Update: As long as we’re back on “Stoppered Death,” I always like to take every chance I get to point my readers to Felicity’s explication of the theory. It’s very well done, explaining how it is that it answers all the major pressing questions of HBP (great for those of you who doubt the beautiful simplicity of “Stoppered Death”), and it sets it in the context of other great potions used in the book.
John Granger has weighed in on the recent Rowling quote about Dumbledore, and he’s proposed an interesting theory. I’m going to sort of live-blog my thinking on this, so forgive any random tangents. Ultimately, the point of this exercise is to bring Cathy Liesner’s “Stoppered Death” theory to bear on the recent Dumbledore speculation. (Be sure to listen to PubCast #18 and read the write-up in the post for my initial contribution to this subject).
John’s theory goes something like this: Dumbledore is dead. He’s been dead for quite some time (since the attempt to disarm the ring horcrux), but he’s been in a state of “stoppered death” due to Snape’s skillful potions work, since that time. Half-Blood Prince is Dumbledore’s time to get his affairs in order before he dies, as he knows he soon must. So far I’m with John here, and this is exactly what I believe about Dumbledore’s death, ever since John publicized and popularized Cathy Liesner’s “Stoppered Death” theory.
John presses forward based on Rowling’s statement to Radcliffe: “Stoppered Death” continues to hold its effect on Dumbledore after the AK on the Tower. John actually suggests that Horace administered it to him at the bottom of the tower. This seems like “too late” to me, and I think I’d suggest instead that a “stoppered death” potion that is already affecting a dead man would continue to have the same effect on any subsequent “deaths” until the potion wears off. Hence, the effects of the stoppered death potion are evident when the green potion of death killed Albus again in the cave. He suddenly vivified because the potion was having its effect (the alternate here is that Albus pulled a bottle from his cloak while Harry was distracted by the inferi, but the effects of the green potion seem too potent for him to have recovered his presence of mind). My guess is that John’s struggle over whether Dumbledore took the potion after the Ring horcrux caper or the AK on the tower can be solved by assuming that, like Wolfsbane potion, Stoppered Death needs to be taken regularly to maintain its effect. So Dumbledore’s been continually on the stuff since the Ring horcrux was destroyed.
What’s attractive about this theory is that it does justice to all the actual canon evidence and Rowling quotes that we presently have. (This, John, in my opinion, is much, much better than Dumbledore dying somewhere off-stage and being played by Slughorn or Snape throughout HBP). Let’s review it quickly:
- It doesn’t contradict Rowling’s statement that “Dumbledore is definitely dead.”
- It wouldn’t be “doing a Gandalf,” precisely, because there’s no resurrection type thing involved (see below for an objection to this).
- It nicely fits her unwillingness to answer the question, “How can he really be dead” and the mysterious statement to Radcliffe recently.
- It doesn’t do violence to Dumbledore’s character. He’s not playing a trick on the wizarding world. He’s letting the WW say goodbye, since he won’t be appearing to them again anyway, and after all, he is really dead. He just needs to stay behind the scenes for the final chapter.
So, technically, it fits. Here are two objections that need to be considered:
- Rowling would have to be very narrowly defining what “doing a Gandalf” means, because for most readers, doing a Gandalf means we thought he was dead and we wouldn’t see him again, and suddenly he’s back. It would be hard to imagine Dumbledore showing up in Book 7 and readers not saying, “Hey! She said he wouldn’t do a Gandalf!” And then Rowling responding with, “Well, right, he didn’t. He didn’t fight a Balrog in the mines of Moriah, descend to his death, and rise again as a more powerful wizard than before.”
- We have to consider the literary implications of the mythological “Hero’s Journey.” The whole point of Dumbledore’s death is that Harry now has to go it alone as the hero (as I said in PubCast #18). It would be hard to imagine what Dumbledore’s role would be, precisely, if not to help Harry defeat Dumbledore. And if that’s his role, it violates the hero’s journey.
I think these are weighty objections that ultimately hurt the theory, but I tend to measure theories based on whether or not Rowling can pull off a good story with them (as long as the theory is consistent with what we know of Rowling’s writing already), and I think she could with this.
Ultimately, whether Dumbledore is still a walking dead man in Book 7, or entombed and consumed by fire as we saw, “Stoppered Death” is a key to understanding Rowling’s mysterious quotes (”I can’t answer that [question about how Dumbledore died]” and “Dumbledore’s giving me trouble”). She can’t explain how he died because Stoppered Death is the secret key to understanding Snape’s loyalty to Dumbledore while firing the AK, and since this will all have to be explained in Book 7, Dumbledore’s character is still giving Rowling difficulty.
revgeorge on 
Lily Luna on 
Arabella Figg on 
Travis Prinzi on 
Loading ...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 89 comments… read them below or add one }
Wonderful post as always, Travis.
Two quick points. I tried to say that the stopper could have been put in Dumbledore’s death either before the story opens or as the story ends. I don’t know which one and I’m not sure it matters. Dumbledore has died — and remains among the living because of the stoppering potion, be it administered by Severus in June or Horace in the moonlight under the Tower. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear enough in saying that I didn’t think it was both times. Like a real stopper, I don’t think it needs to be “renewed” as long as someone doesn’t take it out.
