Lack of re-examination SPOILERS for Corambis and Tigana

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 186605

 
> Magpie:
> I feel like that's a definite issue throughout the books or amongst readers. Because to use Draco as an example--and I think he's one of the best examples--as you say, he's taken steps to murder someone and people got hurt. But what does Dumbledore mean when he says he's not a killer? Because he got lucky/unlucky?
> 
> I get what he means in context--Draco doesn't really want to murder somebody. That's true. And I understand why Dumbledore's saying that--he's basically telling him to go with that impulse because it'll make him happier (and people will not be killed if he doesn't do anything to kill them). After the scene on the Tower Draco is, imo, genuinely not a killer because he is a person consciously does not to kill. 

Pippin:
I think Dumbledore means something more than that. He says that the reason Draco failed so far is because they were such feeble attempts, so that he wonders, "whether your heart has been really in it." In other words, he thinks Draco unknowingly sabotaged himself. If Draco had whole-heartedly wished to kill, he would have brought to the task the same ingenuity and persistence that he gave to fixing the cabinet and communicating with Rosmerta. Instead he chose methods that were unlikely to reach Dumbledore and would probably be detected by such a powerful wizard if they did. 

Dumbledore could have turned Draco over to the Ministry and let them decide what should be done with him. But Dumbledore knew that regardless of what the Ministry decided, it wouldn't be able to stop Voldemort from killing Draco. Only he, Dumbledore, could do that and only if Draco remained at Hogwarts.  

That entailed some danger to the other students, but not necessarily more than if Draco had died at Voldemort's hands. Suppose Narcissa had had no reason to help Harry at the end? 

Magpie:
Because I do get the feeling that there's some quality that characterize some characters and not others and that this quality changes their actions in some way. Snape's a sadist while Harry is not, despite Snape stopping Crucios that Harry throws. James' bullying does seem put across as fundamentally different than, say, Draco's, even when the text draws clear parallels with their language. (The twins, too.) 

Pippin:
I think you're right. Some characters are habitually cruel, and some aren't. 

IMO, Harry  only occasionally tries to be cruel. Another poster described sadism as addiction, so perhaps we can draw an analogy with alcoholism. A non-alcoholic can get drunk and cause a fight or an accident. OTOH, an alcoholic may be able to avoid fighting or driving when he is drunk, but that doesn't mean he can control his drinking. 

So, a non-sadist can perform the cruciatus curse or attempt it occasionally, while a sadist may be able to choose not to use it. But he will have to find some outlet for his need to cause pain. And as an alcoholic may discover that he still needs to drink even if he hates himself for drinking, so a wizard addicted to causing pain may need to do that, even if he hates himself for it. And since Draco is good at occlumency, he may have the ability to shut down those thoughts and feelings that would inhibit him from performing the curse.

 I think Snape both likes and needs to cause pain, emotional if not physical, and it's become a habit. Harry has discovered the "like" for inflicting  pain but hasn't done it enough to make it a habitual need, IMO.  

IMO, James bullied to get attention, not because he liked or needed to see people suffer. A sadist would have been watching Snape grovel -- Snape never would have been able to go for his wand while James was distracted. The same is true of Fred and George -- sadists would never have stuffed Montague into a cabinet and made him disappear -- they'd have wanted to see what happened to him.

Pippin