CHOP/Snape'sBadAttitude/DumbledoreHouseElfSpies/"passive"hero/empathy/Amos

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) <catlady@wicca.net>]

No: HPFGUIDX 49182

In her wonderful follow-up on the Crouchii, Elkins mentioned:

<< Although I'm also hoping that the rather gruesome twist you 
suggest here (Severus proving his loyalty to Voldemort by handing 
over Dumbledore alive to suffer unspeakable torments) is not, 
because even I am not quite twisted enough to have any stomach 
for the thought. >>

Severus proving his loyalty to Voldemort by *inflicting* unspeakable 
torments on Dumbledore while Voldemort watches, before AK'ing him at 
Voldemort's command. This is all too horrible for Severus, who loves 
Dumbledore (as a father-figure), and I am not confident that he will 
be able to carry it off, showing only ruthless efficiency (I don't 
think Voldie *requires* sadistic enjoyment) and no squeamishness, let 
alone weepiness. But if he *doesn't* carry it off, then Voldie kills 
him instead of accepting him back, and then Dumbledore's sacrifice 
was wasted (and then Snape dies hating himself). I dread this 
scenario for Severus's sake, not so much for Dumbledore's. Okay, 
Dumbledore is only an enlightened man or a saint, not a Buddha or an 
angel. Not being an angel or a Buddha, under Cruciatis he will be in 
unimaginable agony and cry and scream and soil himself and *wish* to 
hurry up and die. But being an enlightened being or a saint, he will 
accept that this is his plan working out, and not direct rage or hate 
at anyone.

What would it take to persuade Harry to trust Snape and use the 
fruits of Snape's spying on Voldemort after Snape had gained 
Voldemort's trust like *that*?

But this scenario raises an issue that I can't figure out: 
wimpy/tough good/evil. If the good guy is unwilling to torture (a 
volunteer martyr) (for the sake of the plan to defeat the bad guy), 
is that wimpiness or goodness?

Melody wrote:

<< "I think it is the decapitated part. I keep envisioning all those 
Brits on Tower Bridge with their head on a spike. That is just too 
disrespectful for Dumbledore's head." >>

In CHOP, Dumbledore's "head on a platter" probably isn't literal (see 
above). It's a not-new metaphor for killing him to please his enemy. 
Probably the metaphor comes from Salome and John the Baptist, altho' 
I have never understood what Salome thought she was doing.

Oryomai defined SILKSHIRTS:

<< Snape would be a really likeable guy if it wasn't for his mishaps 
in school. If you remember that he had all that stuff happen to him 
and realize that *that* is what's making him do the things he does >>

and Shrhzd replied:

<< I think that he had a background that could have lead him to 
either becoming a bright young man who studies the dark arts, like 
Lupin apparently does, or a spiteful man who turns to them. >>

and Eloise mentioned:

<< Where I believe there *is* a similarity is in their relationships 
with their fathers. I believe they both have/had rather cold 
relationships, ones where they never quite lived up to expectation. I 
believe this from what we see of Draco's relationship with Lucius and 
from Snape's current behaviour. I am one of those who believes that 
Snape looks towards Dumbledore as a father-figure. >>

I *like* Snape, altho' I suppose that if we met in person, he would 
view me with much the same level of scorn as he views Neville, and 
verbally flay me enough for me to hate him forever -- my liking is 
based on *me* not being his target. 

I am sure that when he arrived at Hogwarts he already had his vicious 
tongue and bad attitude. I think that even when he started wizarding 
*primary* school, he already had a certain arrogance, vengefulness... 

I think it came from his relationship with his parents, altho' 
worsened by primary and secondary school experiences. I think 
Severus's father was much worse to Severus than Lucius is to Draco, 
or else Draco is somewhat protected from Lucius by his mother's or 
nanny's love.
 
Sharana wrote:

<< It seems that Dumbledore is well informed about most of what 
happens inside Hogwarts. It is highly possible that all (or most) of 
the portrait characters (Fat Lady, Sir Cadogan, Violet, etc) act as 
spies for him. Remember there are pictures hanging all over the 
castle and that these characters can move freely between them. 
Consider the house-elves, they are all over the castle cleaning, 
cooking, and whatever else. You usually don't notice them, but they 
pick up a lot of information: >>

I believe that, except then how did he miss knowing about James, 
Sirius, and Peter becoming Animagi? They COULD have kept it secret 
from the House Elves, but only by conscious effort, which they would 
have done only if they had suspected that the House Elves were spies. 

Penny Linsenmayer wrote:

<< "Crowning the King: Harry Potter and the Construction of 
Authority" by Farah Mendlesohn - She paints Harry as a passive hero 
who is successful largely due to "inherited" talents and assistance 
from others, a "gentleman scholar" (a star on the playing field and 
passably bright). >>

That sounds remarkably like that guy in slate or salon who wrote the 
article that claimed that Harry is popular only because he's a 
successful athlete, and that he is neither as smart nor as brave as 
Ron, let alone Hermione.

Anne U wrote:

<< one of the crucial differences between Harry and Voldemort: 
empathy. Both Harry and Voldemort had lousy childhoods, but Harry is 
able to empathize with others, while Voldemort does not. Was Harry's 
childhood less lousy than Tom Riddle's? Hard to say whether it's 
worse to grow up in a Muggle orphanage than to spend almost every 
waking minute being tormented emotionally by the Dursleys. >>

I'm pretty sure that Harry had it worse. The Dursleys didn't *just* 
emotionally torment him: they skimped on his food and clothing, he 
couldn't have had much of a bed in his cupboard, if the parents 
didn't physically chastise him, Dudley did -- whatever horrors early 
twentieth century orphanages are blamed for, the Dursleys tried to 
provide the same. The only way Harry had it better was that 
antibiotics had been invented by then, and central heating. In other 
ways, TMR would have had it better because of his ability to get 
people to like him.

However, I don't think it's fair to blame Tom Riddle just because 
[his depiction in CoS has convinced me that] he was born with brain 
defects making him incapable of feeling empathy and with a tendency 
toward paranoia, so that he would have been cold and selfish even if 
he had been raised in the most loving family around. I really think 
it spoils JKR's theme of choices and free will to set up a villain 
who didn't have a choice about his brain defect. 

Wendy Wynnde wrote:

<< Diggory's alley, actually. He's a bully, a hypocrite, 
dishonourable, and pompous. >>

Amos Diggory is *definitely* vulgar, but what evidence is there of 
him being *any* of those other things? His rough way of questioning 
Winky when she was found with Harry's wand near the Dark Mark is 
often cited as an example of him being a bully, but I have always 
read that interrogation as Amos and Arthur using the well-known "bad 
cop, good cop" technique. That they fell so easily, as if by habit, 
into their roles, gives me the idea that they had previously worked 
together in some investigatory or law-enforcement job. Someone 
suggested that they might have been Aurors during the Bad Years; then 
there was a Reduction in Force after Voldemort went away, but the 
public didn't feel right just firing their so-recent heroes, so old 
Aurors like Moody could be honorably retired, but young ones had to 
be transferred to other Ministry jobs.