Occlumency VERY VERY LONG

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 191721





.> > Alla:
> >
> > I know I am stating the obvious, but I am not obligated to respect the
> > opinions of fictional characters, only real people.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> See, to me, that *isn't* obvious. Because, if fictional characters are 
> written with any type of insight and accuracy, their opinions will be 
> opinions shared by at least some real people. I think I've made it 
> pretty clear over the years that there are occasions where I think I 
> have the same opinions about certain aspects of the Wizarding World as I 
> think certain of the characters have. Now, I now understand you see 
> things differently on this issue and that's fine, but to me, the 
> distinction you seem to making here is one that would lead me to not 
> bother discussing the books at all if I shared it - because none of it 
> would matter at all.

Alla:

Sorry, I meant to say that I was speaking about the obvious fact that characters were fictional and for me it is obvious that I can freely pick and choose whether to respect their opinions or not.  I am going to try to make few more clarifications. Again, please forgive me for snipping major a lot of it, I honestly just do not see the point .. I am not trying to have a last word and maybe out of those clarifications we can talk about some other things, but we shall see how it goes. 
> 
> .> Shaun:
> 
> I agree you have the right to think anything you like, even if you 
> wouldn't act on it in certain cases out of respect for the rights of 
> others to decide things for themselves, but, where I find that difficult 
> is when it seems that people assume that if others disagree with them, 
> it must be because they are 'bad' or 'evil' or 'wicked' or whatever word 
> people choose to use and based on the assumption extrapolate all sorts 
> of other ideas from it.

Alla:

Which people are we talking about here? Characters or real life people? If we are talking about real life people, I would not just not act on it in certain cases, if it were up to me, I would not act on it in ANY case, unless people want somebody else to interfere. But my thoughts are totally different story.

Shawn: 
> Let me try and explain what I mean by that (and please note, I am not 
> intending to accurately describe your position here - I can't because I 
> can't know the exact details of it as I can't read minds, I'm just 
> trying to illustrate a point).
> 
> "Snape uses legilemency on Harry. I think that's an invasion of privacy. 
> That means he treats Harry with disrespect by invading his privacy. I 
> will therefore assume from now on that Snape disrespects Harry in all 
> areas." and from then on every time Snape does something involving Harry 
> disrespect is assumed. And so every time an incident happens between 
> Snape and Harry happens, a person looks for a way it could be viewed 
> through this lens and not surprisingly they find it because they are 
> looking for it, and it becomes further 'proof' of their position.
> 
> Contrast with
> 
> "Snape uses legilemency on Harry. I think that's an invasion of privacy 
> - but is that the reason Snape does it? Maybe he does this because part 
> of his duty as a teacher in loco parentis requires him to maintain a 
> reasonable level of supervision and Harry is a student we know has a 
> tendency to do dangerous things and to break rules, and perhaps in 
> Wizarding society, legilemency of a student by a teacher wouldn't be 
> seen as a significant invasion of privacy. Snape could just be trying to 
> protect Harry.
> 
> That latter case doesn't mean the opinion of legilemency changes. The 
> personal opinion of it remains the same ("I think that's an invasion of 
> privacy") . But the second case allows for the fact that other people 
> may see it differently and that therefore their motivations in using it 
> may be quite different.
> 
> People are fully entitled to believe legilemency is a violation of 
> privacy. But *unless* Snape sees it that way as well, there's no reason 
> to assume his use of legilemency is intended to do something 'bad' to 
> Harry. His intentions may be good.

Alla:

I here what you are saying, but no you are not describing my position correctly. I think here is how I would describe it - Legilimency is a violation of privacy, which I think is an evil method to use and I would consider it an evil method to use, no matter *who uses it on whom* and no matter how those characters see it. It just so happens that two of my most hated characters use it often, but I take an issue with an action, not with the character, even though I have plenty of issues with these two characters. It certainly adds up to the list of their evil deeds for me, but again, I see what they *do* as evil, not - "I would characterize their actions as evil, just because I already think of them as evil".




>.> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Harry Potter *is* the chosen one. Dumbledore didn't make him so. He 
> *has* to put all his hopes in the fact that Harry will be willing to die 
> to get rid of Voldemort because that is what the prophecy requires. And 
> what he actually does in the long term is equip Harry to fulfil the 
> prophecy in a way that does allow him to live. 

Alla:

Not in my opinion, especially due to his wavering stance on how much faith he put in prophecies. How many percents of those prophecies in the Department of mysteries came true? Dumbledore cant seem to pick whether prophecy is a relevant tool, or not, but even if the prophecy is relevant and 100% reliable, it does not say in the prophecy that Harry is not allowed to be helped, it does not say that others in meantime cannot hunt Voldemort, raise a war on him in order to very least kill his Death eaters.

Shawn: 
> Severus Snape is a teacher who, even if he does hate the sight of Harry 
> Potter, is also committed to protecting the boy. A teacher doesn't have 
> to like their students to teach them. A student doesn't have to like 
> their teacher to learn from them.

Alla:

And I would say that he is not only committed to protect Harry Potter's life but also committed to humiliate, mock and abuse him every second of that life. I do not consider protecting his life in that situation (as I see it of course) an action worthy of respect. I would considered Snape much worthy of respect if he refused Dumbledore and thus forced Dumbledore to choose another protector. 


Shawn: 
> We know that the wizarding world does regard certain spells as off 
> limits. Forbidden. Use of them leads to a life sentence in Azkaban. It 
> does regulate spells it considers beyond the pale. Three of them - 
> Imperio, Crucio, and Avada Kedavra. It doesn't place Legilemency in that 
> league.

