was to guard Crouch Jr. So was *she* 
the one who wanted young Barty to permanently keep still about some 
vital fact? Is McGonagall Ever so Evil? Is that why she goes around 
wearing Slytherin colors all the time, even though Snape himself 
rarely bothers? Is that why she didn't warn Dumbledore in PS/SS after 
Harry accosted her, convinced the Stone was in jeopardy?  I bet she 
finagled to buy him that Firebolt to get him on the Quidditch team 
early so that Quirrell would have his shot at jinxing him off of it. 
Yeah, she was in league with Q-man all along! And she really wants 
Trelawney discredited, doesn't she? Maybe it's to keep people from 
believing her *next* true prediction!

Oh, yeah, I'm onto her. She's the one who can turn into a cat and 
creep around the school late at night. Spying on Harry, no doubt. 
Wait -- didn't she go to school with Tom Riddle? Maybe they were 
lovers! Hang on: she's tall and thin and has black hair, just like 
Tom -- maybe they're cousins! Or for those of you who like it juicy, 
maybe they were both. >:-D

See Cindy, I've just solved your problem about who LV's *real* loyal 
servant at Hogwarts is. And it's not my poor, maligned Snape. You 
have to admit Evil!McGonagall would be Ever So Bangy.

<Porphyria resurfaces back to that canon discussion>

> Oh, I am keeping my eye on Snape, I certainly am.

I am as well, but for far more enjoyable reasons than Cindy. 

> Oh yes.  Forgive me.  We're supposed to be talking about ambition.  
> I lost my head for a minute there.  ;-)

Yeah, me too. How embarrassing. 

I suggested that Snape probably joined the DEs because he was 
ruthlessly ambitious back in those days. 

Cindy gasped:
> Oh goodness.  What's this?  A potential convert to Prince of Lies?

> Well, well.  It's been a while since anyone signed on to that 
> theory, but enrollment is still open.  It's *never* too late to 
join 
> Prince of Lies.  

> This is such a pleasant surprise, Porphyria!  I . . . I . . . 
wasn't 
> expecting you at all.  Um, let me see.  I'm all out of brandy, the 
> beer is warm and the champagne is flat, but . . . I seem to have a 
> packet of Kool-Aid and a bit of water . . . I hope you like 
> artificial Cherry flavoring!

Cindy, you know I will only drink half this cup.

Cindy:
> Because of Snape's 
> festering ambitions, Snape was just clay in Voldemort's Evil 
hands.  
> Such a waste, don't you think?

Oh, I'm completely willing to believe that LV pulled Teen!Snape aside 
and said "You know those Good Guys are such wusses! They could never 
appreciate someone with your innumerable talents! But *we* do! We 
have a place for you in our organization, Sev. You could really go 
far with us..."

However, I reject the bottom dregs of Prince of Lies Kool-Aid. I 
remind Cindy that Snape is supposed to be redeemed. She replies:

> Yes, but what about the idea of *failed* redemption?  Lots of 
> characters have had second chances (Hagrid, Snape, Lupin, Sirius, 
> Avery), but I don't think we've seen any character *squander* a 
> second chance.  Maybe Snape will be the character who reverts back 
> to his Evil Old Ways.  

Erm. Last time I checked, Hagrid, Lupin and Sirius had never done 
anything bad. Foolish, but not Evil. So they are pretty weak examples 
of Second Chance characters. No, I think JKR is firmly set on her 
very model of redemption. 

Avery on the other hand, yes, he's the one who will squander his 
second chance. :-)

Cindy opines on the banginess of Snape betraying Dumbledore:

> Oh, and won't Dumbledore be slack-jawed when it turns out that 
Snape 
> didn't turn down Voldemort's opportunity.  When it turns out that 
> Snape used Dumbledore as a stepping stone up the DE Corporate 
> Ladder.  I'm thinking that will be a serious Non-Twinkle moment for 
> Albus.  ;-)

Much as I'm all in favor of wiping that dratted Twinkle off 
Dumbledore's face, I'm not convinced that this will be the way it's 
done. Come now. Wouldn't it be much bangier if the real betrayer is 
someone we *never ever ever* suspected?

~~Porphyria, heading off to check on those Flying Hedgehog membership 
benefits

For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit
Hypothetic Alley at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%
20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?
method=reportRows&tbl=13