On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 165904

> Jen: This section is along the lines of what I've been trying to 
> figure out.  I believe JKR is painting the Marauders (minus Peter) 
as 
> tragic and heroic in varying degrees, and don't know if she is 
going 
> to include Snape with this grouping in the end or not.  They've 
all 
> lost their lives literally or figuratively or at least that's how 
I 
> read Snape.  He had much promise despite his social difficulties 
and 
> chose to throw away his future by joining the DE's and he's been 
> attempting to make up for that choice ever since at the expense of 
> progressing in his own life.

Magpie:
I think they're heroic and tragic as well--maybe even Snivellus who 
joined the DEs, as you say. I *don't* think the idea here is that 
the Marauders were all punished for their sins by the universe. On 
the contrary, it seems more like they all had genuinely good 
qualities but still this is the way things happened to turn out. Not 
as punishment but just...because. One of the tragic things about 
Snape is the way he can't even enjoy that. He doesn't seem to be 
able to really look at them and let go of his hatred even when 
seeing them suffering or dead.

 
> Magpie: 
> > It's Snape who turned out to be indispensible, to have power and 
be 
> > needed by Dumbledore and, perhaps, Voldemort. Snape's the one 
> > protecting James son, not James, until HBP. Snape's actions are 
on 
> > the whole more important to the outcome of things, at times, 
than 
> > Harry's. Harry is clearly the Chosen One, but the Chosen One 
isn't 
> > always the best one in a narrative in every way. 
> 
> Jen: Yes, all true, but Snape also had a hand in being the one to 
> protect James' son.  He's indispensible to Dumbledore and perhaps 
> Voldemort because he made the wrong choice as a young man and 
hasn't 
> been able to free himself from being ensnared with LV ever since.  
> The only reason he's still alive is he has supreme survival 
skills, 
> like learning Occlumency and siding himself with Dumbledore who 
> offered him protection in exchange for being a double agent.  Do 
the 
> means matter or only the end?  I'm not sure what JKR is saying 
about 
> that concept yet.  

Magpie:
I don't know what she's saying about it either. I don't think it's a 
case of only the end mattering--at least I hope not. That seems like 
a really silly brand of ethics! I could more easily believe that she 
just likes driving her fictional personalities and sees certain 
consequences of their actions. I can't imagine her saying that it 
was a good thing that Sirius was imprisoned, for instance, but I can 
certainly imagine her saying that she killed Sirius off for the good 
of tha story or whatever. And I'm sure she loved writing the story 
of handsome Sirius aging before his time. Snape really is a "gift of 
a character" even if we don't understand him yet. So far I can 
easily believe him as a character working to do right while also 
being the one who does all kinds of wrong.

 
> Magpie:
> > I believe it's Charles who gets the girl in Tale of Two Cities, 
but 
> > it's Sydney Carton we remember best and admire most, isn't it? 
> > Marius is the lucky one in Les Miserables, but Jean Valjean is, 
I 
> > would guess, more often the favorite (as is Eponine as opposed 
to 
> > Cosette). I've always prefered Edmund to Peter in Narnia. 
> 
> Jen: I don't remember Tale of Two Cities well enough to recall 
> although do believe it's a very personal and subjective experience 
> when it comes to favoring and remembering characters.  (And I 
can't 
> say I favored either Edmund or Peter in Narnia myself).  There are 
> people drawn to the dark mystery of a Snape or a Heathcliffe, but 
I 
> find those characters difficult to identify with.  While I care 
about 
> each one's story and why/how each character evolved into the 
person 
> he became, I don't feel emotionally attached to them or their 
outcome 
> for whatever reason.  For that reason I do at least try to 
understand 
> how other people can read a Harry, or a Peter or a Charles and 
> think, 'eh, not my type'. 

Magpie:
True, though I'm not really talking here about subjectively liking a 
character better--I could have phrased that better. Whether or not 
somebody likes Sydney Carton, he's the one who says "It is a far, 
far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far 
better rest that I go to than I have ever known."  Whether one 
prefers Valjean, Eponine or Edmund, I think it's clear that the 
narrative sees them as being worthwhile in their own way, and 
capable of doing admirable things or doing things we can learn from.


> Magpie:
> > Ultimately I don't think it's necessarily wrong if a readers 
thinks 
> > less of--or is just less interested/impressed by--Lucky Harry 
than 
> > Unlucky, sullen DDM!Snape who brought his bad fortune on himself 
> > and doggedly sticks to his own ideas about honor to try to make 
it 
> > right to himself while still turning people off with his cloud 
of 
> > unluckiness. I think at least that Rowling has shown an interest 
in 
> > Snape's kind of redemption story. 
> 
> Jen: I don't think it's wrong either.  I find it more difficult to 
> sympathize with Snape not only because of his actions but for the 
> simple reason that JKR won't give us any information about what's 
> going on inside his head.  

