Intention in Magic (was Re: Motivations for Joining DEs)

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 141253

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote:

> 
> 
>  
> Julie:
> I agree. At first I was a bit bothered by the fact that Dumbledore
> never chided Harry for his more recent misdeeds, both snooping 
> into Snape's memories in the Pensieve, and using Sectumsempra
> curse on Draco. But this is standard Dumbledore. He doesn't 
> need to chide or punish Harry--that's why he has Snape!  Snape--
> and to a lesser extent, McGonagall--acts as the disciplinarian, and
> Dumbledore leaves Snape to play that role since he has his own
> critical part to play as Harry's mentor. And he let's Snape play it
> the way Snape wants, because Snape not only delivers the actual
> punishments--detentions, etc--but provides a perfect example of
> how Harry could end up if he doesn't eventually take those lessons
> to heart. 


Sigh.  And we're back to Machiavellian!Manipulative!Dumbledore 
again.  That is one of the main things I dislike about much of the 
DDM!Snape speculation, is that it involves strained and contrived 
plots about Dumbledore's great, grand, secretive, master plan.  I'm 
not sure that DDM!Snape necessarily requires such contrivances, but 
they do seem to figure prominently in the discussions.  I certainly 
hope JKR doesn't go that way, as it would be unbelievable and ham-
fisted.

Isn't it much simpler, not to mention much more in keeping with the 
evidence we have, that Dumbledore doesn't confront Harry about 
various things because, well, he really isn't very worried about them?
And that he lets Snape go his way because he needs the information 
Snape feeds him and, as JKR says, he's unfortunately become so 
detached that he doesn't fully appreciate the emotional havoc Snape 
causes?
>  
> I'm not convinced Dumbledore is in the dark about much that goes
> on with Harry though. He may know about the Crucio curse, in which
> case he would also know Harry couldn't do it. He did know about the
> Sectumsempra, but Snape is already punishing Harry for that, so
> why does Dumbledore need to say anything? And given the eventual
> result of Harry not learning Occlumency--Sirius's death--Dumbledore
> must figure Harry learned his lesson there. (Even if Harry is  
blaming
> Snape for that death, he knows he had a part in everything that led
> up to that confrontation with Bella too. If he had taken Occlumency
> seriously and not laid out the welcome mat for Voldemort, things 
> might have been different.)

And yet DD himself seems to dismiss that line of thought, first by 
saying it is not Harry's ability to control himself that saved him, 
but his emotions themselves.  Also he admits the whole Occlumency 
episode was a fiasco and takes the blame, quite rightly, on himself.  
I see no evidence that he intends Harry to learn any lesson at all 
other than the one he layed out in his office at the end of OOTP, 
that he, Dumbledore, can make mistakes.

>  
> I'm pretty sure part of Dumbledore's "Severus, please.." included 
> not only getting the DEs away and keeping Hogwarts students safe,
> along with Draco and Harry (physically), but perhaps  also 
finishing  
> the final part in training Harry, which may have included stopping  
Harry
> from doing any Unforgivables during those hyper-emotional  moments
> after Dumbledore's death. 
>  

Well, of course Snape was also saving his own hide from a great deal 
of pain by blocking said unforgiveables, now wasn't he?  I see no 
evidence of Snape "training" Harry at all -- and I really never have 
seen any evidence that he takes his duty to teach Harry seriously.  
He ends as he began -- a bitter, self-centered, evil (in the sense of 
being an emotional child abuser, even if he turns out not to be a 
pawn of Voldemort) little man.


Lupinlore