Dragons, Produced and Tickled, and Other Pleasantries

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, silmariel <silmariel at t...> wrote:
 >
 > Yes yes, I have some OFH characters in mind and they don't quite  
overlap with
 > Snape but with Lucius, Mundungus, Slughorn... and particularly  
Voldemort, I
 > don't perceive any sense of belonging in him, he's all for  
himself. To guard
 > apparent allegiance to a wizard 1000 years dead is quite of an  
excuse, I'm
 > sure that if old Sally resurrected, they wouldn't join forces and  
happily
 > hunt the bad side (from their PoV). Voldemort won't accept  
anything or anyone
 > opposing to /him/, imo, not to his side.There's a reason that  
wizards don't
 > rule the world, it's called wizards... (waves to Pratchett)
 >
 > I can make a personality for both DDM and ESE Snape's that  
maintains behaviour
 > and speeches in canon, but I don't get anything coherent with OFH  
Snape, will
 > you explain how do you see him?
 >
 > But more particularly, I'd like to express my desbelief that Harry  
will be
 > able to notice the distinction between an OFH Snape and an ESE  
Snape. It will
 > be hard enough for him to make some sort of ammends with DDM  
Snape, but I
 > can't picture him entering in subtle distinctions between evil and
 > oportunist, detatched, egoist... regarding to Snape, of course, I  
don't say
 > he can't allow it in other characters who are not hated by him,  
but in Snape,
 > that figure of all that is bad in this world?
 >


It all depends on the POV, of couse - that's what makes it fun.
Not forgetting that our points of view are filtered through Harry's  
POV in many instances.

Yep, Lucius is OFH - he trims depending on the circumstances and  
climate of opinion and does very nicely as a result, thank you very  
much - until he commits himself too far at the end of OoP. Mind you,  
all is not lost - some of us suspect that he's had lines of  
communication with DD since CoS or before. He'd like to be the  
Talleyrand of the WW - what odds that he won't manage it? A judicious  
switch of allegiance, a cosying up to the right people at just the  
right moment - wouldn't put it past him. Better odds for him than for  
Draco is my bet.

Some of the others, well, might be worth reminding ourselves that  
individuals are driven by more than just an attachment to 'ideals'.  
The personal weighs heavy in the balance and is much closer to home.  
Some people just hate or admire certain other individuals - and that  
can colour the larger picture. Harry and Draco is a glaring example,  
Harry took against Draco on the fairly minor grounds that he was a  
snob and a snot and forever after nothing that Draco did would be  
viewed objectively. He's to blame - even when he isn't. Could well be  
that Sirius and Sevvy started that way too, certainly each had a  
strong antipathy for the other that seems to pre-date any significant  
single event. There's a possibility also that if Sirius hadn't palled  
up with James he'd have been a DE postulate just like his brother.  
Maybe he still was, "to thine own blood be true" however reluctantly  
(Jo does seem keen on linking blood with attitudes).

Others - well, Fudge was out of his depth, with delusions of adequacy  
and trapped by his own vanity - until it all fell apart.

Dear Dolly sees herself serving a higher power, an earthly one that  
she  has totally submitted herself to  - the Ministry  and whatever  
whims emanate therefrom have become her commandments, to be rammed  
through no matter how wrong or how disproportionate the cost. Whether  
she actively supports Voldy is moot given that her aims would hardly  
differ even if he was in charge.

Slughorn - hmm, tricky, not sure what's going on there. Call me after  
I've consulted the runes.

Still, there's plenty of scope for contrary opinions, the more  
devious the better IMO. A couple of months back I threw a Tom Lehrer  
quote into a post, and by changing a word or two it'd be apposite here:

"When correctly viewed,
All can be reproved.
(I could tell you things about Harry P,
And the Puppetmaster - that's evil DD!"

Part of the entertainment is constructing a case for the prosecution
against just about anyone in the series, and I think I'm right in saying
that no character has escaped without having a foul calumny or two
hurled at them at some stage of the proceedings. Splendid! Well done!
One can take enormous satisfaction in belonging to such a suspicious
and contrary bunch of paranoids.

IIRC it all started as a sort of joke - at least that's the way it  
seemed the
last time I prostrated myself before the collected wisdom of the drawers
of conclusions and hewers of reputations to be found in the FP files.  
The
Flying Hedgehog Brigade and the "Ooh! He/she *must* be Ever So Evil!"
Perversely Constructive Interpretation Crew were out to have a bit of
harmless fun. Since then outing ESEs and casting doubts on motives/
mindset has almost become an industry in itself - and there seems to
be a small minority (though not on this site, thankfully) that take some
aspects of it very seriously indeed.

Stereotypical good/bad, black/white characters and reputations are
no fun at all - just think how unsatisfactory Voldy is as a possible
subject for a bun-fight on the boards. He's a reg'lar baddun, no
discussion necessary,  the only possible disagreement is in regard
to his level of incompetancy. Compare and contrast with Tom. He
may well have been a nasty little shit, but probably not irredeemable.
That makes him more interesting, I think you'll agree.

IMO Voldy is the only cut-and-dried cast member who is either evil
*or* good. Harry certainly isn't, not with fragments/aspects of  
Voldyness
swanning round his mind. Throwing Crucio! curses around is not
indicative of a saintly personage - and one can either blame the
inclusions resulting from GH as character modifications (which
nevertheless are part of what makes Harry Harry) or conversely
speculate that he's not a paragon of virtue and truth even if their
effect is ignored - so he's flawed no matter what.

