![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
The first time I've read "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", I utterly hated it. Still do, as a matter as fact. And no, it wasn't the crappy writing or the story that upset me so much, but the awful character of Harry Potter.
Now, it isn't unusual for a children's book to start out with a disagreeable child as it's 'hero', but one would expect that child to undestand, through the course of the book, that it *has* been disagreeable, and then try to 'better itself'. "The Secret Garden" comes to mind.
Harry's story was different, however. I realised *how* different when Harry's attitude towards Snape didn't change after Harry had found out that his assumptions about the man had been false. Instead it was suggested by the author that Harry hadn't been wrong about Snape because "Snape was a mean bully of a teacher".
Point is, I never saw any "bullying mean teacher" at all. I saw a teacher who, when confronted with a disrespectful student in class tries to discipline said student, only to be frustrated by a manipulative Headmaster-with-an-agenda and an author who clearly can't stand anyone, real or fictional, being in authority over her self-insert protagonist.
For instance, in that infamous "first potions class" Snape's impromptu quiz is merely a reaction to Harry's insolence; Harry and Ron are making fun of Snape's introductory speech by "pulling up their eyebrows at each other". As I've said before, I've been in the same situation as a twelve-year-old, when a teacher, who turned and saw me whispering with a classmate, thoroughly embarrassed me, catching me out with an impromptu quiz. I hadn't been paying attention, and blustered and blabbered and I got the point: pay attention! I did not resent the teacher, or thought her "mean" because I had learned to respect a teacher's authority. And there's the rub.
I was born in 1965. All my teachers learned their trade in the fifties and sixties, if not earlier in some cases. Most of them, therefore, expected (quite rightly in my mind) their pupils to have learned to respect adults when coming to school, and as an extension to that, to respect a teacher's authority. And we did. So we learned a lot.
J.K. Rowling however, is of the opinion that her hero Harry is too good and important to pay respect to *anyone* (with the possible exception to her other self-insert Dumbledore), and certainly not to... certain groups of people.
Muggles? Barely human.
Slytherins?! Don't make me laugh.
And so Snape's attempts to have order in his classroom are constantly ridiculed as ineffective and "mean" and vilefied as "bullying".
Some of you might be so influenced by the autor's "voice" that you might agree with her. Ponder, however, the following excerpt from John Rosemond's, "Ending the Homework Hassle" :
In order for one person to learn something from someone else, that person must figuratively “look up” to the other. Without respect and admiration for the teacher’s knowledge and authority, the student will not learn much of value. At best, he may absorb lots of facts, but the likelihood is he will not be able to put them to much use.
Likewise, a child who does not come to school with a previously established respect for authority is not likely to become an effective learner. He will not understand why it is important for him to pay attention to the teacher or do what she (or he) tells him to do. He may also bring behaviour problems with him to school that further interfere with his ability to put his intelligence to good use.
He will probably interpret his teacher’s attempts to discipline him as indications they don’t like him. His parents, neither able nor willing to see their role in his problems, may even support this view. As he progresses through the grades, his attitude toward his teachers, and the educational process as a whole, will probably become increasingly cynical. In his mind, school will become a battleground of “me against them.”
His inability to understand the value of an education may lead him to drop out of school as soon as he is able. Regardless, he’ll probably drop out mentally sometime around junior high school. When he enters adult society, his disdain for authority, for the system, will follow and cause him untold problems throughout his life.
John Rosemond, Ending the Homework Hassle, pp 146-147
Does this not describe our Harry to a T?
So I urge you to take off the "Harry vision" goggles and look at what is really happening in those pages. Disregard all those mood-enhancing red herrings, all those "Harry saw Snape looking at him and knew that Snape was plotting evil deeds" and "Snape sneered" remarks. What the hell is a 'sneer' anyway? A grim smile? The world-weary face of a teacher who has too much of his plate and yet has to teach and guard a shitty little boy who clearly hates his guts?
Take away the disgusting bigotted remarks against Slytherins (so we must all think the worst of Snape for being the Ultimate Slytherin), take away the personal remarks about his greasy hair, his hooked nose and billowing cape (no wonder the American illustrator gave him whiskers, he sounds like the parody of a 19th century villain who constantly twirls his whiskers!) and take away Harry's misinterpretations of the man's actions (see above), and what do you have left?
