[HPforGrownups] DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 162853

> Magpie:
But I can't really compare them because they're
> in a different story and I think JKR is saying something different
in hers.

a_svirn:
Since Rowling herself used Macbeth to illustrate a point she is
making in HBP I feel justified to follow her example.

Magpie:
But wasn't she just referring to a prophecy someone causes to come true 
because they believe in it? I don't think Draco's story's moving along 
Macbeth/Lady Macbeth lines. No actual ghosts to appear to him. When Draco's 
compared to a Shakespeare character it's usually Hamlet--the opposite of 
Macbeth in some ways. Macbeth takes actions despite his doubts and suffers 
for the actions. Hamlet can't act.

> Magpie:
> In JKR's book actual murder is given, imo, as a big barrier to
cross. Coming
> close to murder seems to be sometimes more of a warning sign to the
would-be
> murderer more than a done deal.

a_svirn:
And yet, this barrier hasn't been crossed only by accident.

Magpie:
Right--but as I explained in more detail in another post, I think that's 
enough.  If it was only luck that kept you from seeing someone die (like the 
fact that Harry was unconscious when Quirrel did), you wouldn't be able to 
see Thestrals. Likewise I think the fact that Draco hasn't crossed the 
barrier still holds, even if it's only by luck. It's magic.

a_svirn:
Whatever the reason, his natural inclinations or his upbringing, it comes to 
the same thing - in HBP Draco *was* capable of murder. Whether he is capable 
of it now remains to be seen, but I, for one,
don't see why he should be affected by his near-misses if even the best of 
the good guys shrug them off as something unimportant.

Magpie:
You've got a point there. Dumbledore's the one who refers to them as no real 
harm being done.

> Magpie:
> I'm not disagreeing with canon I'm interpreting Draco's motivation
> differently there.  You see it as him thinking about the possible
advantages
> of killing Dumbledore. I see him letting go of what's been
important to him
> for so long, and part of that is recognizing how close he is to
it.  Killing
> Dumbledore is not an option ever in the scene.

a_svirn:
Such interpretation renders the whole business on the Tower meaningless, I 
am afraid. What *is* this scene about if not about Draco choosing between 
the two options - to kill or not to kill?

Magpie:
I see that you consider it meaningless without this, but the conversation 
between Dumbledore and Draco just doesn't go along those lines--nice 
surprise on JKR's part. There's no moment where Draco's going to kill 
Dumbledore. He claims he's going to, he says he's got to, but there's never 
a moment when he is actually going to do anything close. The Tower scene is 
about Draco not having any options, having come to the end of his 
cliff--until Dumbledore offers him one. The other option for Draco was only 
inaction. I think the kind of inaction that's associated with Sartre, who 
came up with Bad Faith.

Rowling could go all out in a scene with a young man who could kill and just 
hadn't yet--perhaps a boy more like Snape. I don't think there'd be any 
missing, if she'd written that scene, exactly where Draco was closest to 
murder etc. She'd do all the classic beats of that kind of scene. Instead 
she hits the classic "If you were going to do it, you'd have done it 
already, so let's just accept you're no killer" beats.

a_svirn:
Remove the first option and what is left? A foregone conclusion? Poor Draco! 
He's been a pawn in the big game throughout HBP and now you rob him of the 
responsibility for the most important choice he seems
to have started to make!

Magpie:
I don't see how I'm robbing him of responsibility by pointing out that he's 
unable to kill throughout the Tower scene. The fact that Draco is never 
making a move to kill is emphasized by Draco's physical descriptions, by the 
narrator via Harry and by Dumbledore himself. I don't see how you can read 
that scene as Draco's problem at that point being that he can either choose 
to kill or not given how it plays out and how Dumbledore treats him.

The choice to kill exists in terms of Draco and Dumbledore are right there, 
but there's no moment where Draco is shown to be wavering between killing or 
not. Killing is what he's supposed to be doing according to what he believes 
and what he's supposed to be, but that's not who he is. Another character 
would have been facing that choice in these circumstances. Draco's just 
stuck. It's the moment he's unmasked as not being able to do it. The act 
doesn't cut it anymore.