Magpie:
That's a good point--and JKR's obviously using that as much as she 
can! (I am interested in hearing your thoughts on those two 
incidents with Harry also--it's always kind of cool which things 
push our buttons, especially when they're objectively not as bad as 
other things.)

> Magpie: 
> > Ironically, in HBP the very question is brought up in terms of
> > Felix Felicitas. Slughorn, iirc, warns against using it too much 
> > because it leads to reckless behavior. That kind of links back 
to 
> > maybe what others were saying about Harry in general in this 
case.
> > Being favored by the gods can sometimes be an obstacle to 
personal 
> > development.
> 
> Jen: I don't see any particular obstacles in his personal 
development 
> due to being the Chosen One as opposed to the normal obstacles of 
> growing up in general and living in a permissive environment like 
> Hogwarts in addition.  None glaringly different from the rest of 
the 
> kids at Hogwarts at any rate.  Besides Slughorn, who would have 
> favored Harry as Lily's son whether he was the Chosen One or not 
(not 
> that it hurt), Harry's status seems to impair his relationships 
with 
> peers and the WW as a whole more than him being exalted above all 
> others.  Like narrowly escaping being killed by Voldemort and 
being 
> slandered and libeled for it or the events in COS after Harry 
spoke 
> Parseltongue.  So when has his development been hindered by being 
the 
> Chosen One specifically rather than by being an average teen and 
> living in a quasi-supervised living arrangement like Hogwarts?  

Magpie:
I wasn't actually saying that Harry was being hindered by the god's 
favor. I was saying that in the abstract, being a character favored 
by the gods can lead to bad things as well as good, just as Slughorn 
points out that being addicted to luck can make you reckless. So the 
fact that Harry is lucky doesn't automatically lead to his actions 
always being good in themselves. There's plenty of times when 
Harry's actions *are* good in themselves, judged on their own merit. 
Since Lupinlore was talking about being lucky being a good thing, a 
mark of almost being part of the elect, it reminded me that HBP 
contained Liquid Luck and that that Potion came with some warnings. 

Actually, I think one could make a case for all four Potions in 
Slughorn's class that first day being the dangerous ones. Love 
Potions can cause tragedy (as they did with Merope and Tom), 
Polyjuice can be badly misused (as it was by Crouch), Felix 
Felicitas can lead to recklessness, Veritaseum causes people to tell 
the truth, which could also lead to serious consequences in the 
wrong hands.

Alla:

That is an interesting question though. Whether Snape is as unlucky
as he presents himself. I mean, it is sort of obvious that in terms
of survival he is luckier than Marauders ( crossing my fingers that
situation would be changed at the end of book 7). I mean, Marauders
are dead and he is alive.

But even if Snape IS alive at the end of book 7, Do you think that
necessarily means that he is luckier than Marauders, who died as
heroes?

I mean isn't it what Snape feels should matter the most in terms of
how lucky he is?

Magpie:
Snape's nature is to always be miserable, which is certainly 
unlucky. But it doesn't objectively mean that his life is so bad.  
If he'd have let go of his hatred, or could, he probably would have 
been a lot happier. But one could surely say that the Marauders were 
unlucky in terms of things that happened to them. It was just chance 
that James had the Chosen One baby that brought Voldemort to his 
door. Sirius rotted in jail for years. Lupin got bitten by Fenrir. 
All of them might describe themselves as lucky just for having the 
friendship of the others, though. All a matter of perspective.

I would guess JKR would think it was far better to be born with 
James, Sirius or Remus' personality, but might also concede that all 
three of them had bad luck. 

Alla:
What I am trying to say that if say for example, at the end of the
books we leave Snape to rot in Azkaban for life, I would hardly call
him **luckier** than James and Sirius. IMO of course.

Magpie:
Neither would I--I was talking about Snape so far. However, if Snape 
wound up in Azkaban he would be suffering as Sirius had suffered. 
And if he were in Azkaban for something he actually did, Sirius 
might still be seen as the unlucky one, since he's the one being 
punished for a crime he didn't commit. 

Really it comes down to how one is defining "lucky" in context. Is 
it luckier to be born a person more capable of appreciating good 
things in life, who still deals with lots of awful things happening 
to you, or to be a person always miserable who avoids those things? 
Some would automatically say the first person was luckier for having 
the better personality. Another person might define "luck" as being 
outside of character, referring only to circumstances of your life.