Whoever drinks the potion by Lake Inferi (I side with Professor Mum in thinking the textual evidence points to Snape as P!Dumbledore there), this person in dropping to the ground after the 12th chalice shows the exact symptoms Ron does after taking a bezoar earlier in the book. The scenes by the Lake and on the Tower are both edifying melodramas; I assume they’re both staged (and I know I’m lonely in this belief!). Even if they’re not, though, the bezoar is the neatest solution for the Dumbledore figure’s rapid recovery almost sans hangover after drinking down a birdbath of poison-potion.
Your two objections to Stoppered Death in light of Ms. Rowling’s comments are well taken. Gandalf, as one of the three Christ figures of the LOTR, rises from the dead and is more powerful than before. Every reader of LOTR knows this but I think you’re right that there will be howling if the Headmaster returns in strength or even if he just returns at all.
If he returns as a shadow of himself, however, at book’s end to reconcile Harry with Severus or, at least, with what Severus and Albus have been doing back stage all these years, I doubt there would be much of a fuss. In this role, the Headmaster isn’t the player in the final drama he would otherwise be, which would satisfy your second objection. If Ms. Rowling is having trouble with the old guy, it’s probably figuring out how and when to deploy him (he’s a big presence to keep under wraps, no?).
Anyway, I think Ms. Leisner’s Stoppered Death theory as originally conceived (as explanation of the withered arm) or applied under the Tower reconciles Ms. Rowling’s seemingly conflicting answers to the Rushdies at Radio City. Snape is good, the death on the Tower was staged, and Dumbledore died. It’s just that this death was not what we thought it was.
Which, as misdirection and surprise are potent, oft-repeated themes in these books, shouldn’t shock us. Right?
Thank you again for your comments on this HogPro post!
John, thanks for your clarifications. You were probably plenty clear; I was just reading fast! In any case, I think we’ve come to agreement that some form of Stoppered Death nicely fits the evidence we have (and I’d argue fits the ol’ simplicity test as well). On the rest of the details, I’m assuming we’ll be waiting till July 21st to find out just how off the mark both of our speculations were!
It’s my view that the “Hogwarts Professor” is mis-reading JKR’s response to the Rushdies’ question. Rushdie presents a theory (and describes it as such) follows with some conjecture and concludes with an opinion, upon which JKR then comments.
The relevant section of the transcript is:
Salman and Milan Rushdie: “…So, is Snape good or bad? In our opinion, everything follows from it.
JK Rowling: Well, Salman, your opinion, I would say is … right.
There seems little room for doubt about what *opinion* JKR has said is right. It is the immediately preceding opinion that *everything follows from it*.
The bulk of the text of the “Dumbledore Spotted…” article over on John’s site is based on the suggestion that there is confusion about whether Jo is responding to a) Severus was a good guy, or b) the Astronomy Tower scene was a cooked-up melodrama. However a reading of the transcript would suggest that the answer is neither.
In his own words, Rushdie presents a *theory* (that Snape is a good guy), as a premise for the proposition that DDs death is a ruse, then presents an *opinion* that everything follows from it.
JKR explicitly refers to the *opinion* in her response. There is no confusion. She has stated that Rushdie is right that everything follows from the question of whether Snape is good or bad. She then goes on to comment more obliquely on the theory that Snape is good and therefore Dumbledore can’t really be dead, by confirming – also unequivocally – that Dumbledore is “definitely dead”.
The only thing that is implied rather than explicit, is that (given the theory that Snape is good is predicated on Dumbledore not being dead) Snape is not good. Ie the proposition that follows from the theory has been debunked and the implication is that the theory itself is therefore also debunked but this not made explicit (well, not on this particular occasion, at any rate).
Travis, you surely can’t be serious that the stoppered death theory “fits the ol’ simplicity test”.
The simplest construction of events is that people were alive when they were alive and dead after they died.
The Stoppered Death theory is in fact one of several elaborate constructs devised to explain away some otherwise less-than-palatable circumstances. But – whether correct or not – it is far from the simplest explanation of events.
Seriously_black, I can’t answer for Travis, but my understanding of Stoppered Death (I’m not sure I’ve got the whole thing), does make an unholy muddle both simple and elegant. At least, relatively! There really is no simple explanation of any kind for the farrago in the cave and on the tower; a whole lot of things ring false about the entire evening. The only things that resonate with me as absolutely true are: Dumbledore’s agony in the cave. Harry’s mental anguish while force-feeding him that potion. Draco’s fear and uncertaintly. Severus’s anguish and rage – he is very near to despair at the end of the book, literally beside himself. Finally, Harry’s rage. In other words, Rowling succeeded very well in getting me to feel for the *people* involved, but as for the facts? I’m not so convinced. There are loose ends all over the place, and I am not entirely sure that any one theory can tie them together at this point.
Here are some of my questions:
1.What, exactly, did the ring do to Dumbledore if it didn’t kill him? We don’t know.
