Occlumency redux, redux

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 139452

JKR on Occlumency:
> "Harry's problem with it was always that his emotions were too near
> the surface and that he is in some ways too damaged. But he's also
> very in touch with his feelings about what's happened to him. He's
> not repressed, he's quite honest about facing them, and he
> couldn't suppress them, he couldn't suppress these memories. But I
> thought of Draco as someone who is very capable of 
> compartmentalizing his life and his emotions, and always has done.
> So he's shut down his pity, enabling him to bully effectively. 
> He's shut down compassion —how else would you become a Death
> Eater?"

Nora: 
> Let's break this apart.  Harry has problems with Occlumency
> because he's emotionally damaged, and his emotions are too near
> the surface. This fits with the problems he had in the attempt to
> shut himself off.
 
> However, we immediately get something of a reversal in the
> commentary--Harry is actually very *in touch* with his feelings,
> he's *honest* about them, and he's not going to repress or
> suppress them.  Okay, so Occlumency requires emotional repression.
> 
> I'm not a psychologist, but it struck me that connecting emotional 
> repression to this magical skill puts a very decidedly negative
> spin upon it.  

Jen: From the facts JKR gives about the process of Occlumency, 
being 'in some ways too damaged' should actually be a *bonus* for 
learning Occlumency. I think what she's saying is that Harry's 
damage, i.e., losing his parents, living with the Dursleys, etc., 
actually caused him to be *less* repressed, more in touch with his 
emotions and more able to express them. That would be less likely to 
happen in the RW, as denial and repression are pretty common coping 
devices under stress and it's much more common to 'shut down' 
emotions in an attempt to deal with them. Over-emoting might be seen 
in some people, but it doesn't indicate a person with genuine 
emotional health, and JKR doesn't seem to be saying Harry is over-
emoting at any rate.

So I'm taking this to be a JKR assessment of Harry from a WW 
perspective. That maybe the magical, resilient gene somehow enabled 
him to have a certain psychological 'wholeness' about him that 
wouldn't be a Muggle response. And my cynical view is that JKR needs 
this to be so for her story <g>. She needs Harry to be the 
antithesis of Voldemort, since Riddle represents a person who split 
off his feelings to the point of being a serial murderer in response 
to his own abandonement & neglect. And, even worse in JKR's world 
than splintered emotional health, he was willing to splinter his 
*soul*. 

It really seems clear after OOTP, and espcially now after reading 
about Riddle's life in HBP, that JKR isn't paying so much attention 
to emotional health in the WW as 'soul-health'. As such, it pretty 
much absolves many of the characters from the ways they hurt each 
other emotionally. As long as they aren't causing each other 
tarnished souls, the other stuff isn't meant to look as heinous as 
we would view it in the RW. (Which if true, would negate the idea DD 
begged Snape to 'murder' him and split his soul. That doesn't leave 
out other possibilites, though).

Nora:
> So it seems pretty clear that two people in canon who can do 
> Occlumency are not the nicest people in the world (although they
> may yet end up with the white hats), but more importantly, are 
> both emotionally unhealthy, and quite possibly emotionally
> dishonest with themselves.  Occlumency is discussed as something
> that the isolated and cold are good at.  Why such a negative spin
> on the skill?

Jen: I snipped out your analysis of the two characters we see 
practicing Occlumency because it is so, so nice to have a thread 
that doesn't mention a certain someone's name (thank you dearly, 
Nora<g>).

My slightly different take on Occlumency, and Legilimency while 
we're at it, is that this branch of magic might have negative 
connotations similar to a Parselmouth, especially during Voldemort's 
reign, because the evil members of the WW have been drawn to 
learning these skills. We found out from DD in HBP that there are 
also Parselmouths among the 'great and the good', which was news to 
me.

The fact that Dumbledore is good at Legilimency, and can at least 
practice Occlumency, (and there's definitely some canon that Lupin 
can as well) says that a certain amount of emotional detachment IS a 
prerequsite for learning these skills. But since we now know, from 
one of JKR's family members no less, that JKR is accused of being 
somewhat detached at times and Dumbleldore-like, I'm guessing she 
doesn't view emotional detachment as entirely negative. Definitely 
not in her leadership characters and in the making of powerful 
wizards. In the end, the message is your heart can save you, but for 
the *average* wizard walking around who isn't Harry, emotional 
detachment isn't entirely negative (more on Harry).


