Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 187440


> > Montavilla47:
> > I know that Draco shows no remorse when he breaks
> > Harry's nose in the train at the beginning of the year, but I'd be willing to
> > bet that if Harry had suddenly started bleeding in a dozen places, Draco
> > would have been just as horrified.
> 
> Beatrice:  Maybe.  But that is a big maybe.  I was hoping to see a better ending for Draco myself.  Thought I saw a glimmer in the Malfoy Manor chapter, but lost complete faith in him at the end of the novel.  

Montavilla47:
Yes, I find Draco's lack of resolve disappointing as well.  But
I'm more disappointed in the author than in the character
about that.

I think, though, that that was JKR's intention, since she is *so*
careful to balance any good impulses Draco has with cowardly
ones.  The interpretation I draw is that it ultimately doesn't 
matter that Draco isn't "on" Harry's side.  He cares enough about
his friend, Goyle, to risk his life for him, and that's enough for
Draco to deserve redemption--although not quite enough
for Draco to deserve Harry's friendship, or a full head of hair.


> > Montavilla47:Quite probably, teen!Snape would have been just as horrified if his
> > spell had produced that reaction.  

> 
> Beatrice:  yeah, somehow I don't think so.  First, it seems that Snape may actually be the author of that particular spell.  I make this assumption purely on the basis that most of the notes in the margins of that text seem to be of his own discoveries and when Harry attempts to use levicorpus against him after DD's death Snape screams at him that he is just like his father who used his (Snape's) own spells against him... Even if Snape didn't create the spell, he knows what it does as he designates it "for enemies."


Montavilla47:
Of course it's Snape own spell.  But Snape did not use it in the way
that Harry did--which was wild and uncontrolled and nearly
caused Draco to bleed out.

Had Snape used the spell and caused the damage that Harry
did, as a teenager, I think he would have been as horrified.  Of
course we don't know that.  I'm simply basing that assumption 
on what any normal person's reaction would be.  I don't think 
think Harry is extraordinarily compassionate to be horrified 
when he nearly kills someone.   That's the normal reaction to
such a thing.

> > Montavilla47:
> > Yes, but Snape *is* a soldier and an adult.  He is also an 
> > accomplished dueler.  By the way, I didn't notice him 
> > running away or making excuses in that broom battle.
> 
> Beatrice:  No, how could we when we see precious little of him in DH.  Although you could read Snape's inclusion of the memory to Harry a way of defending that particular action...

Montavilla47:
You could, but I would say he was merely explaining his action.


> > Montavilla47:
> > But, there are still only three Unforgivable spells, as specified by the 
> > author.  And Sectumsempra, while designated "Dark" by its creator 
> > (which makes it "Dark" to me), is not one of those spells.  If 
> > Sectumsempra were meant to be as dire as an Unforgivable, then 
> > I don't think JKR would have designated those three spells as 
> > especially bad.
> 
> Beatrice:  Well, it may not give you an "automatic" life sentence in Azkaban like the other three spells, but it might be considered a crime depending on the circumstances.

Montavilla47:
So can any spell, including Expecto Patronus, which nearly lands
Harry in jail.



> > Montavilla47:
> > I'm not sure I understand what this larger pattern of character
> > development is.  Are you making a distinction between characters
> > who lose people they love--and are unable to love again, and those
> > characters who are consumed with vengeance?
> 
> 
> Beatrice: okay, but let's be blunt here.  What if LV decided that it was Neville Longbottom who was the true threat?   Would there even be a story?  Would Snape be simply indifferent to their plight?  Their suffering?  Would he ever have turned from his Death Eater ideology?

Montavilla47:
I think he would have been indifferent and probably continued
to be a Death Eater, but I still don't understand what that has
to do with being consumed by vengeance.


> > Montavilla47:
> > I think Snape agreed with the ideology to a certain extent in his youth.  
> > At the very least, he didn't *disagree* with it--and only made the exception
> > for Lily.  But it seems the intention to show that he *disagreed* with it 
> > at the end of the book, when he told Phineas Nigellus not to use the word
> > "mudblood."
> 
> Beatrice:  There are lots of people who don't "disagree" with the ideology, but they didn't choose to become Death Eaters.  Snape chooses to be in LV's inner most circle, not simply to be a sympathizer on the sidelines.

Montavilla47:
Which was most likely motivated by ambition, since that's one of 
the more obvious of Snape's characteristics.  Snape's shown as a 
child and young man to be more ambitious than racist, at least to
my interpretation.


> > Montavilla47:But, again, I don't see the evidence that Snape *hated* either muggles
> > or muggle-born.  What I see is that Snape was *indifferent* about the 
> > fates of people he didn't specifically love (i.e., Lily).  It's not his *hatred*
> > that disgusts Dumbledore.  It's his *indifference.*
> 
> Beatrice:  And how many people were indifferent to the plight of Jews in the 1930's and 1940's in Europe?  How many people are indifferent to Rwanda?  Crotia?  IMO, indifference is just as bad if not worse.

Montavilla47:
That's exactly the point.  Snape doesn't need to hate muggles or 
muggle-born, because the point of the story is that being 
indifferent to other people's suffering is just as bad as hating them.

If JKR had wanted to take Snape from a point of being as hate-
filled as any Death Eater, she would have.  She didn't.  She made
him indifferent.

And while that's just as bad, it isn't the same thing.

> > Montavilla47:
> > Except for Mr. Roberts and his family, the Dursleys are the
> > only Muggles we ever see in the series.  Except for saving 
> > Dudley's life (and Harry was saving his own life as much as 
> > he was saving Dudley's at that point), Harry never does a 
> > single act of kindness for any muggle.
> 
> Beatrice:  Well, in his small part of the muggle world he is despised and looked at with fear.  At any rate, we don't see much of any interaction in the muggle world for Harry probably because it is less interesting to the narrative of the story.
> > 
> > Montavilla47:And he steals the identifies of two muggles without any
> > respect for their feelings on the subject.  I wouldn't say
> > that Harry dislikes muggles in general, but I don't see a 
> > lot of love there.
> 
> Beatrice:  I think that you are reaching here for something negative, but I find this far from compelling.  Harry is hardly using their credit cards to buy internet porn or go on holiday.  He is using a disguise to save his life.

Montavilla47:
He's still using someone--a muggle--without consent or 
respect for their individual personhood.  I'm not trying to make
Harry worse than he is.  I just note that stealing somebody's hairs
is stealing, and stealing them to perform magic is something that
has historically horrified people.

And I don't think it shows love or compassion.  It shows a callous
indifference.


> > Montavilla47:
> > It's just that if I had my druthers, I'd give it to Snape.
> >
> 
> Beatrice;  But if you had your druthers then ultimately the wand would end up mastered by Voldemort as he kills Snape for that purpose.

Montavilla47:
I think you're setting forth a false argument here.  This
discussion wasn't about the situation in the book, but
about which person might handle the responsibility of the
wand better than the other.

I think the premise of the discussion was that both 
Harry and Snape were alive and the threat of Voldemort 
gone.  If not, then the discussion is moot, since Snape
would be dead.