Occlumency was RE: Sirius vs. Snape

[snow15145]

No: HPFGUIDX 99427

Ally said:
 
 Well, not to condone Snape here, but I don't think the occlumency 
 lessons are a good example of Snape failing at something important 
 for a few reasons.
 
 1) I think the person most responsible for Harry not learning 
 occlumency is Harry.  We have ample evidence that he never, during 
 the entire course of the lessons, bothered to really try to learn.  
 He had a few instinctual moments of success with Snape, but he never 
 did his homework, so to speak.  So even if Snape had continued, 
 there's no reason to believe Harry would have applied himself, 
 because he hadn't in the past.
 
 2) Occlumency lessons really weren't that important after all.  
After 
 Snape stopped giving the lessons, what happened?  Remus said he 
would 
 talk to him.  DD was informed as well, as he later told Harry.  If 
 occlumency was so important, why wasn't Snape forced to resume 
them?  
 DD said that in the end, occlumency wasn't important.  Did he know 
 that after Snape and Harry's blow up?  It seems likely to me, given 
 that he apparently didn't order Snape to resume the lessons.
>snip<

Snow:
Did you ever consider the possibility that this whole occlumency 
thing could have very well been created by DD for the specific 
purpose of using Snape and his pencieve memory purely for Harry's 
emotional response? Nothing else was obtained by the actual lessons. 
When DD learned about Snape's refusal to further teach Harry, DD did 
not pursue it. Could that have been because the lesson that needed to 
be taught, was taught? (IMO) Harry was being taught it just wasn't 
occlumency. Harry learned exactly what DD wanted him to know. Harry 
needed to be put through enough ordeals in an attempt to teach him 
restraint and control over his emotions. Mcgonagall attempts to teach 
Harry this fact when Harry persists in antagonizing Umbridge. Harry 
learned throughout the whole 5th year of emotions and was forced to 
deal with them, most of which he had to deal with on his own, but 
constantly being guided towards controlling his emotions. The list is 
ever so long of the people and situations that Harry had (was 
allowed?) to endure.

I don't believe in the "ever so evil" DD but how about the "ever so 
manipulative" DD? The end product was Harry's emotions saving him 
from being possessed by Voldemort. Would Harry, during the attempted 
possession, have felt enough emotion to endure the pain if he had not 
previously had several doses of pain to assure the strongest 
emotional result? This very question that I pose reminds me of what 
DD said to Harry at the end of book 1: DD says: "I arrived just in 
time to pull Quirrell off you-"
"I feared I might be too late." Harry 
says: "You nearly were, I couldn't have kept him off the Stone much 
longer-" DD replies: Not the Stone, boy, you- the effort involved 
nearly killed you." To that I ask what effort? I think it may be the 
same effort that was needed to stop the possession of Voldemort this 
time around, too. This time, after enduring a substantial amount of 
emotional ordeals, Harry is much stronger and endured the test. 

Wasn't possession by Voldemort the real concern from the very 
beginning of book 5? That was DD's greatest fear that Voldemort would 
attempt to use Harry by possessing him and not to DD's demise but to 
Harry's. I don't think DD created all the anguish Harry had to go 
through but I do believe he allowed it to happen and possibly 
prompted some of it in an attempt to make him stronger for the 
eventual confrontation.

Something else from book 1 that I think foreshadows this scenario: 
Oliver Wood calls Harry the "secret weapon" before the first 
Quidditch game and now in book 5 he is "Weapon Harry."  Just 
something to think about.

Snow