[HPforGrownups] Deontological!Snape (Was: OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 171271

Carol responds:
I think that a
Patronus, which she describes as a spirit guardian, differs from an
Animagus form, which clearly represents personal characteristics.

Magpie:
Absolutely two different things, I agree. The Patronus seems to be
connected with happy memories--what was Harry's the first time? Was it
learning he was a wizard? That would make sense why it was a stag, because
it represented his wizard family-James-even if he didn't know it. Though I
doubt it's always that clear. Tonks' Patronus is connected to Lupin and
used to be something else. I doubt her animagus form would be a wolf.

Carol:
Not that you
need to agree with me; that's just a distinction that seems important
to me and that JKR herself may have forgotten in assigning Cho a swan
Patronus (unless it's a male swan representing poor dead Cedric!) As I
said in another thread, I think that Hermione's otter Patronus
represents Ron Weasel, erm, Weasley. What's your nonfacetious idea of
Snape's Patronus (as opposed to his Animagus form, if any)?

Magpie:
Didn't JKR say that for a while James had a biting teacup Patronus because
he'd been so happy to finally figure out how to make one? It sounds
strange, but it somehow sticks in my mind.

In Cho's case I absolutely thought the swan was a memory of Cedric--I don't
think the swan was supposed to be Cho the way an animagus form would be
(though it would make a believable animagus form for her too--perhaps that
sometimes happens). Swans mate for life, I believe, and are often
associated with love, poetry and mourning. I thought it indicated her happy
memory was probably with Cedric and so he was in some ways her guardian
spirit, or their love for each other, something like that. Hermione's otter
could definitely be a happy memory of Ron being playful or at least making
her take herself less seriously. Snape's Patronus is really hard to guess!
If it was Dumbledore related it would presumably be a memory that sort of
linked to Dumbledore. Though it's not like your Patronus changes with every
memory. At this point, for instance, Harry can think of Umbridge getting
fired and still get his stag Patronus, probably because at this point his
happiness is sort of always related to the same thing, no matter what the
memory is. Tonks falling in love with Lupin (and Cho with Cedric) was
probably a more transformative experience.

I wonder if Snape's boggart was Voldemort killing Harry it would also be
implied that it was Snape's fault it happened.

Carol responds:

I see a clash within Dumbledore between utilitarianism (the greatest
good for the greatest number, meaning in his case the survival of the
WW at whatever cost to the individual) and his personal love for
Harry, which may or may not be represented by deontology. (I'd love to
hear what you think.) He even states as much himself: "What did I care
if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were
slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were
alive, and well, and happy?" (OoP Am. ed. 839). An yet, surely,
privileging Harry's happiness and temporary safety over the lives and
deaths of others can't be JKR's--or DD's--idea of right? He's caught
between placing his beloved Prophecy at a terrible risk and keeping
him safe at the expense of numerous other people, the whole WW, in
fact. Harry must be kept safe until he's ready, but he *must* be made
ready, for his own sake and everyone else's, "nameless and faceless"
or not. Harry is the WW's only hope, and DD knows it.

Magpie:
You know, I'm not surprised there is that conflict and I think it's
intentional. I always think LOTR puts it in with Frodo and Sam--Frodo is
more making sacrifices for the whole, while Sam is always more naturally
motivated to protect individuals. So Frodo is thinking of the world, Sam is
thinking of Frodo, and both of them are needed to get to Mount Doom. (Sam
always has to choose whom he protects because he can't do it all.)

Anyway, that's why I'd guess JKR thinks it's important that Dumbledore
would be able to make the "mistake" of caring too much about Harry, to keep
him from just being coldly utilitarian. Especially in a kids' book, because
what kid would want to not be cared about in that way at least some of the
time? It's like how in fairy tales there are a lot of wicked stepparents,
but parents are never punished for wanting their children too much (the
witch in Rapunzel, for instance, isn't punished for wanting to lock her in
the tower). Draco is another good example of showing a balance between the
one and the many, where Dumbledore "unwisely" risks the many for the one
(in this case not even a particularly "worthy" one either-though I suspect
many people would have said the same about Snape back in the day too).

-m