Alla:

Even Lexicon speculates that Legilimency must be tightly regulated, while not in league with these three spells, I do not see it as such unreasonable speculation.




.> Shaun:
> 
> And yet, we are then presented with a epilogue that shows no sign that 
> in two decades *anything* at all has changed. To me, the epilogue shows 
> that everything has continued more or less as it was.

Alla:

And I do not see the sign that nothing changed either - except that Houses still exist. Now, I know that interviews are not canon, and of course what is not on page did not happen, but I think it is very relevant that the intent to write significant change (which trio mostly provided according to JKR) was there, but of course I wish she would put it in the book.


.> Shaun:
> 
> No, that's not what I said. Whether Snape would have forced him or not, 
> is, in my view irrelevant. Just because a teacher doesn't *force* a 
> student to obey when they are disobedient, doesn't mean the student 
> wasn't disobedient. There are numerous reasons why it may not be worth 
> forcing the issue.
> 
> The situation in this case is serious enough that I suspect further 
> efforts would have been made to make Harry attend the lessons. 
> Personally, if I was Dumbledore, in that case I would get McGonnagall to 
> carpet Harry and make it very clear he's expected to do this, and I 
> would have expected that to work.

Alla:

Sure, your scenario could be right. 


.> Shaun:
> 
> No, to make sure he doesn't sneak out again *in the future*. Not right 
> now. When I get a boy to turn out his pockets so I can check if he has 
> cigarettes, I'm rarely worried about him smoking in the next two 
> minutes. I'm worried about something more long term than that.
> 
> As has been pointed out (and I've also mentioned above) there is the 
> additional risk that Sirius Black might use this method to get into the 
> school, but that one hadn't occurred to me and wasn't part of my 
> thinking until I read it. What I was thinking was working out how to 
> stop Harry sneaking out of the school again in future.

Alla:

I agree with that additional reason, I definitely do not see how it would stop Harry from sneaking out in the future, I see him wanting to do it again to do it to spite Snape.


.> > Alla:
> >
> > I dont know. Maybe he did not have time to dive too deep, but more
> > likely to me is that he was toying with Lupin, because whether he knew
> > that this was a map, he certainly seemed to be very familiar with the
> > nicknames.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Except he doesn't find out the nicknames until after he's already 
> started his investigation.

Alla:

So? You mean when they showed up on Map? Of course, my point is that he knew the nicknames already. Sorry, confused again.


.> Shaun:
> 
> Sirius was about 21 when James and Lily died (as were they, of course). 
> At 21, Dumbledore was able to predict that Sirius would turn out to be a 
> 'bad influence'? That doesn't make sense to me at all. One thing 
> Dumbledore should have worked out in many, many years at Hogwarts is 
> that irresponsible kids grow up.

Alla:

Sorry it makes plenty of sense to me, considering the fact that Dumbledore made sure to take Harry away from his very legally appointed guardian, and yes, I know Sirius was about to do a very rash and very irresponsible thing, but could Dumbledore predict that then? No, I think Dumbledore wanted to do everything in his power that Harry would abused and scared and miserable after living with Dursleys and would look at Dumbledore as god and do anything Dumbledore would want him to do and would go and die because Dumbledore raised him to that. 


> 
> > Alla:
> >
> > Basically what I am trying to say is that I agree with your last
> > sentence - we dont know what doctrine applies in WW and before you say
> > it, yes, I know that JKR is British :) and that a lot of things in
> > Hogwarts are done based on how British private schools are run or were
> > run. However, having said it, I maintain that we cannot be sure what
> > inspired the artist to write any specific thing in her stories. Yes,
> > Hogwarts could mostly be done based on British private schools, but it
> > is not a documentary about how British school was run, right?
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> No, but Hogwarts is a very close match for a certain type of British 
> school in many ways. It's very clear to me that JKR had a particular 
> model of school in mind in her design of Hogwarts. Houses, Prefects, 
> Masters - it virtually all rings true to that model, *except* when it 
> comes to the specific things that need to differ for her magical world 
> to work. I've read my share of fanfiction written by Americans and it 
> really jars when an American writer puts something they are used to in 
> American education that doesn't really exist in the same way in 
> traditional British education (typical American cheerleaders, for 
> example) because the model is so close. And, the doctrine of in loco 
> parentis is a very large part of why those schools have developed the 
> way they have. I'd need to write a large essay to go into that (and I am 
> actually writing a history of education at the moment).
> 
> Anyway, for now, that's it :)
>


Alla:

And you are most likely right, but I maintain that we dont know what caused her to write any specific thing in the books. As I said I am fully aware that Hogwarts is mostly based on british boarding school, but Potter series are not nonfictional description of those schools. She added and changed things freely as she saw fit. I dont think that to assume inspiration from other sources as well is that unreasonable, personally. To go back to my caning example - if she would not changed a single thing, wouldnt that be more reasonable to assume that Hogwarts kids were still physically punished since at the very least in 19 century it was spread out? She chooses to abandon it, maybe she based it on the schools that do not 

And Shawn, you know that I did not go to high school or college in America, I grew up within totally different educational system, I am unlikely to suggest that America's educational values are the very best in the world, trust me on that! I already see how the kid of six is being taught and it often makes my teeth cringe and in a very bad way. But I also do not find a lot of things which you are describing about British and Australian educational system worthy of admiration. Work of fiction often has themes that people from different countries are able to relate to and like. What I am trying to say that exaggerating as it sounds, I will not be surprised if for example JKR was inspired by something which she read about happening say in Chinese school. Hope it makes sense.

Alla