Lack of re-examination SPOILERS for Corambis and Tigana

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 186607

> > 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. 

a_svirn:
Yes, that's a fine example of Dumledore's peculiar logic. Draco's attempts had been "feeble" only as far as Dumbledore was concerned. They had, however, proved to be very nearly lethal for two people and could have easily brought about more deaths. So was Draco "not a killer" because he was unconsciously reluctant to murder Dumbledore specifically? Being at the same time unconsciously (and, presumably, consciously) fine with murdering innocent bystanders does not cause the loss of innocence? An interesting spin on this whole "not-a-killer-at-heart" spiel, but even this weird explanation does not stand the scrutiny. Because, you know, Draco did put a lot of ingenuity into repairing the cabinet. And his work on the cabinet ... yes, brought about Dumbledore's murder. So judging by Dumbledore's own standards Draco put a lot of ingenuity in the task of murdering him. All of which would seem to point out that he was in fact "a killer at heart" even if he didn't kill in practice. 


> 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. 

a_svirn:
I am not sure that sadism is an "addiction", actually. But even if we go by your analogy with alcoholism, do you think we should cut some more slack for a non-alcoholic who fought and killed someone while inebriated then to an alcoholic who did the same? I don't think so. And I'll bet most people don't think so. But that's exactly what we are invited to do in the books. Repeatedly. When a bad guy tortures it just demonstrates his or her inner badness. When a good guy tortures it's, well, just a minor quirk. An exception under the extreme provocation. Perhaps it's not even torture? After all, it's a good guy we are talking about. 

Not that I think alcoholism is a good analogy, because it's not a character trait, but a medical condition. You may be an alcoholic, but if you steer clear of the bottle, you are not a drunkard and that what matters. 

> Pippin:
> 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. 

a_svirn:
Aren't we told insistently that it is our choices that matter? If a sadist chooses not to practice sadism, then how come s/he's a sadist? Would it not mean that s/he is not a sadist, after all? What's the point of all those redemption talk if no matter what you are doing (or not doing as the case may be) you are still what you are in the darkness of your heart? 

> Pippin:
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.

a_svirn:
Wait a minute. Is Draco a sadist at heart too? A sadist who hates his own sadism so much that when a much needed outlet is given to him on a silver platter he can only practice sadism with the help of Occlumency? It seems a bit too convoluted until you recall that using Occlumecy is a conscious act, which makes all this at heart/in practice dichotomy rather irrelevant. 

> Pippin:
>  I think Snape both likes and needs to cause pain, emotional if not physical, and it's become a habit.

a_svirn:
If it's become a habit, then he chooses to use it. You can't become accustomed to something you don't practice. 

> Pippin:
> IMO, James bullied to get attention, not because he liked or needed to see people suffer. 

a_svirn:
I guess the failure to appreciate the difference was just another sign of Snape's "habitual cruelty". He just judged James by his own standards, that was it. 

> Pippin:
A sadist would have been watching Snape grovel -- Snape never would have been able to go for his wand while James was distracted. 

a_svirn:
You mean sadists can't get distracted? Huh. Good for them.

> Pippin:
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.

a_svirn:
Can sadists be deterred from admiring their handiwork by other considerations? Like the desire to avoid being caught red-handed? I seem to remember Fred and George were very willing to see what had happened to Dudley.