> Magpie:
Draco's never made a move to
> kill Dumbledore, and Dumbledore recognizes right away that whatever
he's got
> to fear, this kid killing him isn't it. So Draco wouldn't go over
the
> advantages of killing because it's off the table--and that's not
what he
> says, either. He talks about where he's gotten to up until this
moment--he
> didn't get killed, he got this far, he's got Dumbledore at his
mercy.

a_svirn:
I don't understand why it's "off the table" if he has "Dumbledore at his 
mercy". It hadn't been on the table when Draco started this business - his 
only options were "to do or die" and he fully expected
to die. But when he came in and saw Dumbledore incapacitated he suddenly was 
presented with two other options, and both held certain appeal. It took some 
time for him to digest this new development,
still more to access it. That's what he was talking about.

Magpie:
It's off the table because Draco can not kill. He's presented with a 
situation where another person could kill--but he is not that person. I 
don't remember any beats in the scene that play that out that I remember.

All he has to do is point the wand and say the words. But he can't do that. 
It's not even a question of "you have to mean it" because he never tries to 
say the spell. He paces, he babbles, he threatens, he doesn't try to kill 
Dumbledore--even when Dumbledore prods him to do it. He knows the situation 
is do or die. He says that. He's stuck unable to do, but not wanting to face 
dying.

> Magpie:
> But Dumbledore was, imo, speaking spiritually. Dumbledore's not
warning him
> about Voldemort in the scene. I think that reading reduces the
concept of
> mercy for Dumbledore--he's just using it like Draco is using it or
like a DE
> would use it. He's just another tough guy.  I think Dumbledore is
using
> mercy in a far more important sense (some would say a Christian
sense). He's
> offering mercy to his murderer. That's what Draco's accepting, not
just
> protection from Voldemort. I think that's why it will stay with
Draco in the
> next book long after Dumbledore's practical offer of witness
protection
> ceases to be an option. Basically, I think it's a powerful line and
far more
> central to Dumbledore's character than just "I won't kill you but
snake-eyes
> will."

a_svirn:
I feel increasingly like Shylock now, because I just don't get this 
Christian Mercy bit. What do you think Dumbledore is offering Draco then? 
Absolution? It's not his to offer, even from Christian point of view. He 
could and did offer forgiveness, but that's not the same thing as mercy. To 
offer mercy you'd need to be in a position to do so. Rowling tells us that 
Dumbledore is no Christ, so he couldn't
offer Draco salvation by atoning vicariously for his sins. Besides, what 
sins? He just called Draco an innocent a few moments ago.

Magpie:
Not divine absolution, but offering love and compassion and a safe haven to 
someone who's been trying to kill him--the forgiveness is implied and part 
of what makes it such a strange idea to someone like Draco, imo. One doesn't 
have to be Christ to offer that kind of mercy. I can't see Dumbledore 
basically just telling Draco to come over to his side because Voldemort will 
kill him and Dumbledore will not. He wants Draco to have made a choice based 
on who he really is and wants to be, not threats of what will happen to him 
if he's the wrong person and makes the wrong choice.

Jenni from Alabama responds:
Here is a thought, ponder this. Lily gave
her life to protect Harry. So, Harry was protected by her sacrifice -
or the shedding of her blood for him. Dumbledore sacrificed his life
to protect Harry. Could he possibly have done this on purpose, so that
now Harry would still have protection through HIS sacrifice - the
shedding of HIS blood?

Magpie:
Dumbledore's dying to save Harry is rather far removed. In a general way 
he's dying for the cause, but it's not like with Voldemort and Harry. That 
had to have Lily standing in front of the crib, with Voldemort offering to 
spare her because he was trying to get at Harry. Dumbledore just dies 
tangled in his own plots that are tangential to Harry.

And besides, if everybody can do that kind of ancient magic it's just no big 
deal.:-)

SSSusan:
Snipping out most of your post to ask yet another question.

Is it possible that what Draco was feeling on the tower was NOT a new sense 
of the reality of death and murder to the degree that he could no longer 
even attempt to murder DD, but instead the reality
of facing his intended murder victim face to face, looking DD right in the 
eye, was what made him feel he couldn't do it?

Magpie:
I don't think so, no. The scene's not written that way. To show that Draco 
needs to try to kill Dumbledore so that we see he's going to do it, and then 
show a change when he's looking him in the eye. a beat of confusion, for a 
start. Draco's already avoiding the murder when he gets into the Tower. If 
Draco had that kind of revelatory moment in the Tower not only would we as 
readers see it, but so would Dumbledore. And Dumbledore would talk about it. 
Instead Dumbledore is confident Draco can't kill from the moment he sees 
him.

-m