2.What did that potion in the basin do to him?
3.Why did Snape, if he is (as I guess you assume?) a loyal Death Eater, have no warning about the attack on the castle?
4.Who unfroze Harry on top of the castle?
5.When, exactly, did Dumbledore die? There are five possibilities, none of which can be ruled out until the seventh book:
a) In the summer of 1996, when the ring killed him.
b) In the sea cave, as he was drinking the poison
c) On the tower, just before Severus’s AK.
d) On the tower, as a result of the AK.
e) When he hit the ground.
6. Who saved Harry from Greyback?
7. Why did Snape’s curse act so strangely, and why didn’t Dumbledore look as all other victims of AKs look? Whatever happened on top of the tower, Snape did not cast an effective AK.
And on it goes – Professor-Mum and Jodel have come up with even more questions about that night, among them: why on earth did Dumbledore send Harry aftr his invisibility cloak when he had earlier told him to keep it on him always? Why did he brush off Harry’s report of Draco’s success? Why did he hesitate before offering a really lame and obviously partial explanation for his trust in Snape?
My personal belief is that Dumbledore received a mortal wound from the ring, was temporarily saved from dying by Snape, and then was set on the road to death by the potion. He died on top of the tower just before Snape cast his curse. So – Voldemort and Harry killed him, between them, with an assist from Draco. This was Jodel’s original theory, and I was utterly convinced the moment I read it, back when she first wrote ‘loyaulte me lie’. I don’t know why she abandoned it, but it seems to fit the facts and makes an awful lot of sense to me.
In any case, we cannot assume, in the Wizarding World, that people were alive when they were alive and dead after they died. Not in a world which contains, among other things, both Dementors and Inferii.
Sorry for the length! I do ramble on. Travis, I liked the post. )
My theory.
Dumbledore survived whatever curse was protecting that Horcrux with Snape’s aide. (This is one of two instances that I believe proves Snape’s “goodness”. It would have been too easy for him to do nothing.)
Snape did indeed “stopper death”, but Dumbledore was slowly dying all through book 6. He and Snape arranged that Snape would kill him at some point, to save Draco and endear himself to the Dark Lord.
After Dumbledore drank the poison, his Death was a more rapid affair. He asked for Snape to make sure that his death was not wasted. Snape’s AK did indeed finish the job, but Dumbledore was not suicidal, he just knew his time was up and trying to use it to the best advantage.
Dumbledore is indeed dead now. However he has left quite enough of himself behind to explain things; his portrait, quite possibly some pensieve memories, and Fawkes/Snape.
It’s possible that there is some elaborate Dumbledore/phoenix thing going on, but I’m not counting on it…. I need to look up those five stages of grief.
Carla, the five stages of grief is a concept based on the work of Elizabeth Kübler-Ross. The stages, in brief are:
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
It seems to me that most have the fan base have got past stage one, with a little help from JK last August, but are now well-and-truly stuck in stage three.
I yield to “Seriously Black” on the opinion to which Ms. Rowling is referring. The opinion is that “everything follows from (whether Snape is good or bad)” rather than the theories the Rushdies offered as I wrote.
John, grateful for the correction
I updated my post in light of Seriously Black’s correction of my misreading Ms. Rowling’s answer to the Rushdies at Radio City this past summer.
…you’re all cool. Just thought you should know.
With regard to the simplicity test: could not the simplest answer to Rowling’s comment about having trouble with Dumbledore relate to her writing about his portrait on the headmaster’s office wall? Dumbledore WILL appear in book 7 -really dead, not dead, stoppered or whatever – as a portrait in that room. He will still (as much as any of the other members of that gallery) have the ability to speak and act. And Rowling will have been writing about him in that way. Is that the ONLY role he will have, who knows? But it is possible, and the simplest explanation, that this is what prompted her comments to Daniel Radcliffe
Well spoken Eeloora, I believe your observation is spot on.
Moreover there are several other ways that “it’s more complex” could be construed, which meet the simplicity test well ahead of stoppered death. For instance, it is possible that Harry will again use a penseive in Deathly Hallows and in doing so, may observe events in the past which involve Dumbledore, but about which we’ve previously had no knowledge – and which may present unique challenges to the writer. It’s also possible that Dumbledore left messages or other clues for Harry, which will make him an enduring presence, without any reference to his re-animation or return from death. Many other speculations of this kind – disarming in their simplicity – are possible.
I’m afraid that much the same is true of most of the “evidence” for stoppered death – voluminous though it may be. The manner of Dumbledore’s death; his appearance after death; his withered hand; the “I’m with you” comment to Harry and so on… there are rather simpler explanations for all these things.
There’s no denying the ingenuity of the stoppered death theory – and when all is said and done, I don’t know how useful principle of Ockham (the law of parsimony) is in this context. There is no compelling reason to suppose that JKR sought simplicity in the resolution of her many plot threads. However in the absence of hard “canonical” evidence and when weighing probabilities, I’d say that the “good ol’ simplicity test†tends to undermine the stoppered death theory, rather than support it. Hence my earlier remarks.