Magpie:
Snape's the one
protecting James son, not James, until HBP.

Alla:

His protection of James's son IMO is really open for debate prior to
HBP as well.

Magpie:
Hmmm. I don't think it is in the context I meant it. Even if you 
think Snape was just leaving Harry alone and then handing him over 
to Voldemort, I was just saying that Snape was the one called on and 
acting in that capacity. (Though I should have remembered that James 
does protect Harry in GoF, and Harry's Patronus might also be seen 
as protection connected to James.) James can't protect Harry because 
he is dead, but Snape is in position to do so.

Magpie:
Snape's actions are on
the whole more important to the outcome of things, at times, than
Harry's.

Alla:

Oh, LOL. "Severus Snape and the annoying little Gryffindor" it is
not. (Thank you the person who came up with it – if you want to claim
a credit, please do, I am just hesitant to do it since it was
originally mentioned to me off list) Snape is important for sure,
but " on the whole more important to the outcome of things than
Harry's" I really disagree, unless of course Snape will locate all
the horcruxes in book 7 and gives them to Harry on the silver platter
or if Snape will kill Voldemort somehow, then I will happily
acknowledge that Snape's actions are more important to the outcome.
Untill then I disagree.


Magpie:
No, I wasn't positing Snape and the Annoying Little Gryffindor at 
all. I was not suggesting that Snape is the one who's going to 
destroy Voldemort. Voldemort hasn't been destroyed yet, obviously, 
nor have the Horcruxes been destroyed, and I wasn't claiming that 
Snape would be the one to do it. I am saying that like it or not, 
the story over and over comes back to Snape and Snape's actions. 
Snape gave the Prophecy to Voldemort, and told Dumbledore that he'd 
done so, setting the Fidelius in motion. Snape was put in the key 
position of double agent in the war. Snape's actions *matter*. That 
does not make him a hero or give him Harry's role. But Harry's role 
has up until now often been *reactive*. So yes, Snape's actions are 
very important to the story. It's his mistake that put Voldemort 
onto Harry's trail, possibly his decision to take the Vow that made 
things turn out the way they did in HBP, certainly (imo) his action 
that kills Dumbledore. I find it difficult to look at HBP in 
particular and *not* see Snape's actions as very important. By 
contrast Harry in HBP is still playing catch up. He's not quite in 
the loop yet.

Magpie:
I believe it's
Charles who gets the girl in Tale of Two Cities, but it's Sydney
Carton we remember best and admire most, isn't it? Marius is the
lucky one in Les Miserables, but Jean Valjean is, I would guess,
more often the favorite (as is Eponine as opposed to Cosette).

Alla:

Eh, Marius is just boring to me. Sure, I love Valjean so much more,
but do we see any confusion in the book as to Valjean good, even
saintly intentions? After he is so clearly IMO redeemed on page very
early through the book.

Magpie:
But Valjean isn't necessarily *lucky* which was what Lupinlore was 
saying. Valjean is absolutely redeemed early on, but that doesn't 
necessarily make him a character favored by the gods. (I would guess 
Valjean would be favored by God--but that that was a result of 
Valjean's devotion to God and doing the right thing at risk to 
himself in spite of being unlucky in life etc.) I'm not saying that 
Snape *is* like any of these characters--we don't know yet. I'm just 
saying that in general the character that's lucky isn't always the 
blessed one.

Magpie:
I've
always preferred Edmund to Peter in Narnia. In HP, Snape's survival
could perhaps be seen as a form of luck in itself. It conceivable
could take a good deal of luck to become both Dumbledore's and
Voldemort's right hand man. <SNIP>

Alla:
Sure but IMO it will be depend on what kind of survival Snape will
have if any. I am not sure that some survivals can be viewed as very
lucky in Potterverse.

Magpie:
But by the definition of, say, Felix Felicitas, hasn't Snape 
potentially already been lucky? He was a Death Eater who didn't go 
to prison, found a kindly ear for his tale of remorse in Dumbledore, 
didn't get killed by Voldemort in GoF. I also agree with what you're 
saying that in the long run Snape might not really be so lucky--and 
he's been miserable enough that it's strange to apply that word to 
him. But at the same time there's short term "lucky" that Snape 
could be said to have demonstrated.

Alla:

Sure, but in light of HBP we IMO can not be sure that Snape really
wanted to protect Stone for the right reasons.

Magpie:
Regardless, that is the story of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's 
Stone. At the end of that book Dumbledore names Snape as a person on 
the good side and Harry learns he is wrong. 


-m