CHAPDISC, HBP 10

[krista7]

No: HPFGUIDX 148721

Answers to Lealess' wonderful questions:

1. Harry goes to great lengths to hide from Trelawney. In spite of
this, he overhears a fortune-telling. Trelawney's card reading has
been the subject of examination by those who know the Tarot. Why did
Rowling put the card reading in this chapter? Is it necessary
foreshadowing? Who is the "dark young man, possibly troubled, one who
dislikes the questioner"?

I think this is JKR playing with us on a number of levels. We get basic
information here: Like Carol,
PJ, and Betsy all said, this scene establishes Trelawney does have
some natural fortune-telling abilities (given credibility because she
rejects them!) It raises suspense, but does so in a slightly comedic
way (hence the sherry).

And this is where I think the playing comes in: while I think the 
dark young man is intended overtly to signify Harry, I don't think 
it is just coincidence when we're seeing other "dark young men" in
this chapter, in the form of Voldemort and his father. And since 
Trelawney, predictions, and dark young men will come in a matter
of chapters to scream of Snape to us, I think this is JKR winking to us
about Snape, too. (Isn't it always about Snape? ;) 

To get to the point: It's really Harry, but JKR is hinting as well that 
the secret to the end lies in Voldie's past, and that Snape is a 
Big Deal. 


2. Merope does not really speak in this chapter, or anywhere else in
the book. Her few words are related by other characters. Yet,
according to Dumbledore, she does speak for herself through her
subsequent actions, although he speculates those actions are
underhanded. Not allowing a voice to a character is a striking
narrative device. Does Merope have a voice? What is its character?

It's in her choices. I think JKR is doing a pretty good job of showing us
that even the most wretched and pitifully oppressed, from house
elves to people, can *do something*. And that they don't get a 
free pass for their choices, either.

I think Merope is kept speechless in this chapter to make us *think*
she has no power (since she's in a horrible family situation), to let us
imagine her character as being completely oppressed and unable to 
help herself, until Dumbledore's telling us about her proves
she's not just a victim. (Not to take anything away from her misery, 
of course, but to indicate she is *more than a doormat*.)  

3. The Gaunts are said to have married their cousins....
Dumbledore comments that the Gaunts were "noted for a vein of
instability and violence that flourished through the generations due
to their habit of marrying their own cousins." They had also been
high-living profligates. If we accept that specific personality traits
can be inherited in the Wizarding world, what did Voldemort
specifically inherit from the Gaunts?

Well, the Gaunt family definitely brings the crazy. But otherwise,
I'd say he gets his recklessness, his lack of concern for the rules, 
his paranoia/distrust of others, and above all, his pride from them. 

There's violence, too, but his is more
focused to what he wants, vs. just sadistic pleasure.

What he doesn't get...well, I'd say he rejects the path of solitary pride.
Voldemort wants exterior validation badly. He doesn't want to set up a shack 
and be king of it. He wants the world. 


4. Considering they are the heirs of Slytherin, why are the Gaunts so
far outside the Wizarding world? It does not seem likely the Gaunts
married into any other pureblood families. Gaunt himself may have been
prepared to let the Slytherin bloodline die with Merope and Morfin.
The Gaunts even seem to be unaware of the Wizarding world's laws. 
With this degree of separation, how did the Gaunts come to possess
wands, or make their living? How did Merope learn the magic she used
once her father and brother were gone?

No idea, other than maybe there was some degree of home-schooling
and/or natural development. (I imagine wizarding kids learned *something*
about magic from their parents that Harry didn't get.) 

In regards the Gaunts' isolation, I think it goes to show that the pureblood 
philosophy is just opportunism. Yes, there's real snobbery out there,
but it's based on things other than *just blood*. In this case,
being dirt-poor, socially ignorant (to say the least), and 
being less-than-beautiful trumped the supposed merits of 
"good blood."

5. Inviting guesswork, as Dumbledore does: what is the story with the
ring? It is an "ugly" ring that someone (Borgin & Burkes?) offered
Gaunt a lot of money for at one time. The ring meant enough to the
Gaunts that it and Slytherin's locket survived the family's
squandering of its fortune. Is the Peverell connection important? Why
is it necessary to keep the ring's story untold until book 7?

The ring is a signifier of pride, for the Gaunts. They'd rather 
eat dirt than part with that ring. (Or should I say, the *dad* 
would rather do that--we don't know for sure about the kids'
views on this.) Bad parenting, in other words, on display yet 
again in the HP world.

I want to know why Dumbledore wears the ring, though? 
After all, it is ugly, and it is Voldemort's family ring, 
more likely to repel a kindly person than make them
want to wear it. And Dumbledore isn't a man 
of great personal vanity--I mean, he's not the kind who is going to 
wear "bling" just because it's there! Especially Voldie-bling.

My theory is the ring is poisoned/permanent. That not only 
was Dumbledore injured in killing the Horcrux in it, part of the 
ring is some kind of trap. And that's why we see the ring
in Book 6, because the minute it goes on Dumbledore's hand,
his personal hourglass begins its final countdown.

(I think the episode of Katie and the necklace hints at this--
a very Medea-like image of poisoning a wearable object.) 



6. What is he teaching Harry in
this lesson? Why was it important to use the Pensieve in this instance
instead of just telling Harry the information? Dumbledore admits to
being really clever, but capable of making correspondingly huge
mistakes. What if Dumbledore is wrong about his "guesswork"? Who is
Dumbledore answerable to if he is wrong?