Just for clarification – by “good ol’ simplicity test,” I was referring to something in specific that John and I have talked about before (something Steve Vander Ark proposed). I wasn’t referring to either “Ockham’s Razor” or the idea that the right answer will be the absolute simplest one.
Eeloora, check out PubCast #18 for why the portrait can’t be the answer to this question.
Oh, and I’d also like to add that since Rowling is going for the biggest surprise in literature since Austen’s Emma, it’s nice to know that she’s even going to manage to surprise really intelligent people like seriously_black when Snape turns out to be good
One more quick thing: I was so glad to see John return to some version of “Stoppered Death” that I entirely overlooked the misreading of the RCMH interview. Good catch, seriously_black. (I think I’ve begun to skim every time I come close to the polyjuiced!Dumbledore theories).
In any case, John, I’m way behind, but I’ll be over as soon as I can to read your update and contribute to the discussion at HogPro.
Travis, Snape being good is a surprise? ::innocent grin::
Heh, I’ll be more than heavily disappointed if he isn’t. Really my grief for him at the end of book 6 was bigger than my grief for Dumbledore I think. I was pretty certain Dumbledore would die after he showed up with the shriveled hand, so I was mentally prepared for it. But not Snape having to do the deed.
Erm…I’m thinking about the next book, and the need to write up something about dealing with grief for a character.
Oh, Carla, I so agree with you! My heart broke for Snape at the end of HBP. I also felt bad for Harry, and even for Draco, but it was Snape who was in an especially terrible position.
Seriously-black, I’m starting to wonder (as I tried to say before) if I even understand what “stoppered death” means. You see, though I do definitely think Snape and Dumbledore together ’stoppered’ Dumbledore’s death *in the summer of 1996*, I believe just as firmly that, as of June 1997 (the end of HBP), that death was unstoppered. Dumbledore is quite definitely dead, just as Rowling has told us, and we are not going to see him as a living man, in any form, in DH. We’re not going to see him as a ghost, either. Though, as you say, we might learn some things from his portrait, I expect to learn a lot more of his backstory through pensieve memories and, perhaps, through his brother Aberforth. I expect that is what Rowling is having trouble with. (Aberforth does seem to be a difficult character, doesn’t he?)
But Dumbledore is dead. I’m not denying that at all; I knew he was dead the moment I finished the tower scene in HBP. The only questions stoppered death leaves open, as far as I’m concerned, are: when, exactly, did he die, and who really killed him? We do *not* know the answers to those questions right now. We may think we do – but we don’t.
Mary, your comment is exceedingly helpful! Let me clarify a few things, at least from my point of view. I’m inclined against John’s theory; I posted it because I thought it was an interesting and potentially plausible alternate reading of Stoppered Death and Rowling’s recent comments against Dumbledore.
Call me stubborn, but I’m sticking to the original stoppered death which says Dumbledore’s death was “stoppered” after the ring caper and “unstoppered” on the tower, which is exactly what you said.
In fact, your comment brings up an interesting question: when did Dumbledore actually die? Which leads us to another question: how does stoppered death work?
It seems to me that stoppered death has to be administered before death completely takes over. Stoppered death doesn’t vivify a dead man. As such, to describe Albus throughout HBP as a “dead man walking” doesn’t work, because he’s not actually dead yet (”I’m not dead yet!”).
This would put a damper on John’s theory, because if Stoppered Death isn’t the vivification of a dead man, then suddenly Rowling’s statement about Dumbledore being “definitely dead” does, in fact, contradict John’s theory (it would seem; unless I’m misunderstanding John here).
Travis, a general observation, if I may, in relation to your remark about Rowling’s impending surprise ending.
It would in fact, be no surprise at all if Snape were to turn out good. He’s been turning out good despite seeming indications to the contrary in *each book* prior to the sixth. Every time suspicion has been cast upon him, until now, it’s been set aside and he’s wound up the unliikely hero.
An ultimate conclusion which includes a vindication or even a redemption of Snape, would therefore be utterly predictable and would suggest that Rowling has had no materially new insight to offer us (regarding the Snape enigma) after the first book – ie the series as a whole would simply mirror the “seeming-bad-guy-but-not-really-in-the-end” characterisation of Snape in book one.
That it would be in no way a surprise can also be demonstrated by the overwhelming majority of Snape-is-good theorists on this site and others like it the world over. Rowling has built up a massive expectation throughout her readership for a golden goodie ending for Snape. Want to talk about misdirection? ;?
There are a number of reasons why I do not expect Rowling to deliver the obvious, utterly predictable and widely expected ending to the Snape saga. But if for no other reason, the repetitious sameness of yet another seems-bad-but-not-really plot twist would lead me to consider such an outcome improbable. I do not think that book seven will simply be a further repetition of the well established and (by now) altogether familiar pattern.
