Dumbledore & Power / Serpensortia / Crouch Sr / Parselmouth

[Catlady (Rita Prince]

No: HPFGUIDX 189047

Nikkalmati wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/189031>:

<< [Dumbledore] also states he could never allow himself to exercise the power of the ministry. >>

While I believe that JKR intended that to be his good behavior, I view it as some combination of cowardice and hypocrisy. When Dumbledore's nation wanted him to become Minister for Magic and the alternative was Cornelius Fudge, he should have accepted and watched himself carefully to see if he was becoming irresponsible. Knowing that he had screwed up with power once means that he needs to be more careful with it next time, not that he should never risk it again. Like falling off a bicycle while learning to ride it doesn't mean one should give up trying to learn to ride a bicycle. Therefore, cowardice.

As for hypocrisy, perhaps Dumbledore was too busy admiring himself for refusing to be Minister that he didn't notice that he had immense power over the kids in his school (power to allow Filch to hang them in chains, power to send them into the Forbidden Forest at night without an adult, power to expel them) and he had life-and-death power over the  members of the Order of the Phoenix. In the case of the kids, he was observed by the teachers, the kids' parents, and supposedly by the Board of Governors. The teachers were willing to say 'Really, Dumbledore, do you think that's wise?' and the Board of Governors might not have needed Lucius Malfoy's threats to fire him if a student was killed because of something he had commanded. But in the Order, no one questioned him at all. That gives more risk of misusing that power than if he were Minister, with tons of people and Rita Skeeter discussing all his doings.

Carol was curious in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/189035>:

<< why Catlady thinks that Snape had Draco cast Serpensortia if it wasn't to find out whether Harry was a Parseltongue >>

I suppose I can't say that the author asked him to do it? 

I always thought that Snape had a preconceived and inaccurate notion that Harry was downright phobic of snakes, and that simply seeing a snake approach him would cause him to run away or wet his pants or something else embarrassing, tho' I can't imagine where Snape got that idea.

"Don't move, Potter," said Snape lazily, clearly enjoying the sight of Harry standing motionless, eye to eye with the angry snake. "I'll get rid of it ......

But the quote indicates that Harry really*was* afraid. Quite reasonable of him, given that the snake was in his face and trying to bit.

Carol wrote in <>:

<< I do think that Snape whispered Serpensortia in Draco's ear, knowing that he, Snape, could easily Vanish the conjured snake if the spell succeeds. At first, he seems satisfied that Harry is no more a Parseltongue than Draco is and calmly tells him to stand aside so that he can Vanish it, but when the snake goes after Justin Finch-Fletchley (which cannot be part of the plan) and Harry starts speaking Parseltongue to it, Snape's expression turns shrewd rather than surprised, suggesting that the incident was planned. >>

<< At first, he seems satisfied that Harry is no more a Parseltongue than Draco is and calmly tells him to stand aside so that he can Vanish it >>

So okay, if somehow Snape told Draco how to make sure that the snake would get into Harry's face, then it could have been an attempt to test if Harry was a Parselmouth. But considering that it not for Lockhart's interference, the test would have convinced Snape that Harry was *not* a Parselmouth, it wasn't that good a test, therefore not that good a plan. Severus and Draco should have made sure that the snake spoke to Harry ('Ouch! Being thrown down onto the floor hurt! I'll teach you!").

Montavilla47 wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/189038>:

<< Actually, the "moral" of Crouch, Sr. *appears* to be that a warning against extremism in pursuit of the greater good. Right? Doesn't Sirius's story tell us that you can become the enemy by giving up your principles in trying to destroy your enemy? >>

I'm not best pleased with Crouch Sr's LawnOrder policies and his political theatrics in the courtroom, but his problems came about because he was harboring that escaped convict Barty Jr. If it was really his beloved wife's last wish to use her impending death to rescue her beloved son, then it was his act of kindness and family love that did him in, which is ironic in terms of the morality expressed in the Potterverse, where *Death Eaters* are redeemed by family love. 

In any case, as it became more and more difficult to control young Barty under Invisibility Cloak and Imperius Curse, he should have turned him in. That would involve admitting that he had helped Jr escape, which would be a scandal and cost him his job and maybe some time in Azkaban himself. But he wouldn't have to admit that he used Imperius Curse. He could claim he had controlled Barty with full-body bind and confundation, and that Barty was lying when he claimed use of Imperius. I think he could have got off with just a couple of months.

This is a case, as was Pippin's Ever So Evil Lupin (and my fanfic Peter), of a person who committed one crime for what seemed like a good reason at the time, and then committed more and more crimes to cover up the first one.

Elkins posted a nine-part study of Crouch Sr, in which, if I understand correctly, Barty Sr's whole motive was to force Barty Jr to agree with him. That retrieving him from Azkaban was Mr's not Mrs's idea. And Mr never thought of turning that criminal he harbored over to the Law, because it was all a conflict between the two of them.

So I suppose the 'moral' of Crouch Sr is Don't hide escaped convicts in your home unless you really *know* that they are good guys like Sirius.

Zara discussed CoS Chapter 11 in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/189044>:

<< 6. What did you make of the COS revelations (its association with Slytherin and Dark Wizards) about this talent, before we learned if the soul bit in DH? >>

Like Hermione, I thought that after all this time, probably every pureblood (including Harry's father) was descended from all four Founders and a lot of other old-time famous people. That from whom one is descended may affect one's hair color and one's diseases, but not one's moral character. And that the theory that all Parselmouths are Dark is just a prejudice. "It is our choices, far more than our abilities, that show what we truly are."