What drives WW ? (was Chapter 24: Occlumency)

[severelysigune]

No: HPFGUIDX 108985

 
> Carolyn:
> > The disagreement between the founders of Hogwarts must drive the 
whole story, but I think the reason we have been given, about Salazar 
storming off in a huff because he thought pure-blood wizards and 
witches were the only ones who were worth teaching magic, is 
something of a red herring. 

Not that I think that he didn't believe that. I am sure he did, with  
a great deal of passion and conviction. After all, he was prepared to 
destroy a great friendship for his beliefs. But what was so  
important, what was really at stake? It seems to me that we've missed 
the subtle clues as to what really drives the imagination of the WW.
 
I think it is, put simply, the pursuit of `greatness', for example, 
as expressed by Ollivander when he said about Voldemort in 
PS/SS: `After all, He Who Must Not Be Named did great things – 
terrible, yes, but great.'

<snip>
 
And, just in case we forget this, we are later treated to various set-
piece demonstrations of DD's powers – first when he storms through 
the door to save Harry from Fake!Moody; then his effortless escape 
from Fudge after the DA confrontation, and finally when he confronts 
Voldie at the MoM. It is also clear that because of his abilities DD 
is held in wide respect generally – the Chocolate Frog card 
said `considered by many the greatest wizard of modern times.'
 
<snip>
 
Between ordinary wizards, it is a rough and tumble of hex or be hexed 
(getting a satsuma stuffed up your nose at Christmas seems to be 
perfectly normal; no one blinks an eye at the Draco/Crabbe/Goyle heap 
on the train each year). No wonder it is so important to get into 
Hogwarts and get the best teaching on essential survival skills. And 
if you are born without magical ability, heaven help you. The anxiety 
in the whole Neville story is hedged about with is he/isn't he going 
to be a squib; both Filch and Mrs Figg eloquently convey their anger 
and shame at their condition.

So to bring this back to Voldy and agendas. I think Dumbledore is 
100% committed to the nurturing of magical talent wherever it can be 
found [even in non-humans], and in this sense is the embodiment of 
the original wishes of all four founders, and in fact this *is* the 
role of the Headmaster of Hogwarts down the ages - to be the keeper 
of that faith, and Fawkes is a symbol of that continuity. [I don't 
know whether DD is actually continually re-born or a new individual 
is chosen when the old one dies,] but that is his job, and why 
Hogwarts is such a seat of power, and why the headmaster has no need 
to be Minister of Magic, yet commands a far greater influence.
 
In this role, DD spotted Tom Riddle's abilities very early on 
[perhaps Ollivander alerted him to the immensely powerful wand which 
Tom Riddle chose, containing the feather from the headmaster's own 
phoenix], and with the support of the then rapidly-fading Headmaster 
of Hogwarts, Armando Dippet, encouraged him. But, alas something in 
Tom's psychological make up led him to make the wrong choice in his 
pursuit of power [remember 'it's our choices'..etc etc]. Perhaps it 
was the absence of parental love early in his life, who knows - it 
would be an appropriate reason for JKR to pick on, with her interest 
in children and orphans.
 
All this would account for DD's ruthless, yet regretful dealings with 
Tom. He has to stop him, but is deeply aware that it might have been 
his mistake that created the monster in the first place. >>

<snip>


Sigune:

That is a very interesting post indeed, Carolyn, and I apologise for 
snipping it - but my reply limits itself to only part of it, and I 
agree with everything you say.
I had never quite considered the situation in that light, but it 
seems logical that wizards should be so obsessessed with magical 
ability and its (ab)uses, since it is really the only thing that sets 
them apart from 'ordinary' people.
Anyway, the way you formulated it helped me make sense of a number of 
things.

Snape-aholic that I am, I have lately been pondering the truly 
puzzling relationship between Snape and Dumbledore (yet again, 
triggered by everything that was NOT in the film, I suppose), and if 
Dumbledore is the 'guardian of greatness', the man who sort of has 
the responsibility to make sure that every wizard and witch makes the 
best of their talents when passing through his school, and to guide 
them in the right direction, then I think that explains why he is so 
strangely, and seemingly endlessly, tolerant of Snape.

If the size of Snape's nose and the length of his fingers are 
anything to go by, the Potions Master has great magical ability - 
which, my sceptical self feels bound to add, apart from his obvious 
expertise in potion making, we have not witnessed yet. If this is so, 
then Dumbledore might think it better to let his disgracefully 
immature behaviour (I am thinking, in particular, of the PoA 
infirmary scene; but maybe also of the many, many posts that feel the 
urge to point out what a horrible teacher he is) pass than to chuck 
him out and take the risk of another powerful wizard with a worrisome 
psychological makeup running riot in the WW. I feel that Dumbledore 
is very much guiding Snape and setting him challenges - the 
Occlumency lessons, for example, were meant to be every bit 
as 'educational' for Snape as they were for Harry, but 
unfortunately /both/ failed miserably. Poor Dumbledore. It's lonely 
at the top.

Hm. Is the problem of the painful division of the WW to be brought 
back to the quarreling founders? THEY failed to see the importance of 
the whole, and divided their school into four houses (and not only 
Slytherin is to blame here; only Helga Hufflepuff was prepared to 
teach each and every child - where is the Heir of Hufflepuff, in 
fact? Nobody ever talks about him/her, it's all Gryffindor and 
Slytherin, *hmph*); and now people need an Albus Dumbledore to point 
out to them that they should not think in terms of segregation. And 
even Dumbledore does not abort the house system. Which brings us back 
to a discussion we have had before, and makes me wonder if it is the 
WW's conservatism that might be its own undoing.

Yours severely,

Sigune