[HPforGrownups] Explaining the danger to Harry (was: Changing the title because I'm tired of it)

[Amanda Geist]

No: HPFGUIDX 130077

SSSusan:

> I don't think the two situations are quite analogous.  Like you, I'd
> darn well get my daughter or son DOWN and *then* worry about the
> explanation, but that's because the child is in a situation fraught
> with immediate danger.  The child has no role to play *except*
> getting down.
>
> Harry, OTOH, has a potentially much bigger role to play in the
> crisis situation, should it come.  We don't know the specifics of
> the danger he is in -- nor even when he will be at the point of peak
> danger.  The training is to be ongoing, not a one-time "This is an
> emergency! DO this and LEARN this NOW!" kind of thing.  What DD (and
> likely Snape, if DD told him much) suspect is that Harry will need
> to be prepared and that it will take a fair bit of work on his part
> to get himself adequately prepared.
>
> Your daughter or my son need ONLY to GET DOWN and it's over.  Harry
> needs to learn a skill so that he'll be able to take action in the
> future, possibly several times in the future, and potentially
> without the guidance or assistance of any adult when it matters
> most.  Our children can be taught *simply* once they're in safety
> why what they were doing was dangerous and why they should avoid it
> in future.  Harry, however, I would argue, needs a much more
> complete explanation for a situation he doesn't know the specifics
> of, can't fully anticipate, and doesn't really even understand.
>
> He believes, for instance, that his connection to Voldy is USEFUL
> and doesn't quite know why he needs to do what Snape's telling him
> he needs to do.  Yes, Snape did the best job Snape's ever done in
> explaining something to Harry, but it didn't get fully to the heart
> of it, really... and their 5-year relationship got in the way of
> Harry's hearing enough and Snape's answering all the key questions.
> Harry really did need to understand more fully, I think, why the
> DANGER of the connection outweighed the clear (to him) USEFULNESS of
> the connection.  So much more needed to be understood in the
> situation, and so much more of the danger is of a murky nature, that
> I would argue much greater care needed to have been taken to ensure
> that Harry really heard, understood and accepted the need to master
> Occlumency.

I accept that Harry didn't get it. But I do wonder what it would take to
hand him a clue. Every single person he was associated with seemed to
understand the danger--which I argue *was* clear and immediate, as witness
what happened the two times Dumbledore met Harry's eyes. It is only because
Dumbledore was right, and avoided Harry, that something more significant
didn't occur.

Let's remove my analogy from an immediate danger, to one that you may feel
is more applicable. I try to teach my child not to walk into the road.
Everyone else my child knows, tells her not to walk into the road. I explain
to my child why not to walk into the road. You are telling me that I must
make certain that child understands and accepts why not to walk into the
road; that she must believe the USEFULNESS of this instruction outweighs the
DANGER. You're saying I need her buy-in; that I can't expect to compel this
behavior on the basis of my authority.

BUT. My child may not understand, even when explained graphically, even if
shown pictures. The concept of danger and hurt and death is simply beyond
some ages; sometimes beyond some children. And so it may well be that in a
given situation, my child will believe the USEFULNESS of its ability to walk
into the road outweighs the DANGER, and will do it anyway, even after all
the warnings and explanations.

That child would be wrong. But it would think it was right. And it might
feel persecuted if a guard were set on the road, or if authority figures
tried to prevent it from walking into the road, and it might just get
exasperated and angry and feel all misunderstood that those friends and
authority figures just didn't UNDERSTAND--especially if there were some
alluring thing beckoning on the other side of the road. And if a book were
written from that child's perspective? We'd have OoP.

Harry may well not have been capable of comprehending--LV was in his mind,
and looking at the overall pattern when I analyzed the Occlumency lessons, I
think it's likely that LV was twisting Harry to believe he was doing a
reasonable and good thing. But he *is* old enough to understand the
stakes--especially after Sirius' rant to the twins when Arthur is in the
hospital; and to me, that is old enough to listen to, and honor the wishes
of, someone you acknowledge as a leader in this conflict.

SSSusan:

> If Snape has better things to do with his time (and I fully agree
> that he does), then why DOESN'T he do better things with his time?

I think he does. The only time we ever see Snape is through Harry's eyes, so
of necessity it's when he's talking to--and probably being nasty to--Harry.
That's quite likely a very small percentage of his time.

~Amanda