Now, it isn't unusual for a children's book to start out with a disagreeable child as it's 'hero', but one would expect that child to undestand, through the course of the book, that it *has* been disagreeable, and then try to 'better itself'. "The Secret Garden" comes to mind.
Harry's story was different, however. I realised *how* different when Harry's attitude towards Snape didn't change after Harry had found out that his assumptions about the man had been false. Instead it was suggested by the author that Harry hadn't been wrong about Snape because "Snape was a mean bully of a teacher".
Point is, I never saw any "bullying mean teacher" at all. I saw a teacher who, when confronted with a disrespectful student in class tries to discipline said student, only to be frustrated by a manipulative Headmaster-with-an-agenda and an author who clearly can't stand anyone, real or fictional, being in authority over her self-insert protagonist.
For instance, in that infamous "first potions class" Snape's impromptu quiz is merely a reaction to Harry's insolence; Harry and Ron are making fun of Snape's introductory speech by "pulling up their eyebrows at each other". As I've said before, I've been in the same situation as a twelve-year-old, when a teacher, who turned and saw me whispering with a classmate, thoroughly embarrassed me, catching me out with an impromptu quiz. I hadn't been paying attention, and blustered and blabbered and I got the point: pay attention! I did not resent the teacher, or thought her "mean" because I had learned to respect a teacher's authority. And there's the rub.
I was born in 1965. All my teachers learned their trade in the fifties and sixties, if not earlier in some cases. Most of them, therefore, expected (quite rightly in my mind) their pupils to have learned to respect adults when coming to school, and as an extension to that, to respect a teacher's authority. And we did. So we learned a lot.
J.K. Rowling however, is of the opinion that her hero Harry is too good and important to pay respect to *anyone* (with the possible exception to her other self-insert Dumbledore), and certainly not to... certain groups of people.
Muggles? Barely human.
Slytherins?! Don't make me laugh.
And so Snape's attempts to have order in his classroom are constantly ridiculed as ineffective and "mean" and vilefied as "bullying".
Some of you might be so influenced by the autor's "voice" that you might agree with her. Ponder, however, the following excerpt from John Rosemond's, "Ending the Homework Hassle" :
In order for one person to learn something from someone else, that person must figuratively “look up” to the other. Without respect and admiration for the teacher’s knowledge and authority, the student will not learn much of value. At best, he may absorb lots of facts, but the likelihood is he will not be able to put them to much use.
Likewise, a child who does not come to school with a previously established respect for authority is not likely to become an effective learner. He will not understand why it is important for him to pay attention to the teacher or do what she (or he) tells him to do. He may also bring behaviour problems with him to school that further interfere with his ability to put his intelligence to good use.
He will probably interpret his teacher’s attempts to discipline him as indications they don’t like him. His parents, neither able nor willing to see their role in his problems, may even support this view. As he progresses through the grades, his attitude toward his teachers, and the educational process as a whole, will probably become increasingly cynical. In his mind, school will become a battleground of “me against them.”
His inability to understand the value of an education may lead him to drop out of school as soon as he is able. Regardless, he’ll probably drop out mentally sometime around junior high school. When he enters adult society, his disdain for authority, for the system, will follow and cause him untold problems throughout his life.
John Rosemond, Ending the Homework Hassle, pp 146-147
Does this not describe our Harry to a T?
So I urge you to take off the "Harry vision" goggles and look at what is really happening in those pages. Disregard all those mood-enhancing red herrings, all those "Harry saw Snape looking at him and knew that Snape was plotting evil deeds" and "Snape sneered" remarks. What the hell is a 'sneer' anyway? A grim smile? The world-weary face of a teacher who has too much of his plate and yet has to teach and guard a shitty little boy who clearly hates his guts?
Take away the disgusting bigotted remarks against Slytherins (so we must all think the worst of Snape for being the Ultimate Slytherin), take away the personal remarks about his greasy hair, his hooked nose and billowing cape (no wonder the American illustrator gave him whiskers, he sounds like the parody of a 19th century villain who constantly twirls his whiskers!) and take away Harry's misinterpretations of the man's actions (see above), and what do you have left?