I fully accept that that is exactly what you, John and many others, here and elsewhere, confidently expect. I wish you well, but I sincerely hope you’ll be disappointed and that Rowling will deliver a truly surprising ending – one which requires a majority of her readers to re-examine most of their foregoing theories about prior events in the series.
seriously_black, one of us is not as familiar with fandom as we think. I know, it’s probably me. But the number of Snape-haters out there is truly fascinating, and the entirety of HBP was set up to change every “good Snape” advocate into a “bad Snape” believer. Rowling may not have been as effective as she’d like, but I maintain that there are a lot of Snape-haters out there for whom his redemption will be a monumental surprise.
Maybe I’m quite wrong!
Let me add, however, that your point about this being a predictable pattern is well-taken. I can’t stop working through its implications in my head as I try to cook dinner here…
The time has finally come for a podcast and lengthy post on Snape. As soon as the racism series is done.
Interesting, Travis, but I don’t see it.
The Rushdies’ theory in New York last August got instant and overwhelming applause from the audience and posts from Snape-Is_Good theorists outnumber posts from those you’re calling “Snape Haters” at least three to one on all the public forums I’m aware of.
As far as I’ve been able to tell, it’s a trend that has only intensified since the release of Half-Blood Prince.
Nevertheless, my comments about predictability and recurring themes stand. Whatever the fan base may or may not think, Snape has been being vindicated with solemn regularity throughout all of the first five books. Book six provides an even stronger set-up (basis for suspicion which has invariably preceded vindication), but fails to provide the expected vindication. So I find it entirely unsurprising that you and others are expecting vindication in spades in Book 7. The pattern has been established.
I happen to think that Book 7 may venture outside the confines of the earlier devices and that Rowling may have done more than simply offer a repeat of the prototypical plot scenario rendered in books one to five. This is no ordinary series.
It’s my suspicion that Rowling understands more about the nature of evil than she has yet revealed – and I have confidence that there is more to come.
Since I don’t spend much time in fandom, and especially not on many chat boards, I’ll yield to your knowledge on this one, as far as your reading of fandom.
I would add that it makes perfect sense that there would be more “Snape is Good” posts after the RCMH interview, since, based on surface reading, the burden of proof is on the “Snape is Good” side of things.
I’m wondering if this turned out to be too difficult a surprise to pull off over a 7 book series where speculation has time to run rampant. I understand your opinion that HBP provided more evidence that Snape is good, but it’s only evidence from silence. Everything about what the reader experienced through Harry’s eyes was intended to put everyone in a Snape-hating mood. And let me tell you, I know some really intelligent readers who are utterly convinced of his bad-ness.
If she was intending to surprise us with his being evil, I’m just not sure she would have given us all that “evidence” for it in Book 6. Remember that scene from the Princess Bride where that dude is philosophizing about which drink has the poison? I’m just not sure Rowling is doing that with this series.
The “surprise” has come through the Harry filter every time; maybe she’ll change that pattern for book 7, but I doubt it. Even if we have guessed her surprise, and even if it doesn’t surprise us that Snape is good, it’s usually the way in which she pulls the old punch that is so shocking. Everybody and their mother knew that the pattern demanded a Dumbledore death in Book 6. But there are precious few who knew it would go down like that.
Whatever happens, I entirely agree with the last paragraph of your comment.
Severus Snape served Tom Riddle faithfully until the death of Lily Potter. Her murder at the hands of his master struck him with true remorse and repentence for two reasons: he blamed himself for the murders because he was the one who had brought the “prophecy” to Riddle,and because he was in love with Lily.
He went to Dumbledore with his confession. For his act of contrition, Dumbledore charged him with the task of pretending to keep on being a Death Eater so he could spy on his old master.
Snape’s hatred of Harry is not a pretence, however: he truly despises him because of his father. He saves Harry time and time again because Harry is also Lily’s son.
Snape kills Dumbledore because that is what Dumbledore asks of him. I have explained the reasons for Dumbledore’s request elsewhere.
This is obvious from the writing and from the fact that if Snape is evil, then Dumbledore has acted like an idiot, which he almost certainly is not.
SB, try reading the end of HP6 from this perspective; you will experience an apotheosis.
But speaking of recurring events, has anyone yet drawn a parallel between Harry’s “discovery” of Tom Riddle’s diary in HP2 and his “discovery” of Snape’s potions book in HP6? Could there be a parallel intent in both instances, do you think? Was Harry meant to find Snape’s diary so he could be instructed by Snape? The book, which holds so much of Snape’s knowledge, readies Harry for the final encounter with Tom Riddle, without him actually having to spend time with Snape, seeing as how they can’t stand each other.
Apotheosis?
I’m hoping you meant an epiphany, as I’m not that partial to deification.
But that aside, you say that if Snape is evil, then Dumbledore acted like an idiot, which he is not.
Reyhan, with kindness and respect I would like to draw your attention to the relevant part of the text of the interview with JKR on 16 July 2005. Here’s an extract:
> ES: How can someone so -
>
> JKR: Intelligent -
>
> ES: be so blind with regard to certain things?
