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

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 141294

 

> 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. 


Lupinlore:
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.
 
Julie:
I don't advocate the idea that DDM!Snape requires a Manipulative
Dumbledore. All DDM!Snape means to me is that Snape agreed to
work for/with Dumbledore to bring about the eventual and final 
demise of Voldemort, and he has kept that promise even while he
may have made some ill-advised decisions along the way (such 
as taking the Unbreakable Vow). And I don't think Dumbledore 
being more aware of what's going on around him than he sometimes
appears requires a Manipulative Dumbledore either.
 
Lupinlore:
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?
 
Julie:
I do agree Dumbledore doesn't confront Harry about some things
because he isn't worried about them. But there may be additional
reasons that don't unnecessarily complicate the story. For instance,
the Occlumency lessons become a moot point after the incident at
the DoM. They were intended to keep Voldemort out of Harry's mind,
but once they failed, Dumbledore has no reason to worry about them
any longer, and no reason to throw in Harry's face that his lack of 
effort and his snooping in Snape's pensieve partly contributed to that 
failure. And that works with the Crucio attempt and  Sectumsempra
also. For Dumbledore, what's done is done.
 
I think also that Dumbledore does appreciate the emotional 'havoc'
Snape creates in Harry. (And only in Harry, BTW, as even Neville 
had no long term effects from Snape's less than tender teaching 
methods.) He may continue to *hope* that Harry and Snape will 
learn to appreciate each other's abilities even if they will  never like 
each other, but he'd have to be brain-dead not to see that it isn't
happening, year after year (even in HBP, he's still telling Harry to
say *Professor* Snape, not to mention repeating how much he 
trusts Snape ad infintum.)
 
Julie earlier:  
> 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.)
 
Lupinlore:
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.
 
Julie: 
Again, Harry learned a lesson without Dumbledore spelling it 
out for him. Harry admits to himself that he blames Snape to
avoid looking at his part in that fiasco. What would be the point
of Dumbledore pointing out Harry's part of the blame? It's in 
character for Dumbledore to take the lion's share of the blame,
because he is the leader, who should have known Snape was 
the wrong person to teach Harry, and perhaps that Harry was
not capable of mastering Occlumency. But also because he 
would spare Harry any more pain than he's already enduring.
 
Julie earlier:
>  
> 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. 
>  


Lupinlore:
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.

Julie:
Yes, he does save himself a great deal of pain, but if he wanted
to, he could certainly turn the Crucio around on Harry, instead of
simply blocking it and telling Harry "No unforgivables from you!"
He also doesn't need to remind Harry to close his mind and shut
his mouth, or he'll never succeed, etc. Why is he wasting all that
breath when he could be torturing that brat he hates so much?
Why deny himself such pleasure? 
 
And while Snape was saving himself physical pain, he was in 
emotional pain (akin to Fang in the burning house) when Harry
accused him of cowardice. The cause of that pain  is speculation--
for some it's because he *is* a coward and he can't stand the  truth,
and for me and others it's because he just did something that
took more courage than he's ever had to summon (AKing his
dying mentor in the service of a greater good).
 
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on Snape at the end  of 
HBP--whether he is the bitter, self-centered, evil little man that  you
perceive, or the bitter, mean but conflicted man whose personal 
moral code and sense of loyalty have led him to make some very
painful sacrifices that I perceive. Only book 7 will reveal the truth. 
 
Julie 
 
 
 
 
 







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]