Harry as Kreacher was Re: Snape at school was Should Harry have told on DJU

[annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 100561

Kneasy: 
> Harry certainly won't listen to anything Snape has to say, no matter
that
> it's what DD wants. School discipline may be used to govern actions, but
> directing thoughts is something else. If Harry won't practice, won't
take 
> any notice of DD or Snape then the whole thing is a waste of time.
Because
> basically it's all down to Harry -  he's the one that has to *learn* 
> Occlumency, no-one can force it on him.

Annemehr:
It's equal between the two of them, then.  Harry will barely practice;
Snape will barely teach.  Sure, Snape fires "Legilimens" at Harry, and
Harry has some success at repelling it.  But all along in Potions
class, Snape is very effectively sabotaging Occlumency lessons with a
major increase in Potter-baiting ("Empty your mind, Potter! Oh, and
another zero, then). The least he could have done would have been to
keep the Harry-goading down to normal levels.

Not to mention that blame for Snape goes back to their very first
class. Snape can't stand rule-breaking upstarts? In general? If Snape
hadn't shown a very *personal* dislike right out on his sleeve, he
would have acted very differently -- and Harry would have seen him as
stern and formidable, but would probably have been able to respect
him. Kind of like the way he respects McGonagall, who also takes a dim
view of rule-breaking and took 50 points from him in his first year
for doing something Harry thought necessary.

>From the very beginning, Snape deliberately antagonised the boy when
he knew perfectly well how important he would be in the fight against
Voldemort. Even if Snape had a good reason for that, such as
protecting his cover, that's hardly Harry's fault.
 
Kneasy:
> Not only that, Harry deliberately misleads Snape. He pretends that
he is 
> trying, that he does want to master the subject, when in fact the
opposite
> is true. He wants to know more about that corridor, the door and what's 
> behind it.

Annemehr:
Well, that's just to say that the very reason for Occlumency is what
is making it so difficult to learn: Voldemort has *already* put ideas
into Harry's head. Dumbledore and Snape are playing catch-up. 

Kneasy:
> Harry really  isn't a very nice person in  this book, but so far as he's
> concerned he's being perfectly reasonable and it's all somebody else's
> fault. I can't agree.  Harry is directly culpable for the death of
Sirius.
> Because he wouldn't listen to those in a position to know better.
> 
> Kneasy

Annemehr:
<likes Harry just fine, as usual  ;) >

Just to mention in passing that Harry wasn't the only one whose
personality took a turn for the worse in OoP, though he had the best
reasons.  And, okay, I'd give Harry a *share* in guilt for Sirius'
death, but not the largest one, mind.

And getting back to "Harry as Kreacher" like the subject line says --

Harry's just like Kreacher 'cos they're both disobedient? That makes
Percy the real hero of this story!

Honestly, what good is comparing the mere actions of people, when the
circumstances and motivations are all important? You can't say
Wormtail and Snape are equivalent because they both switched sides,
and we only approve one because we *like* him better! One turned to
the good side, and that *is* good (unless we later hear of some evil
motivation for Snape), and the other turned to evil and that is evil.
 Any way, *can* you "betray" evil? In the purest sense, betrayal seems
to me to be turning against someone who has a claim on your loyalty,
and I don't think evil has a true claim on *anyone's* loyalty. 
Therefore, say, Bellatrix turning against LV will never carry the same
weight as Ron turning against Harry would.

A similar analysis could be done with the other comparisons of Harry
with Kreacher, except for some that don't really hold water (e.g.
Harry normally does take care of himself which is why he was
embarrassed when the Advance Guard showed up when he hadn't).

Annemehr