>
> JKR: Well, there is information on that to come,
> in seven. But I would say that I think it has been
> demonstrated, particularly in books five and six
> that immense brainpower does not protect you
> from emotional mistakes…
And there you have it, in a nutshell, Reyhan. Not only does the author readily agree that such mistakes are possible for someone of Dumbledore’s intellect, but that he has indeed *made such mistakes*. The context of the above passage is such that there is no doubt at all that it is a reference in part to Dumbledore’s error in trusting Severus Snape.
If Rowling were now going to turn around and tell us that Dumbledore made no mistake and Severus was acting under Dumbledore’s instructions when killing him on the Tower, then we would have to conclude she sought to deliberately mislead in her answers to this and a number of other questions (including the one where she said that she has never sought to deliberately mislead when answering interview questions…).
Sorry, Reyhan, but I have already re-read the closing chapters of Book 6 looking for plausability in the idea that Dumbledore and Snape colluded in the ways you suggest, and I experienced neither apotheosis nor epiphany – except insofar as it made me a little more skeptical about such theories. I see no reason to suppose that a further reading at this juncture will have an opposite effect.
I’m not sure I’m buying that, seriously_black. That would be equivalent to telling her fans where Snape’s loyalties really lie, and in the exact same interview, she refused to answer questions along those lines. Snape’s loyalty is the biggest “secret” of the series. She’s not giving that away so easily.
Unless, of course, Snape is “good,” in the sense that he wants to defeat Voldemort, but decided he had a better way to get rid of Voldemort and Dumbledore was getting in the way, so Snape decided Dumbledore was a reasonable sacrifice.
So he wants to defeat Voldemort, but he’s not “good” like Dumbledore is good.
In the exact same interview, she refused to provide *direct* answers to *direct* questions along those lines, yes. But a number of implications are plain enough in the answers she *does* give – including the one I quoted above, in which Dumbledore’s serious errors of judgement are frankly acknowledged.
In fact in a few short paragraphs, she says enough to put to rest (for all except those who are disinclined to believe her) a number of the theories that have since taken root. Enough, for instance, to rule out the “assisted suicide” lines of conjecture – which I think might reasonably include at last some of the variants of stoppered death.
As to whether there is a middle ground, I’m not sure that a “good murderer” theory is tenable. The slope gets awful slippery about there. And there are some tough realities, even in the realms of fantasy.
I recall reading that interview, and I know the quotes you’re talking about, and I’m still not convinced she’s said enough to tell us one way or another about Snape. Like I said, I think that answer is too precious to not protect with everything she’s got (she said as much at RCMH). But I will go back and re-read the interview when I get a moment.
I put “good” in quotes, because I’m defining “good” as “wanting to defeat LV,” for whatever his reasons. I’m a little surprised that you are impressed by Rowling’s insights into evil but start worrying about a “slippery slope” when it comes to a nuanced view that puts him somewhere in between LV and Dumbledore. Perhaps I just wasn’t clear in my use of “good.”
The moral ground between Tom Riddle and Dumbledore is huge enough to contain all the characters in the HP universe. But Snape? I don’t think there’s anything nuanced about Snape. He’s Dumbledore’s man despite the initial attraction to Riddle.
BTW, has anyone asked or answered the question of who was Snape’s father? Might be important to know.
SB’s reminder of JKR’s comment re: Dumbledore’s emotional blindness sent shivers down my back again. I mean, who did Dumbledore love the most? And what about Harry was he blind to?
SB, your epiphany, but the story’s apotheosis. I am a romantic, and you, I suspect, are not. But believing as I do that Snape is bound to Dumbledore by bonds even stronger than Harry’s, the realization of what must have happened, and what it must have cost, for him to kill his confessor and mentor – I found that scene incredibly moving.
Travis, Thanks for your comments. There are several different ways in which concepts of good and evil can be nuanced. Certainly there are degrees of evil, though thinking along the lines of “shades of gray” is not necessarily helpful. However, there is a reason why Slughorn describes murder as “the supreme act of evil” (HBP ch23, p465), making it clear that this is so in the Wizarding world, as it is elsewhere. Avada Kedavra is marked out as the *most* unforgivable curse.
Notwithstanding that, a more helpful analysis might spring from an examination of motivational ethics. If one does the right thing for the wrong reasons, it may have – despite appearances – been entirely the wrong thing to do. Moreover if one does the wrong thing in pursuit of an otherwise laudible goal, it may also have been the wrong thing to do. The enemy of one’s enemy is not necessarily one’s friend, however expedient it may be to wish it so. Ends do not necessarily justify means, though they may occasionally offer redemption.
Merely being in opposition to Voldemort (if indeed such is the case) is not sufficient to be considered “good” – with or without the quotation marks. We have already seen this in characters such as Dolores Umbridge, whose opposition to the dark forces are all but overshadowed by her own darkness, ambition and self-serving cruelty.
If Dumbledore was indeed murdered whilst defenseless and ailing on the tower (leaving the many theories to the contrary aside), then that was an abhorrent and intensely cowardly act. If he was murdered by one whom he had aided, befriended and protected then the act is almost unspeakable. As Rushdie said, “we cannot, or don’t want to believe this”.
