DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 162871

> 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.

a_svirn:
Yet I seem to remember Hamlet killing Polonius, Laertes, and 
Claudius with his own hand and arranging for Rosencrantz and 
Guildenstern's murder. Not a bad record for someone who can't act. 
We can as well compare Draco with Macbeth. 

> 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:
"Convenient, eh?" But that means that Draco's becoming or not 
becoming a killer does not depend on his heart or his innocence, but 
on the blind luck and Dumbledore's mercy. That's holding innocence 
rather cheap, don't you think?

By the way, Dumbledore ultimately died as a result of the plan 
conceived and executed by Draco. Does it mean that the barrier was 
crossed?

> 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.

a_svirn:
Setting aside that for the better part of the scene Draco and 
Dumbledore discussed his options in a most practical and unspiritual 
vein, I have a more general problem with this reading. If, as you 
say, Draco has no options at all, and, consequently, makes no choice 
whatsoever, what, if anything has changed from the beginning of HBP? 
The book starts with Draco being an innocent victim of the 
circumstances that are out of his control, incapable of killing, but 
quite capable – in his innocence – of arranging for people to be 
killed, and it ends with much the same Draco still innocent and 
incapable of killing, but still quite capable of orchestrating 
assassinations. The only difference is that this time his careful 
arrangements bore a fruit – Dumbledore got killed. 


> 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.

a_svirn:
But you just said that choice is not Draco's to make. That he simply 
CAN'T kill, and therefore such option is off the table. The way I 
see it, it is actually a very unchristian view of the matter. After 
Christ suffered death to atone for the original sin, He left us 
responsible for our own sins. But in your interpretation Draco isn't 
actually responsible for his actions. His becoming or not becoming a 
sinner depends on other people's mercy.