DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 162883

> Magpie:
> People compare him to Hamlet for the "I can't act even though I 
feel like I 
> should" idea--it's specific.  I'm not seeing what I'm supposed to 
get out of 
> comparing Draco and Macbeth. 

a_svirn:
How about,
"But now I am cabin'd, cribb'd, confined, bound in
To saucy doubts and fears."


> a_svirn:
> 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?
> 
> Magpie:
> I think canon makes it clear that no, it wasn't. Draco didn't kill 
> Dumbledore. Snape did. 

a_svirn:
Yes canon does make it clear. But that's kind of inconsistent. We 
know that Draco is not a murderer only by accident, because his 
first two plots have miscarried. That's what Dumbledore himself 
says. Yet his third plot actually worked, if not exactly as planned. 
Why, then, Draco's not a murderer? 

I mean, if, when he lowered his wand, he made a choice, than we 
could have said, "Thanks Merlin, he made a choice not to kill". But 
according to you he didn't. There wasn't ever a question of a 
choice. Yet there was a murder, one that was arranged by Draco. And –
according to you – he didn't choose not to kill. In that case I'd 
say, his luck has finally failed him and he lost his innocence, 
after all.

> Magpie:
You have to kill the person yourself, not just 
> contribute in a roundabout way to that person dying. 

a_svirn:
Oh, come now, Draco contributed to Dumbledore's death in a very 
straightforward way! He let a bunch of murderers into the castle. Or 
are we to assume that because Snape wasn't initially part of the 
group, it just another instance of Draco's extraordinary luck? If it 
was any other death eater Draco would be a murderer, but Snape's 
swift and timely action exonerate him from this charge? 

> Magpie:
That can certainly 
> cause guilt of its own, but by the way these things seem to be 
laid out in 
> canon it doesn't make you a killer. Any time you choose not to 
kill is a 
> choice not to kill.

a_svirn:
But you said that it wasn't his choice! He simply can't kill, and 
never could. 

> Magpie:
> A discussion of killing is different than the action of killing. 

a_svirn:
It's not just a matter of discussion. Draco undertook certain 
actions as well. 

> Magpie:
That 
> distinction is the thing that gets called attention to it in the 
scene (and 
> throughout Draco's role in the books, I suspect), because that's 
the 
> conflict Draco is facing. He can talk about killing, and 
Dumbledore is happy 
> to talk about it with him. But killing is not done by talking, 
it's done by 
> doing. It's Dumbledore's who keeps bringing the chat to the same 
place: so 
> why don't you do it? And Draco doesn't (which doesn't surprise 
Dumbledore).
> 
> At the end is that Draco now admits and knows who he is, and knows 
what he 
> is not. I think the scene is trying to lay out very clearly that 
in terms of 
> the story he is *not* a killer (as DD means it) and now he's 
dealing with 
> the reality of who he is--which is a big deal given who he is and 
his 
> situation. Going from being a boy who thinks killing is easy and 
is planning 
> on climbing the ranks of DEs to a boy who knows he does not want 
to kill and 
> knows that he's not got the stuff to be a DE (when he pretty much 
already is 
> one) is an important change.

a_svirn:
But that what I said upthread. Draco simply accepted his own 
limitations. He does not object to killing, but he accepts that he's 
no good as a killer. And he by no means regrets his murder attempts. 
JKR made a point of that too. Throughout the scene Draco is boasting 
of them and shows no signs of remorse. So I repeat what has changed? 
His choice (which, according to you, is a non-choice) doesn't seem 
to have any moral dimension in your interpretation. He is in the end 
much the same person as he was at the beginning – an innocent non-
killer, who is, nevertheless, quite capable of murder. The only 
difference is that he does not fool himself anymore. He accepts that 
he can't kill. 

> a_svirn:
> 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.
> 
> Magpie:
> He is responsible for his own sins and actions. He is responsible 
for 
> poisoning Ron and hurting Katie and letting DEs into the castle. 

a_svirn:
Nope, according to Dumbledore, he isn't. Dumbledore has just called 
him an innocent. 

> Magpie:
But 
> Dumbledore is offering to treat him mercifully anyway. It's not 
absolution, 
> it's mercy. 

a_svirn:
Actually, it's closer to absolution, the way Dumbledore shrugs it 
off. The interesting part is that he – in a rather unorthodox way – 
offers absolution without waiting (or, indeed requiring) for Draco 
to repent his actions. 

> Magpie:
> I don't see why acknowledging that Draco in the scene is portrayed 
as 
> someone who is not going to commit the murder he "must" commit 
makes him not 
> responsible for his own actions. 

a_svirn:
I see you switched from *killing* to *murder*. If Draco didn't kill 
Dumbledore because he simply cannot kill – that's nothing to do with 
responsibility, it's just as you said before – the option is off 
table. If, however, he doesn't kill Dumbledore because he weighted 
the matter and decided not to commit a murder, after all, then he, 
of course, is responsible for his actions. But in that case the 
option *was* on the table. And had been for some time.