Fair enough that Dumbledore would need the Elder Wand for the rest of his life, and couldn't afford to destroy it himself. Absolutely no reason for him not to help Snape destroy it after his death.
Lynn
Harry doesn't have the independence to think for himself. Dumbledore never suggested destroying the thing, so why should Harry consider it? For that matter, Harry would probably have though it disrespectful of Dumbledore's memory to destroy his old wand, unless Dumbledore's portrait told him to do it. I'm not surprised Harry didn't do it or try it.
Perhaps the Elder Wand couldn't've been destroyed, but no one would have known that unless they tried. It would certainly be worth a try. I can't imagine Dumbledore would have tried while he could still use it for himself, but he could have given Snape instructions to destroy it, or to try to.
Even if it turned out that the Elder Wand couldn't be destroyed by anything Snape could have done, that is a sound reason for Dumbledore giving him the information. But Dumbledore prefered to leave Snape ignorant, even though nothing would have been *lost* by Dumbledore giving Snape that information.
Lynn
True Dumbledore could have told Snape about the Wand. What would it have changed? Snape was not the Master of the Wand so what could he have done? He could not challenge Draco because of the Unbreakable Vow so that choice would have been out. I'm asking quite honestly, would Snape's knowing about the Wand have changed anything? Would it not in all honesty just have been another burden to carry? I'm not saying that Dumbledore should not have been honest with him, I'm asking if Snape knew about the Wand would that knowledge have kept him alive?
Voldemort was searching for a more powerful wand, he was not going to stop searching, in his mind he needed one to defeat Harry. Snape was known to have killed Dumbledore. Dumbledore was the the last owner of the Wand and Voldemort knew it. No matter what, the trail led to Dumbledore and then to Snape. Dumbledore did try and nullify the Wand with the assisted suicide from Snape but chance and Draco interfered. After that it was out of Snape's hands. The Wand was buried with Dumbledore, Draco was it's Master and there was nothing Snape could have done to prevent Voldemort from finding the Wand. Would knowing all this have helped, or hindered Snape?
Did Dumbledore make mistakes, yes he was human. Did he try to do his best, yes I genuinely felt he did. Did he plan for Snape to die over the Elder Wand, he probably felt there was a chance it would happen, but there was nothing he could do about it. Chips would have to fall where they were going to fall. That sounds cold but sometimes there is nothing you can do about what is going to happen. Snape like everybody else was caught up in the flow of events. Like it says on my sister's sweatshirt,
'Sometimes S*** Happens.' It's no one fault except Voldemort's. He made the decision to kill Snape just like he made the decision to kill many others. Snape I feel knew his chances were slim, but he didn't run away, he stayed and faced Voldemort
First, your idea that only the master of the wand could have destroyed it is speculation. Even if you're right, *Dumbledore* couldn't *know* that that was the case. (In order to know, he would have had to have successfully destroyed it himself, which he didn't do.)
Second, Dumbledore should have told Snape *before* his death. (If something is this important, you don't leave things up to chance -- what if Snape hadn't been able to return to Hogwarts and talk to the portrait?) Since the plan was for Snape to be the one to "defeat" Dumbledore, Dumbledore would have believed, before his death, that Snape would be the next master of the wand. That was presumably one of the big reasons why Dumbledore wanted Snape to be the one to kill him.
Someone should have tried to destroy the wand. If it couldn't be destroyed, then knowing what it really was would have made it possible to hide it well. Give it to someone to hide, then Obliviate them. Sorry, Dumbledore was thoroughly irresponsible about limiting the damage his wand could do after his death -- there were all kinds of things that might have been done to help, and Dumbledore made sure that no one could do any of them.
And Snape was first in the line of fire, which says something about how well Dumbledore treated him.
Lynn
summeriris
Yes I agree with you, Dumbledore could have spoken to Snape about it, he didn't. I don't think that equates to plotting Snape's death.
