Psychology, Blood and a Theory

[B Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 68045

A longish post, and some things you might find contentious, but stick 
it out, the juicy bit is at the end.

I have to admit to a level of disappointment at some of the positions 
taken in the posts. An awful lot of posters  seem to be viewing 
characters in the Potterverse in stark yes/no, black/white, good/evil 
terms.

IMO, not only is this a poor return for all JKRs hard work, but is a 
recipe for stunting character development and removes scope for red 
herrings and surprises. Complexity adds depth, subtleties add richness 
and apparent dichotomies in personality makes you wonder what the hell 
is going to happen next.

Psychology is a complex study. In broadly general terms, everything is 
post facto. The aim is to look at a current mental or emotional state 
and try to trace the elements that produced it. To do so requires study 
of the entire history of the subject and his/her environment. Even so, 
it is rarely possible to reach a certain conclusion. Diagnoses  are 
hedged with 'possibly', 'perhaps', 'it is not inconceivable', 'this may 
be a factor'.

'Pop' psychology, however, does not admit to doubts. It rationalises. 
It finds excuses and calls them reasons. Some-one is like this because 
of that. The fact that countless others have had similar, or worse  
experiences with little consequence is quickly brushed over. In real 
life this superficiality is regrettable, when applied to  a figment of 
some-one elses' imagination it is a demand to  have the wool pulled 
firmly over the eyes.

You will only  see what the author wants you to see. A good author, as 
JKR undoubtedly is, can use these  little vignettes for all sorts of 
purposes; to take them all at face value or to put simplistic 
evaluations to them is not the best option. Who has had more childhood 
trauma, Harry, Hagrid, Neville or Draco? Harry is an orphan, constantly 
told he isn't wanted, shoved under the stairs, bullied. Hagrid - 
taunted because of his mixed blood, accused and punished for something 
he didn't do; Neville worse in some ways than an orphan and with 
relatives that drop him out of windows or off piers. Taunts at Draco 
pale into insignificance, especially when cultural differences can 
cause mis-understandings.

Lucius stands accused in the view of some, of a form of abuse in the 
way that he goads or taunts Draco about his academic performance. That 
one day Draco will come to realise this, and will shake off his evil 
habits and join the forces of sweetness and light. Sorry. Lucius'  
behaviour and attitude would have been common in UK 30 years ago. Even 
now it is still quite frequently found outside the liberal strongholds. 
It's the old fashioned idea that children have no idea of their own 
capabilities and will not achieve  full potential unless pushed to try 
for more challenging targets. If you succeed, try something harder. Not 
being an expert, I only report that the attitude exists, not on its 
desirability or efficacy; though it is a strategy used by sports 
coaches everywhere.

To my mind, Draco  is his fathers  son. There are old sayings about 
'bad blood', 'bred in the bone' and 'blood will out'.

I suspect that JKR is travelling along this road to a certain extent. 
Many  in Slytherin are the latest in a long line of descent to have  
ended up there. Goyle and Crabbe are also inheritors of the Slytherin 
ethic. This isn't brainwashing, it's inherited attitudes. The Black 
tapestry is a wonderful  example - generations of nasties. And if 
you're not nasty enough, we disown you.

Any animal breeder will tell you that there are certain bloodlines you 
do not breed from if it can be avoided. They have a well-deserved 
reputation for stupidity, unreliability or just plain viciousness, 
generation after generation. Humanity is little different. Look in your 
history books, trace the Hapsburgs, the Borgias, the Caesars. Prime 
examples.

In past generations our ancestors knew who to trust and who not. Until 
the advent of the railways, it is estimated that 97% of the population 
never travelled more than seven miles from their place of birth. 
Communities were close and families knew and watched each other for 
generations; honesty and reliability were essential for the survival of 
the social unit. The old Saxon justice system rested on this. If 
some-one was accused of a crime,  their neighbours would line up and 
take oaths  of monetary value, backed by their own goods and chattels, 
based on the reputation of the accused. "Let him deny it with an oath 
of two pounds." meant putting your money where your mouth is. Today, of 
course, no one can know their social contacts that well. We often don't 
find the truth about a person until too late. But in the Wizarding 
World it's more  like the old days. Everybody knows everybody, and 
their ancestry.

But like psychology, genetics isn't everything, particularly in JKRs 
world. There  is also motivation.

Like many, I've been fascinated by Snape. What is he and why? Again 
there are some who point to passages in OoP and applying the old 
psychological litmus paper, have come to the conclusion that he is the 
result of child victimisation. To my mind this is not enough to explain 
the complexities; we need stronger motivation and I've developed a 
theory. No, A THEORY.

Snape doesn't like anybody. He respects Dumbledore for what he is, but 
like? Very doubtful. He hates  Harry. So why is Snape  aiding Harry and 
the Order?  There can be only one reason - he hates Voldemort more. 
With Snape, it's not a question of being good or bad in comparison to 
Lupin, Fudge or Malfoy. Snape has his own agenda and it's personal. He 
hates Voldemort more that James Potter, Harry Potter and all the 
Gryffindors that ever  existed.  Dumbledore doesn't have a hold on 
Snape, nor has he persuaded him through reason to join the Order; DD 
knows and understands that hate and revenge are Snapes driving forces 
and that he hates Voldemort with an intensity that is overpowering.

  And I think we have been given a clue in OoP.

The pensieve scenes weren't really about Snape. They were about James 
and his gang, giving an insight to true character. The really important 
bit are the flashes that  Harry gets from Snapes memory direct:-

The shivering child, the adults shouting, the teenager, the youth. In 
none of them is Snape positively identified. The text states that Harry 
is 'sure that he has broken into  Snape's memories, that  he had just 
seen scenes from Snape's childhood......'  But Harry has been wrong 
before. Nowhere does Harry (or JKR) positively identify any of the 
persons as Snape,  even though Harry does so in the pensieve passage.

I recall that in an interview, JKR  was asked if any of the Hogwarts  
staff were married. She said yes, but that would come out later.

I think that in those memories, Snape was not the shivering child, but 
the shouting man. I think we've just seen Snape's family and that 
something happened to them to make Snape hate Voldie more  than 
anything else in the whole wide world. It is a motivation I can believe 
in.

How about you?

Kneasy