That can lead down some twisty paths. Not long after OoP came out
I threw in the observation that that damn Prophecy suggested that
Harry would be Voldy's equal, not his opposite; Harry could be a
Tom!Clone in more than the Unfortunate-Orphan-Loaded-With-
Magic-Plus-Paired-Wand similarities. Is it likely? Not really. But it
is possible. We've yet to see 'The Hero Tempted By The Dark Side'
or more particularly 'Using Evil Powers In An Attempt To Defeat Evil'
scenario - it never works, we all know that - but does Harry?

Not even DD is beyond reproach. No, we haven't seen him throwing
Unforgiveables about, though there was maybe a strong hint in his
phrasing when reporting his interrogation of Kreacher, and anyway,
how the hell did he defeat Grindelwald? Bury him in platitudes? He  
has the powers, MM points that out in bk 1, chap 1, and there's the  
intruiguing exchange with Voldy at the end of OoP - "We both know  
that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom" is his response  
to Voldy's taunts him about
him being above the brutality of trying to kill. And was DD  
attempting to
ensure that Tom suffered those other ways?

There's a fair argument for the conclusion that DD is not averse to
getting his hands dirty when he deems it necessary, or even when he
finds it convenient. He could have ensured that GH never happened,
he castigates himself for much of the misery in Harry's Muggle period,
but it didn't stop him from forging Weapon!Harry as the key to his  
plan. Nope, he's a pragmatist and that entails doing things you'd  
rather not and if a few eggs get broken while making an omlette,  
tough but so be it. At least, that was probably his original  
thinking; now though, he's witnessing the unpleasant consequences on  
individuals (particularly Harry) of actions made in the general good  
- and it's uncomfortable. Would  he have done things differently if  
he'd known then what he knows now? Probably not. No gloomy  
introspection of "conscience doth make cowards of us all" for him.   
High-minded morality is the preserve of post-facto commentators, it's  
not a luxury that can be afforded by a leader who must win at all  
costs, because there will be no second chance.

Then there's ole Snapey. Deary me, the words, pages, reams, nay -  
damn near libraries, that have been written about that character.  
It's awe-inspiring. And the disagreements and divisions remain as  
definite as ever. Is it us or was it intended that way? A secondary  
character that escaped the authors control, perhaps? Like Topsy, he  
just growed? IMO he's the only continuing character that has become  
more complex as  the series has progressed and is the main reason why  
I'll be in the queue on day 1 of the release of bk 7. I must find out  
the whys and wherefores of that man.

Ascribing what many of us perceive as the character shadings, the  
dualities, the contradictions and apparent complexities to authorial  
intent may be a mistake; it could just  as easily be fan perversity.  
Certainly herself expressed shock!horror at the number of Snape fans,  
Draco fans, Lucius fans.  It was not intended to  be that way yet   
somehow the readers (especially outside the younger age group) have  
interpreted the textual descriptions to reach their favoured  
conclusions. So for the time being what was probably intended has  
been overlooked or discarded in order to add a little extra for any  
particular reader. To take the simple and complicate it to make it  
even more interesting is what many do while they can.

Some love the idea of spiritual influences despite no evidence of any  
form of  coherent belief systems in the books. 'Karmic rebound'  is a  
phrase that turned up today, for example. 'Hoist by his own petard'  
is the everyday equivalent and since irony (given the author) has a  
higher probability than cod oriental mysticism, it'd hardly be a  
surprise to find it edging onto the page. Though equally it's hardly  
surprising that those interested in/attracted to mystic matters  
should be fans of fantasy; one feeds the other, I should think.  
Still, once again the reader interprets it in the way that suits them  
- and no one else. It's another form of theorising, really. Everybody  
has a chance to get in on  the act, and many do, either blatantly or  
subtly. We take what we want and stuff the rest under the mattress,  
telling everyone that that other bit is hardly worth bothering with.  
Meanwhile we wet the stone preparatory to grinding our own axes.

For example, fatty Vern is Jo's least favourite character. No matter  
that he's a joke figure she doesn't like him. He's a bully. He's  
nasty, does nasty things to Harry. Boo! But think - which does Vern  
hate more - Harry or magic? Hating the former is naughty, hating the  
latter would be totally justified, given the family history.

Punishments came when Harry showed his magical abilities - accidental  
or not, or asked about his magical parents. Not saying that Privet  
Drive would have been a bed of roses if Harry were normal, but life  
would have been a lot more pleasant than it has been throughout the  
books. Vern's dearest wish was to "knock that nonsense out of him" -  
he wanted Harry to be normal,  because he's afraid, he fears magic.  
It's unnatural and it kills. Gradually Harry  has become the  
personification of magic, growing more powerful every year. Worse,  
other wizards have made explicit threats. No wonder Vern's worried.  
Probably have a breakdown before the end. Poor Vern. And who'll be to  
blame? Young Potter and his geriatric sidekick, that's who.

Doubt whether herself would have much truck with such reasoning,  
"deserves everything he gets" might be closer to the mark, but well,  
I'm an old softy and can find sympathy for the most unlikely of  
characters. Besides, there's a chance it might reduce a reader or two  
to foaming-at-the-mouth outrage.

No matter. It's all  part of a larger whole - what the author  
intended has been overtaken by what readers want; many're busy  
drawing (what are to them) satisfactory conclusions about  
personalities and motives long before the actual conclusion of the  
story. The genie is out of the bottle, has been for a while, and  
though Jo may have attempted to enforce a measure of control through  
her website and via interviews, indeed did so to a certain extent,  
there still seems to be a hard core of fans who will persist in  
heretical thinking - "Wouldn't it be really interesting and more fun  
if it went this way?"
They could be right.

Kneasy