Let's say that Dumbledore did destroy the Wand and he told Snape. Would Voldemort have believed Snape? Would Snape have left that information lying about in his mind, or would it have been safely tucked away, hidden by Occlumency. The fact that the Wand existed was found out by Voldemort by following the trail. It led to Dumbledore and onto Snape. Dumbledore could never have Obliviated everybody who knew about it and Ollivander was well beyond his reach. Would Voldemort believe for a second that Dumbledore had willingly destroyed the most powerful wand in the world? I rather doubt it, he would have killed Snape anyway.
As I have stated before Dumbledore needed Snape alive. He needed him alive and in a position to know when Nagini would be protected by Voldemort. As we now know that did not happen till the middle of the Battle of Hogwarts. It was a very fine line and I think Dumbledore knew and apppreciated the danger Snape would be in, but there was nothing he could do to really lessen that danger. Both he and Snape knew Voldemort had to be stopped at all costs and give Snape credit where it is due, he put himself in harm's way to get to that end. Yes Snape stood in the line of fire, he was a soldier in a war against a great evil. That's what soldiers do, they stand in the line of fire.
The blame for Snape's death lies at Voldemort's door, no one elses. He started the War and Snape helped finish it.
Re: summeriris
I don't think you understand the concept of probability.
Letting Snape know about the Wand would have increased his chances of being able to protect himself, at the very least by giving up the pretense of loyalty and fleeing in search of Potter, because he would know NOT to respond to Voldemort's summons when it drew close to the end. If he knows what Voldemort wants he can plan accordingly, and thus his chances of living INCREASE. He'd still be in danger, but he would have greater control over just how much. NOT knowing puts him at a severe disadvantage. If he has NO REASON to suspect that Voldemort would want to kill him while he is still useful and apparently loyal, he CANNOT TAKE PRECAUTIONS to protect himself. And thus he is in MORE danger than otherwise. This additional level of danger is the direct, foreseeable and utterly preventable result of Dumbledore's decision not to mention the Wand to Snape.
If Snape did not know about the Wand - and he has no reason to think it anything other than a legend up until the moment of his death - he would have no reason to suspect that Voldemort might have a pressing reason to kill him and thus could do nothing to protect himself or remove himself from the line of fire - for example, by refusing Voldemort's summons to the Shack and going to find Potter directly. Or by pointing out that DRACO disarmed Dumbledore and maybe DISARMING him would get Voldemort what he wants without ANYONE dying over it, thus keeping himself AND Draco safe. Or any of dozens of other possibilities that never got to be explored because HE DIED without any WARNING that Voldemort would specifically want to kill him.
I honestly don't see what is so difficult to grasp here. Unless, of course, it simply is too much to admit that - intentionally or not - Dumbledore is partly responsible for Snape's death. I suspect this conversation is pointless.
Re: summeriris
"“I believe that your wand imbibed some of the power and qualities of Voldemort’s wand that night, which is to say that it contained a little of Voldemort himself. So your wand recognized him when he pursued you, recognized a man who was both kin and mortal enemy, and it regurgitated some of his own magic against him, magic much more powerful than anything Lucius’s wand had ever performed. Your wand now contained the power of your enormous courage and of Voldemort’s own deadly skill: What chance did that poor stick of Lucius Malfoy’s stand?”
“But if my wand was so powerful, how come Hermione was able to break it?” asked Harry.
“My dear boy, its remarkable effects were directed only at Voldemort, who had tampered so ill-advisedly with the deepest laws of magic. Only toward him was that wand abnormally powerful. Otherwise it was a wand like any other. . . though a good one, I am sure,” Dumbledore finished kindly."
JK Rowling Deathly Hallows
The implications there are that under certain circumstances Harry's wand could not be broken and this leads me to believe that the Elder Wand could not be destroyed physically either. The Stone in the Ring survived the destruction of the Ring Horcrux. This is where he speaks directly about Snape;
"Voldemort believes that the Elder Wand removes his last weakness and makes him truly invincible. Poor Severus. . . .”
“If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end up with the Elder Wand, didn’t you?”
“I admit that was my intention,” said Dumbledore, “but it did not work as I had intended, did it?”
“No,” said Harry. “That bit didn’t work out.”" JK Rowling Deathly Hallows.