Dumbledore is not God and, to be believable, we *can't* trust 
in him too much--otherwise there's no tension in the book! And 
especially since JKR's going to yank him off the stage soon, we 
have to leave him with ambivalent, troubled feelings--or we'll 
go into Book 7 with complete confidence and not edge-of-your-seat
excitement. 

Someone--I think it was Carol--pointed out that the Pensieve
provides a nifty way to give information in a much more
interesting way that just exposition, and I agree. It is also much 
more ambivalent than a straightforward speech about their
history, because we'd know more what *precisely* 
Dumbledore wanted Harry to see in the memory.


7. Dumbledore confirms that it is very important that Harry know about
Voldemort's past, that it has "everything to do with the prophecy."
What do the Gaunts, as part of Voldemort's past, have to do with the
prophecy? 

We're back to the "the power the Dark Lord knows not": Love. He 
didn't get in his family home, where love didn't exist or was warped 
beyond recognition (the desperate connection between Tom and Merope);
he didn't accept it at the orphanage; he didn't give it to his family when
he had the opportunity, as an adult, to rise above the problems in
his infancy (killing Daddy and setting up Uncle Morfin isn't a 
great I-forgive-you gesture). He has no empathy, no ability
to understand others, and consequently, no ability to love.

What he *does* have his pride, and that might be an
important button for Harry to push later.

8. Who teaches morality in the wizarding world in the absence of
parents, if not teachers?...
It seems that Rowling is concluding, through Dumbledore, that people
are born with a "blood"-derived moral sense. Voldemort was descended
from the debased Gaunts and the selfish Riddle Sr.; they were bad, and
he is therefore evil. Harry was descended from Lily and James Potter;
they were good, and Dumbledore can therefore trust Harry to be good,
even if Harry was raised without love. 

I'd object that Harry was raised *entirely* without love. Regardless of how
the Dursleys behaved to Harry, they showed *one another* a great deal
of love and affection, which I believe did help Harry, in a bizarre sort of way. 
Harry was also--through the Dursleys' insults--given to understand that his 
mother really did love his father, and that while they might not be there 
with him now, that love did exist. So Harry had two models of love
Riddle didn't have. 

And I don't think Dumbledore, or Rowling, is necessarily making a 
blood-based argument. Dumbledore is going out of his way to show
that Voldemort is a human being, from very explicable circumstances:
inbred so badly his mother and uncle are both showing physical signs
of being "bred out"; terrible family background; extremely troubling
behavior in his orphanage, where he had opportunities to be a 
different kid than the one he chose to be. He is evil, but he is also
not some dark, invincible deity of destruction. He is just a 
deeply, deeply screwed-up man. 

As for Harry, I agree with the poster (Carol?) who said that 
Dumbledore takes the point of view that a child must be allowed to 
make mistakes, in order to learn. Harry, by the time of the first
book, also shows lots of signs that he's got a very good heart
of his own (look at how he interacts with the snake, in 
admiration and compassion, or the fact he does deal with 
Mrs. Figg, if reluctantly).  

9. The Wizengamot is responsible for enforcing Wizarding law at the
time Morfin broke the law by performing magic in front of Muggles. But
as Gaunt pointed out, there was no real consequence to breaking the
law....What does the Gaunts'
interaction with Wizarding law, especially as regards Muggles, say
about that law?

That a lack of kindness and empathy are flaws that go well beyond
the Gaunt household; that the arrogance and pride of the Wizarding
world, holding themselves superior to Muggles, able to control 
Muggles' destiny as they wished, contributed to the making of Voldemort
just as much as his family did.

10. This had probably been discussed to death, but: Why can't Ron read
the Prince's instructions? Hermione won't try to read them because she
is opposed to "cheating" with the HBP book Ð is this the real reason?
 Why does she insist the handwriting is a girl's?

Part of me likes the reason one poster gave, that Hermione was trying
to subvert Harry's support of the book by suggesting the author was
female (causing teenage boy Harry to say, "Eww!" and drop the book 
like a hot coal, presumably. You can't think a girl is *cool*!). 
I think she's also irritated that Harry has managed to surpass her Potions 
grades because of that book, and she's projecting (based on her own 
experience) that such a smart author has to be female. (Implying that 
Harry, once again, owes his academic success to a girl.) 

I also considered the possibility that there's some kind of charm on the 
writing, to make it appear differently to three different viewers:

Hermione thinks the hand is feminine;
Harry thinks it is small and cramped, but no other indication of a 
female voice;
and Ron can't even read it. 

I can't, however, draw any kind of general rule about it.

(I also think the whole idea of Snape's teenage writing being mistaken for 
a girl's is very odd, I have to say. Your stereotypical teenage girl's writing 
is a loopy, bubbly script. In handwriting analysis, "feminine" writing is 
considered to be softer, rounder, written with less force/pressure 
into the page, more obviously graceful/aesthetically pleasing. I 
don't associate that at all with anything teen!Snape might write: As a guy
with esteem issues, he'd probably write small; as a wordy student,
he'd have cramped handwriting on tests, to squeeze everything in; 
as a guy whose mind is inclined to logic/math, he'd have more linear,
precise handwriting, closer to print than cursive; and because he's 
trying to write quickly, no effort at being "pretty." I can see
such a script getting bigger and more jagged over time--since he's
writing even faster as an adult who has to dash off notes all the time,
and since he's got a stronger sense of his own authority to speak--but
I can't see that script being taken as "girlie.")


Krista