On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating)

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 166026

Magpie:
>  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. 

Jen:  I did think that's what you meant Magpie, from what you said about the Marauders 
being favored by the gods and suffering sad fates.  So I'm glad to know the context you 
intended.

Magpie:
> 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.

Jen: My first thought was 'that isn't tragic, it's Snape enjoying his hatred and acting cruel 
and selfish!'  Then I started thinking more about why he can't get past the Marauders, 
particularly James and Sirius now that they're dead.  It could be he resents never getting 
whatever satisfaction he sought out of the situation, besting them in some way or perhaps 
getting revenge.  You'd think having them *die* would cover whatever ill he wished them 
though, so I'm discounting that possibility myself.

Instead, I'm growing to believe this hatred and resentment is the linchpin of Snape's 
character, if you took that away from him the character would fall apart.  It's the 
motivation hidden in plain site,  meaning Snape joined Voldemort due to hatred for the 
Marauders after the Prank and his rage toward Dumbledore for how he handled it.  Then 
the life debt to James (and seething resentment for having that debt) was the spark for 
Snape turning to Dumbledore, if not the reason for his remorse or continued loyalty.  And 
finally, his hatred colored his view of Harry before Harry ever set foot in Hogwarts and that 
set the stage for all the conflict between them.

Even if I'm off-base about the rest of his story, I feel pretty certain Snape's rage over the 
Prank had something to do with joining Voldemort and it IS tragic since he lost promising 
parts of his life due to hatred and rage and has never been able to completely retrieve 
them in his attempts to redeem himself.


Jen:
> 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. 

Jen: The more I think about how efforts in the right direction--no matter how small--
matter in JKR's ethical system, the more I agree with your assessment.  For instance, Draco 
lowering his wand even if he returned to Voldemort in the interim appears to be 
significant.  Slughorn attmepting to defy Voldemort by running and hiding was looked 
down on by Harry initially, but ultimately led to Slughorn putting himself in grave danger (I 
believe) by giving up the real memory.  Those were two examples of the means mattering 
very much for the direction a character chose or will choose.  

> 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." 

Jen: Sorry 'bout that. ;)  You did make that transition in your original post when discussing 
the 'narrative' and I read it a different way.  

> Jen earlier: I'm not exactly sure why, but Harry talking sarcastically to Narcissa in HBP
> bothered me more than anything he's done and physically attacking Mundungus was a
> close second. I wouldn't mind discussing those if anyone has thoughts about those two 
> events.)

> Magpie:
> (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.)

Jen:  I suddenly wanted to understand why the incidents bother me after making that 
comment.  I've come to the preliminary idea that JKR is trying to depict Harry as growing 
up with these interactions and if that's the case, then Harry is actually regressing in the 
interactions with Narcissa and Mundungus from my perspective.  Taunting Narcissa like he 
does Draco?  Physically manhandling Mundungus?  I didn't read 'adult' there,  I read a boy 
on the cusp of manhood trying to take matters into his own hands and doing a poor job.  
Hmm, maybe that's what she was trying to get at with these incidents?  That Harry isn't 
quite an adult yet or hasn't had enough pratice to get it exactly right.

> 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. 

Jen: Ah, I get what you are saying now and would have to agree.  There have been 
instances where Harry was *not* favored by the gods, didn't have everything he touched 
turn to gold.  Most notably when he believed the visions about Sirius were real and rushed 
off to the DOM.  I found OOTP jarring because prior to that I would have agreed with 
Lupinlore, somehow Harry always managed to save the day and it appeared his luck would 
never run out.  I suppose Harry mentioning that very thing in OOTP, about how he'd 
defeated Voldemort so far in part due to luck, could be read as foreshadowing for the 
ending--Harry's luck did run out.  And then having the Felix show up in HBP was a 
continuation of that theme, luck isn't always enough to save the day.

Magpie: 
> 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.

Jen: I thought it particularly clever how Slughorn mentioned Amortentia creates obsession 
and then the danger of obsession was one of the themes of HBP, included in the stories of 
Merope, young Riddle, Draco with his task/Harry following Draco, Trelawney with her 
cards and even, in my opinion, Dumbledore with the Horcruxes.  He seemed to be taking 
some incredible risks looking for them on his own and focusing on his search to the 
detriment of watching the school more closely.  In my opinion all the examples involved a 
person coveting something or someone and that need, once fulfilled, proved to have 
disastrous consequences.

Jen R.