Now what is interesting is that he doesn't say that Snape didn't know about the Wand. So perhaps Snape knew and just put it out of his head. It's a possibility.
Re: summeriris
This is not to deny Voldemort killed Snape or to deny Snape's willingness to risk his life. There is no need for Dumbledore to actually assist in the process.
Re: summeriris
Yes, precisely, thank you. It's the difference between a certain level of general risk and a specific very heightened risk in addition to that. Of course Severus is at risk always with Voldemort - because he is a *spy* and if Voldemort *discovers* that, then he is toast. Or if he should cease to be of any use whatsoever to Voldemort, he might then also find himself at the wrong end of a wand. But these risks are 1) known to Severus and 2) relatively manageable. As long as he can be seen as useful and loyal, he is relatively safe, because Voldemort wants him to keep being a useful DE-Headmaster.
This is the situation up until Voldemort figures out that Dumbledore had the wand, and it is the situation that Severus *believes* to be still the case all along, up until his death. However, as soon as Voldemort learned about Dumbles having the wand, the risk to Severus increased dramatically, from mere risk of death, should something go wrong, to virtual *certainty* of death unless and until he took steps to flee/protect himself. But since he did not *know* about the new risk - thanks to Dumbledore - he did not *know* he ought to be preparing for Voldemort to kill him. He thought he had the situation under control and thus that he was (relatively) safe for the moment. Dumbledore's silence took away his possibility of protecting himself from this risk, a particular risk Severus knew nothing about.
(I really do not understand why this is proving so difficult to communicate. Do you?)
Even if it was impossible to destroy the wand, the correct place to put it is somewhere inaccessible that nobody would guess. Volcanoes come to mind. Or deep ocean faults. Hermione tells us that in order to summon it one needs to know where it is.
And we know that a non-master can move the wand, so there is nothing to prevent a non-master from placing it in such an inaccessible location. And Obliviating hirself of the memory of having done so, as an extra measure of safety.
Can you Obliviate yourself? I truthfully don't think so. Look what happened to Lockhart when his Obliviate spell rebounded on him.
Of course you can. Lockhart ended up the way he did because that was how strong he intended his Obliviation of the boys to be. But we see the spell being used to lesser effect (Hermione's use on Rowle and Dolohov) so I can't see why one couldn't do that to oneself. In any case, one can implant a false memory like Tom does to Morfin and Hokey, or as Lynn proposed, have someone else hide it without telling where it went and modify that person's memory.
I could maybe consider Obliviating yourself if the only occasion we see it done was by Lockhart and lets' face it, he was not a great Wizard. Just how would you do it? Hold your wand to your head and say Obliviate. You would forget what you were doing halfway through. I don't think it possible to cast a spell on yourself, we never see one person doing it apart from the Amamagis and that seems to be an incantation.
The big problem with false memories is that they are so patently false. Yes, you could have someone else hide it and then Obliviate their memory, but truthfully I don't see what it was that Harry did that was so wrong. You know most people don't go grave-robbing in the UK, there's a fairly strong taboo against it, think Burke and Hare. Voldemort was the exception to the rule. All Harry would have to do was magically transfer the Wand to the Tomb and not tell anyone. I think that was probably what he did. The Tomb was in plain site and everybody would know if it had been disturbed. Voldemort went to a lot of trouble to hide and protect his Horcruxes and each and every one of them was found. And he told no one. Not only that, because the places were so hidden he didn't know they had been destroyed till well after the fact. I think Harry did the simplest thing and it was also the best thing. Remember just because it was in the Tomb does not mean there wasn't a spell or two on the Tomb to protect it.
For anyone but Harry, who was first protected by Lily's sacrifice, then by having the wand that was the brother of Tom's, then by Albus, then by sharing Tom's blood. He never actually fought Tom with his own power or abilities. No, Harry's fights with Tom are no indication of his ability in a fight against anyone else. Severus beats Harry with hardly trying. And we see how to beat Harry in OOTP. Force him to give up is wands by holding someone as a hostage. But anything works - Accio his regular wand from his pocket. Anyone who gains control of any of Harry's wands (and he has 3 by the end of the battle) is Master of the Elder Wand. They know this is how it works because he gave the whole exposition in that silly stand-off with Tom.
