[HPforGrownups] Re: Original wizards/When did Draco Imperius Rosemerta

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 149827

kchuplis:

I was also thinking of it in terms of Snape's opening speech in DADA.
I just don't see Draco having "what it takes" necessarily to even be a
Death Eater. Just expressing a bit of pity for a kid in a hard spot.
No, I don't like him much, but he was handed some pretty rock and a
hard place choices too, like Harry, and he hasn't really dealt well
with them. Just kind of interesting to think about.

Magpie:
Oh yeah, I agree-particularly on "not having what it takes."  I think your 
post just made me go off on a tangent in my mind.  It made me realize that I 
think one of the big things Rowling is pushing here is the fact that what 
these kids bring to the table is just that they're kids; they're new people 
who can't always be predicted.  So even being totally not a DE and not any 
kind of spectacular kid, Draco can still mess up plans by having this one 
combination of skills and experiences and ways of thinking.

> Magpie:
> There are things that Draco shows pride in in the scene--and
things that
> Dumbledore praises as well.

a_svirn:
These things being ... murder attempts, aren't they? It's not like
they are discussing childish pranks.

Magpie:
Or "ambitious homework assignments." Realizing the cabinet could be portal, 
fixing it, making the coins--nothing poisonous or cursed there.  (I also 
think you're exaggerating all this bragging about his accomplishments 
Draco's doing in the scene.)  I think Draco's drawing "courage and comfort" 
from Dumbledore's praise is significant and not something he would have 
gotten from false placating.  I don't think Dumbledore's just being ironic 
in praising them or trying to keep Draco from doing something.

a_svirn:
Well, they didn't achieve their objective, so I guess they can be
called feeble. Still with wine plot, at least, Draco came close and
was clearly proud of it.

Magpie:
Dumbledore explains what he means by feeble.  He says they are feeble 
because they are poorly planned and have little chance of succeeding--the 
necklace wouldn't get past security (as I believe Ron also points out) and 
Dumbledore says there's little chance he would ever drink the wine.  These 
are Dumbledore's descriptions, not my own thoughts on how likely it was that 
these plans would work; whether or not I agree with Dumbledore's assessment 
I think we are meant to take his analysis as a revelation of what was going 
on with Draco and see that Dumbledore is correct in the way he sees the 
situation. There's no alternative given in the text.  Draco himself does not 
defend these particular crimes or show pride over them.  I disagree he's 
clearly proud over these particular bright ideas (wine, necklace).

a_svirn:
Yet it *was* his intent. He slipped poisoned mead to Slughorn,
because he knew that Slughorn intended to give it to Dumbledore.
Unless he'd written Dumbledore down as a heavy drunkard he should
have realised that he'd probably share the mead (with Slughorn and
any number of others).

> Magpie:
That suggests his heart being very much in
> it, imo.

a_svirn:
It does, doesn't it?

Magpie:
To you, yes.  But not to Dumbledore. That's why Dumbledore says his heart 
wasn't in them. Had he said this to Murderous!Heart!Draco I think he'd have 
murdered him to prove him wrong instead of ineffectually but vehemently 
asserting that his heart rilly was in it.   I don't think this is like Snape 
where there's some question as to whether DD guessed right about Draco's 
character.  If Dumbledore was wrong about Draco's being a killer, he'd kill 
him.

a_svirn:
Dumbledore is trying simultaneously to placate and threaten Draco in
this scene.

Magpie:
I disagree. There's no reason to placate or threaten this kid and I don't 
see DD doing that.  I can imagine threatening and placating that other 
Draco, the soon-to-be enthusiastic murderer, the one bragging about his two 
previous near-murders, the kid who's presumably going to reject 
Dumbledore's offer and re-raise his wand to kill before the DEs come in. 
But I don't think that's what's written in the book.  Dumbledore knows this 
kid isn't going to kill anyone (no matter how many times Dumbledore reminds 
him he'd better hurry up with that) and is encouraging him to come over to 
the other side.

> Magpie:
It's not uncommon for people sabotage their
> own attempts at things without owning their sabotage.

a_svirn:
If you say so. However it's not the case with Draco. He did send the
poisoned wine and the cursed necklace, knowing full well what damage
they could cause. He did also repair the cabinet and was ecstatic
and triumphant about it to the point of whooping jubilantly.

Magpie:
We're talking about sending poison wine and a cursed necklace, not repairing 
the cabinet. Draco can do both of those things without murdering anyone--as 
he does.  He's thrilled at fixing the cabinet--and yet not killing 
Dumbledore.

He did send the necklace knowing that it could hurt others because that's 
only logical that it could.  He can't plead ignorance.  However, imo, 
everything in the text suggests that he was able to do that through denial 
more than ruthlessness.  I'm not absolving Draco of doing something 
potentially lethal or of being fully responsible for these things, but that 
doesn't contradict the "Draco, you are not a killer" conclusion of 
Dumbledore's.  That's where it all leads, so I don't see why it's hard to 
see that in the attempts.  It doesn't come out of nowhere.

a_svirn:
However, his
proclaiming Draco's innocence and saying that "his heart weren't in
it" is certainly pushing the bounds of the believable.

Magpie:
I think it's more believable than the idea that Dumbledore is desperate, or 
needing to placate or threaten a kid who is so not a threat to anyone but 
himself--I don't think Dumbledore considers himself "held at wandpoint." 
Dumbledore's attitude in this scene, imo, is indicative of what it's been 
all year, and probably why he froze Harry and not Draco.  He doesn't 
proclaim Draco innocent of these crimes, he names him an "innocent" still 
but acknowledges the role luck has played in keeping him this way.  One can 
disagree with Dumbledore's pov, but I just don't see any evidence that 
Dumbledore isn't speaking honestly.

I think this scene is *very* important for clues on how Dumbledore probably 
handled Snape years ago, and wound up possibly winning over both Slytherins. 
I can imagine young!Snape coming to Dumbledore defiant and confused after 
the Potters were targetted and Dumbledore then too being hands-off and 
talking Snape through the decision to change sides. Does anyone else make 
that connection in the Tower scene?  I can imagine this being a reason 
DDM!Snape might go along with Dumbledore's plans for Draco.  We know Snape's 
scene was a totally different situation and that it would presumably include 
the reason for DD to trust Snape completely, but I think Harry was getting a 
glimpse here with his own lowered wand thoughts later.  Dumbledore, imo, was 
trying to make sure both young men are making their own decision. 
Threatening and placting, imo, implies DD is at more of a disadvantage than 
I think he is in the scene.

-m