It’s not that my earlier point was not nuanced. It is simply that arguments of expediency (eg Snape may have felt a desire to get Dumbledore out of the road so he himself could have a clear shot at Voldemort etc) do not begin to provide an ameliorative for the magnitude of the act described in the “Lightning Struck Tower”.
Whatever our previous opinion of Snape (whose father, BTW, Reyhan, was the muggle Tobias Snape) we surely all found the death scene profoundly disturbing and challenging. The apparent physical implications for Albus (death) and the moral implications for Severus (murderer) – each alone would be difficult to comprehend but together they are horrific. Readers the world over have been struggling ever since for ways to come to terms with it – or not, as the case may be.
And on that note, I offer a further small snippet from JKR’s interview on 16 July 2005:
> MA: OK, big big big book six question. Is Snape
> evil?
>
> JKR: [Almost laughing] Well, you’ve read the book,
> what do you think?
>
> ES: She’s trying to make you say it categorically.
>
> MA: Well, there are conspiracy theorists, and
> there are people who will claim -
>
> JKR: Cling to some desperate hope… [laughter]
Undoubtedly there were those who clung to the desperate hope that Dumbledore was not really dead. Until, more than a year later, JKR kindly (and explicitly) laid this theory to rest during question-time following the third and final reading at RCMH.
But the comment above is not about the death itself, but specifically about its implications for Snape’s character. It is a measure of the desperation with which many readers wish to find a way – any way – to absolve Snape from this terrible deed, that the theories promulgated in support of Snape’s fidelity, humility and unswerving rectitude have inspired such devotion and ingenuity. Regrettably, however, that does not make them any more probable.
seriously_black, I don’t know, man. This quote just doesn’t solve anything for me. It looks like more of Rowling’s elusive, non-committal answers, letting the interviewer’s opinion set the mood. The interviewers were clearly, at least at the time, convinced of Snape’s badness, since they’re referring to others as “conspiracy theorists.” Clinging to some desperate hope is exactly what believers in redemption do…
In any case, I’m still not convinced Rowling has ever given us an indication one way or the other on Snape. Again, RCMH – she affirmed Rushdie’s opinion that Snape’s loyalty is the key to everything. I’ve never read anything in an interview that settles the matter in my mind.
You’re absolutely correct that being against Voldemort does not equal good, necessarily, hence I’ll stop using the word “good” in any form to think through that particular theory. Snape is still evil, albeit in a different way, if he’s out to get Voldemort but not on Dumbledore’s side.
I’m not sure it’s so much a desperation to absolve Snape as it is a “We won’t get fooled again, Jo” sort of reaction. There are some wild-eyed Snape lovers out there, of course. I’m not one of them. He’s my second favorite character in the books (Dumbledore’s still the best), but that’s not because of some idea in my head about his goodness. I just think he’s fascinating, whether he ends up good or evil.
After all this, I’m still inclined to think she’ll follow the pattern – redemption for Snape – but she’ll do it in a way that shocks us all.
I’m finally looking forward to a Snape podcast. Probably a few weeks away, but it should be fun.
Certainly, Snape is a complex and intriguing character either way. In some respects his character is more interesting than that of Voldemort because of the confusion and mix of conflicted emotions Snape arouses.
Well, July is not far away, Travis. In the meantime, I’ll look forward to your podcast on the Snape enigma.
I don’t take a pessimistic view when regarding the HP series. Well, yes book six brought up a LOT of questions, and a few that many not be answered in seven but I won’t let it ruin the series for me, if book seven is an amazing read.
Great comments from everyone. I’ll say up front that I tend to fall more in line with Travis on this one. I’ve never doubted that Dumbledore was dead, and I’ve never expected him to come back. So, even though I find the stoppered death theory plausible it isn’t because I’m looking for an undead Dumbledore.
My view (and I’m sorry to go over old ground here) is that Dumbledore was near death after destroying the ring Horcrux, and Snape prevented him from actually dying with a “stoppered death” potion–the one that he mentions in PS, with the same first year potions class being brought up again in HBP. Usually when Rowling brings things up out of a past book, it’s because we should pay attention to it.
That theory explains why Dumbledore suddenly decided to teach Harry himself–he knew that his time was limited. Whether Harry was ready or not, Dumbledore had to teach him all he could in a very short time. However, the trip Dumbledore and Harry took to the cave, with the Death Eaters getting into Hogwarts while they were gone, derailed Dumbledore’s time schedule. I don’t think he expected to die that night, but the green potion was pushing him farther along that path to death–hence, the reason he kept telling Harry to get Severus when they returned to Hogsmeade, and no one else. (I always found that interesting that Dumbledore so specifically asked for Severus rather than Professor Snape, which is the way he normally would have referred to Snape when talking to Harry–calling him by his first name in front of a student is the way one would ask for a friend, not just a colleague–and it shows how desperate Dumbledore was.)
Even when they landed on the Tower, Dumbledore still wanted Harry to get Severus. Why? I think it’s because Severus, the healer that we saw with Draco, was the only one who might be able to save Dumbledore again. Draco and the Death Eaters put an end to that grand plan.