Nora:
> [Consequently, there's another line which listies have had some 
> trouble taking at face value--but again, seems absolutely solidly 
> 100% intended to be taken that way.  There's a whole lot of 
> thematic messiness if you don't, too.  Anyone want to discuss 
> *this* tendency in Rowling, which seems to be increasing in 
> importance?  There are so many things that we've wanted to brush 
> off as being more complicated (in past books) that are turning
> into things intended to be taken whole and at face...]

Jen: [Without wanting to start another thread, I'll just say for 
myself that I read too much into JKR's 'clues'. I read much more 
meaning into them than we see in actual print...]


Nora:
> Contrary to Snape's 'instructions' at the end of the book, I don't 
> think Harry needs Occlumency at all.  *Especially* not the kind of 
> Occlumency Snape is good at.  In fact, a Harry eminently capable
> of Occlumency might be a Harry cutting himself off from what he
> really needs to have access to in order to win this battle.  [I
> submit that there's still room for my more genteel theory of 
> Occlumency out there, but we do now know why Snape is good at it,
> and why his teaching method would never really work for Harry.]

Jen: I agree with you here and find it odd Dumbledore didn't inform 
Snape of this fact. Or he did and Snape doesn't buy it because it 
worked for him, or so he thinks. 

Nora: 
> I suspect, against my own better inclinations, that the denoument
> of the series is going to be emotionally based rather than 
> intellectually.  That is to say, resolution is not going to come
> from Harry having figured out that there were all kinds of
> irregularities  surrounding Dumbledore's death, and piecing 
> together Snape's actual actions (this is assuming an Innocent!
> Snape at the moment).  It's more likely, IMO, to come from an
> emotional connection and realization, with a potential forgiveness
> plot rolled in there. > This, if true, makes a genial mockery of
> all our attempts to detail-by-detail work out how Snape is
> actually innocent.  Which is part of why I think Rowling may well
> go for it.

Jen: OK, I'll talk about the dreaded Snape for a moment. I think JKR 
will have to explain a few things surrounding DD's death, or have 
Hermione, her only mouthpiece left, figure it out. Her stories are 
plot-driven after all. You've made the case before they become less-
so in OOTP and HBP (hope I'm not putting words into your mouth) and 
I believe that's true, but extrapolating from her own commments, JKR 
needed to take Harry to certain places and provide certain 
background exposition before moving on. The end of HBP was very much 
back to being plot-driven, from the cave scene on, and we're 
promised a continuation of the Horcrux search in Book 7.

Nora:
> Heart and empathy and action over calculation and reflection?  
Seems 
> to reflect the hierarchy where, like it or not, Rowling values 
> Gryffindor principles considerably more than Slytherin-associated 
> ones.  So yes, I think that it's going to be some power of Harry's 
> heart and love and emotion which ultimately carries the day, not 
his 
> detective skills or dueling abilities.  Not to say that it won't 
> involve both, but there seems to be a clear hierarchy in the books 
> which celebrates the former over the latter.

Jen: I still think we'll see both, in different parts of the story. 
The emotional connection and 'heart & empathy over calculation and 
reflection' will definitely come into play for Harry's defeat of  
Voldemort. Lily's love sacrifice, Dumbledore's belief in love magic 
over the kind Voldemort practices, Harry realizing he's now lost his 
protectors who 'stood in front of him one by one'---all those parts 
of the story have an emotional resonance which requires an ending of 
equal emotional resonance. 

For the Horcrux search, and possibly even a resolution with Snape, 
not so much. In fact, if the past is any indicator, Harry most 
likely won't realize Snape's role until he's gone. If Snape truly is 
going to help defeat Voldemort, for whatever reason, the irony will 
be Harry can't see that until it's too late. If Snape simply decided 
he's on Voldemort's side after all, and will be working against 
Harry, we *really* won't see any type of emotional conclusion 
between the two except long-awaited justice for Harry who can 
finally say, "see I told you so." I'm hoping for the former scenario 
myself.

Jen