Occlumency redux, redux

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 139454

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> 'Damaged' was JKR's adjective.  The modifier was mine, and a bit of 
> an extrapolation.  It seems applicable in some situations, although 
> not all.
> 

It is certainly interesting to speculate what JKR meant by that 
quote, and I submit it would be a very fruitful area for someone to 
explore in a future interview.  I doubt, personally, that she had 
anything very clear in mind.  Rather, I think she is only trying to 
say that Harry has a lot of pain and anger, and inevitably so, as 
Dumbledore remarks on several occasions.  Snape criticized Harry for 
handing him weapons, which is a sign that the "weapons," i.e. the 
pain and anger, are there in Harry's mind ready to be used.  True, 
pain and anger are certainly not absolute inhibitions to Occlumency 
(e.g. Snape), but one can't help but think that they must make it 
much harder.  When combined with Harry's own particular personality, 
which features an extraordinary emotional honesty and clarity, and 
his youth, Occlumency becomes very problematic in his case.  That, at 
least, is my current best guess at what JKR's driving for.

Nora:
<SNIP>
> 
> I'd argue that shutting himself off from his memories, repressing 
> them (also JKR's word), it may not be something that can be done in 
> such a scot-free and clean kind of way.  I don't know if it's 
> possible to go "Well, I'm going to repress all of my anger and 
rage, 
> but keep my pity vectors wide open."
> 
> >  a_svirn:
> > It's a pretty big leap you make. Yes, the practice of Occlumency 
> > requires a certain (high, in fact) degree of detachment, but it 
> > doesn't mean that it should lead to any "devaluation of human 
> > beings".  Take Dumbledore – he is adept in both detachment and 
> > Occlumency, yet he values lives of others and very much so.


 Let's try to move away from thinking of these traits as necessarily 
good or necessarily bad.  I think JKR is just saying that almost all 
personality traits can act as two-edged swords.  Lupin's self-
control, for instance, is a great advantage in the classroom but not 
much help in dealing with his fellow werewolves.

Occlumency, we are told, requires the ability to compartmentalize 
your emotions.  I think we all have plentiful evidence of how this 
ability in real life can be EITHER a good or a bad thing, and 
sometimes BOTH in the same person.  People with the ability to 
compartmentalize their minds and emotions have great advantages in 
some situations.  They are often wonderful in a crisis.  They are 
capable of dealing with complex and messy issues in an efficient and 
effective manner.  This person is the surgeon capable of performing 
swift, efficient triage at the scene of a disaster, balancing pain 
against logical use of resources.  This person is the military leader 
able to apportion his forces in an effective manner toward a clear 
goal, balancing casualties against tactical and strategic gains.

However, people with the capability of compartmentalizing their 
emotions are also sometimes guilty of terrible actions.  This person 
is the bureaucrat who applies rules coldly and efficiently without 
regard for human suffering.  This person is the business executive 
who allows policy to be dictated purely by profit and loss 
predictions without concern for justice or humanity.



Nora:
> 
> But Dumbledore's detachment is *precisely* the cause of many of his 
> errors, although we may disagree about what they are.  For 
instance, 
> I suspect that he underestimated the way that the Dursleys would 
> treat Harry.  He's underestimated the depths of Snape's grudges and 
> enmity: his admission at the end of OotP seems to point to a 
> realization of that, to some extent.  The jury is out, but his 
> detachment may well have led to his underestimation of Draco in 
HBP, 
> and a potential misestimation of Snape.  I found this bit, from the 
> interview, also interesting:
> 
> "I see him as isolated, and a few people have said to me rightly I 
> think, that he is detached. My sister said to me in a moment of 
> frustration, it was when Hagrid was shut up in his house after Rita 
> Skeeter had published that he was a half-breed, and my sister said 
to 
> me, "Why didn't Dumbledore go down earlier, why didn't Dumbledore 
go 
> down earlier?" I said he really had to let Hagrid stew for a while 
> and see if he was going to come out of this on his own because if 
he 
> had come out on his own he really would have been better."
> 

And here I think is a very clear example of the double-edge of a 
particular personality trait.  I don't think, actually, that 
being "detached" is exactly the same as "compartmentalizing your 
emotions," but the traits are certainly related and have some of the 
same advantages and drawbacks.  Dumbledore's detachment allows him to 
be calm, collected, tolerant, fair, and unlikely to make major 
mistakes out of hasty and ill-considered action.  However, it also 
means he can be distant from many of the emotional issues that face 
other people, and that he can sometime misjudge important sources of 
human action.

I think it is interesting that, in this same interview, JKR says her 
sister accused her of modeling Dumbledore after herself.  This may 
well be a clue that this is a conscious theme with which JKR is 
playing.  We understand best what is a part of us.  We are best able 
to relate to our own triumphs, and our own blunders.

With regard to Harry, he has a very different psychological make-up, 
and a very different set of advantages and problems.  Harry is not 
detached, and not able to compartmentalize his mind.  He cannot 
master Occlumency, and likely would not make a very good bureaucrat 
and perhaps not a very good master strategist.  However, he is 
unlikely to ever become isolated, nor is he likely to ever lose sight 
of the basic emotional wellsprings that drive most of humanity.  
Harry probably wouldn't make a good Headmaster, he just doesn't have 
the ability to cooly apprise the bigger picture and to wait patiently 
and see if situations will work themselves out without interference 
(which is something a Headmaster, or in our world, a school 
principal, often has to do if he doesn't want to go bogged down in 
constant conflict and controversy).  However, Harry would probably 
make a magnificent Auror, Policeman, or Inspector-General, as he has 
the ability to sum up a dangerous situation and to act decisively and 
without hesitation, and is unlikely to allow a problem to sink deep 
roots or get out of control through false optimism, a surfeit of 
observation and consideration, or an excess of patience.


Lupinlore