Just how would you do it? Hold your wand to your head and say Obliviate. You would forget what you were doing halfway through.
Not true, because the spell only starts operating once you complete the incantation.
I don't think it possible to cast a spell on yourself, we never see one person doing it apart from the Amamagis and that seems to be an incantation.
Ludo Bagman casts Sonorus on himself several times. Also, the kids learn to transfigure themselves in 6th year. Then there is the unaided flying we see in DH.
You know most people don't go grave-robbing in the UK, there's a fairly strong taboo against it, think Burke and Hare.
Anyone who really wants the Elder Wand is beyond taboos, someone like that isn't 'most people'. It would be way too easy to track it down. Tom's case was different because few people knew Riddle was Tom in the first place (thanks, Albus), few people knew what Horcruxes were (the knowledge was suppressed by Albus and I'd guess also by Tom, each for a different reason; by now only old families that managed to remain independent of both might possibly still have the information; though Harry's speech in the Great Hall may have generated new interest in those of the wrong inclination), and nobody besides Horace and Albus even considered the possibility that he made more than one.
But here both Harry and Tom acknowledge in public that the Elder Wand was real, everyone sees it, they receive what looks like clear evidence that Harry is, as he claims, the master, as well as detailed information how that happened. Anyone with an interest would know rumors reporting what was said and would know to obtain either of Harry's wands. Once s/he has one and finds it isn't made of elder, s/he would think where someone like Harry might think of hiding the real one. There are several places to try, but not all that many. (BTW if protecting the tomb could have helped, why didn't Albus instruct Severus to do so? Either it isn't much help or Albus wanted Tom to gain physical access to the wand.) Harry might have enough warning to move the wand then - unless the thief does hir search prior to disarming Harry.
I think the fact that false memories are possible is why wizarding justice is messed up. The ones in the know don't want the general public to find out so they avoid using Pensieves in court because they don't want the tales of arguments about authenticity of memories to become public knowledge.
As for Harry, the boy is emotionally stunted, self-centered, not very thoughtful. Has very little ability to think beyond 'how can I please Dumbledore' and 'people I don't like are evil, people I like are the greatest, especially if they admire me, give me stuff or let me get away with stuff'.
His words to Al are supposed to show how much he has grown, but they show how much he still misses the point. He tells Al that being a Slytherin isn't all that bad because Slytherins can still be brave, even braver than Gryffindors. He doesn't tell Al that bravery isn't the only measure of humans that is of value (and perhaps there isn't one measure that trumps all others). Which goes to show the pernicious outcome of sorting young, under-socialized children by their character or values, to be raised in rival subcultures, a practice that continues in the following generation. The next Dark Lord (or Lady) is just around the corner as the series ends.
“You see what you expect to see, Severus,” said Dumbledore, without raising his eyes from a copy of Transfiguration Today. “Other teachers report that the boy is modest, likable, and reasonably talented. Personally, I find him an engaging child.” JK Rowling The Deathly Hallows.
I think he is all of those things and so it would seem does the largest part of Harry Potter fandom. After all it is named after him. He is the undisputed hero of the books and his action are those of a very brave and recourseful hero.
First, his poor leadership of the Order between Moody's death and the battle, see Terri's essay I had linked to. Second - because he is a wizard. Wizard society simply lacks the collective accumulated knowledge we Muggles have in the areas of history, moral philosophy, psychology and political science to even approach anything of a well functioning political system. So, what do you base your assessment of Kingsley on?
That sentence from Albus was apparently made early in PS. How could he say that he personally found him an engaging child if he never interacted with him at that point? He was just making stuff up to antagonize Severus.
My assessment of Harry is based on his behavior as shown in the books. Quoting Dan Hemmens from memory, the series is a story about someone repeatedly failing to grow up. Being brave and sometimes resourceful (but often just plain lazy, passive, entitled and bratty) is not what I'd look for in a reformer. Nor would I want one who is shown at the very end of the series giving tacit approval to Muggle-hexing. Now, if I thought a coalition of say, Percy, Draco and Neville was working together behind the scenes there'd be some hope for improvement, but again, not much, simply because of the insular nature of wizarding society.