What happened with Snape is still the mystery of the book. I think it can be read any way a person wants to read it:
“Snape is evil, through and through, is on Voldemort’s side and always has been”
“Snape is on Dumbledore’s side and keeping a previously given promise by releasing him from this living death, stoppered by a potion that Snape gave him” (the partial conversation overheard by Hagrid)
“Snape has no further use for Dumbledore but is still fighting Voldemort on his own, for his own glory”
. . . and I’m sure there are more permutations, if we cared to list all the theories out there.
seriously_black, you and I must go to different forums, because I’ve run into quite a lot of fans who are convinced that Snape is evil–some who were avid Snape fans before HBP. And recently, I read a post from a woman who changed her mind about Snape with OotP–concluding that he is evil. And then there are the people I know in real life who fall almost equally on both sides of the Snape question.
Whatever Rowling does with Snape–and yes, I’m one who is clearly hoping that he is Dumbledore’s man and will be redeemed–what we see is that Rowling has done a masterful job of keeping him ambiguous, and that’s what makes him such an interesting character. He’s certainly not the one I would ever want to meet in real life–he may be on the “good” side, but he’s not at all a nice person or a teacher I would ever have wanted to have, but he is my favorite character, just because he is so enigmatic.
seriously_black, you make a lot of compelling arguments about Snape not being good. However, I have to say that using the LeakyMug interview as your main source for that just doesn’t work for me.
I was so looking forward to the transcript of that long interview, thinking that we’d get some insightful answers, but I really feel that it’s the least helpful interview out there. Everytime Rowling came close to answering something, they stopped short; they didn’t follow up with logical questions when she did say something, they didn’t ask a question to clarify things that sounded vague, and worst of all, when Rowling actually said something significant, the interviewers changed the subject back to silly things like shipping. Who cares? I won’t give you quoted examples because I really don’t think I can stand to wade through that interview one more time–I read it several times when the transcript was first put on-line, thinking that I had missed something. Sadly, I hadn’t.
Some of her earlier interviews–from 1997 through 2000 are much more helpful in getting hints about characters and the over-all plot. She was less guarded before the books were so wildly popular and before there were all the web sites and forums out there.
Travis, I’m looking forward to the next podcast. Mostly I’m looking forward to getting that book in my hands, turning off the television and the computer (and likely the phone) until I’ve finished reading it. And then we can discuss all the questions that we thought she answer, but didn’t.
Pat (eeyore)
VG discussion!
I believe in the Stoppered Death theory, a form of which my sister Alicia Hernon stumbled on (partially) after reading Book 6. Her contribution to the theory (which I haven’t heard brought out elsewhere) was that we probably didn’t hear the entire conversation between Dumbledore and Snape on the tower, because both wizards are legillemens. But the conversation was so critical that Dumbledore finally broke into speech and said, “Severus … Please,” (Convincing Snape to unstopper his death, knowing how bad everything would look) asking Snape to perform a fake Avarda Kedarva curse.
Anyhow this is a great forum! Found it through HogPro.
regina, yes, that is a very important piece of the puzzle (I think I’ve suggest that here before, but buggered if I know when and where). In fact, shortly after HBP and the Stoppered Death theory came out, I read something (again, can’t remember where) in which a blogger tried to re-create the silent conversation going on between Snape and Dumbledore in the moments before the AK was thrown, fitting in nicely into the actual text of that scene. Brilliant stuff.
For those who have been waiting, I spent some time writing the Snape podcast today. I’ll tighten it up throughout the week, and I should be able to record it this weekend!
I am glad I found this conversation again – it has grown considerably, and I’m going to have to reread the more recent comments, but wanted to respond to two things Seriously_black has said.
Seriously_black, you said that, through the character of Snape, Rowling has more to say about the nature of evil. Well, I don’t think the nature of evil is her main theme. That is not, IMHO, what inspired her to write these books. She is writing, I believe, about the nature of love, and this is how I am interpreting the series. I think these books are all about love and redemption. For more, you can go to my livejournal and read the essay called “To Love and Be Wise.”
The second comment has to do with the pattern you perceive in these books. For your pattern to work, we (readers) would need two things. We would need to see *Harry* repeatedly convinced of Snape’s virtue, only to start suspecting him again for what seems good reason, and we would need to be in total agreement with Harry. Has Harry ever, even for a moment, been convinced of Snape’s virtue? Has he ever really trusted him? Not that I can remember. As a result, I can assure you that even fans like me, who find Snape a fascinating and even admirable character, do not trust him 100%. We don’t know enough about him, and we are never privy to his thoughts. I, personally, also find it impossible to agree 100% with Harry, because he’s shown himself to be extremely thoughtless and judgemental, especially in HBP. So – the pattern you point out isn’t really a pattern.
If it were, then, as Trudy suggests on the hogpro board, we have already had our reversal. Snape is evil, and that’s all there is to it. I can tell you that, as a reader, I found that conclusion extremely unsatisfying. (Logospilgrim has a lot more to say about how and why it’s unsatisfying; you might try going to her site, as well.) If this is where Rowling is going, I will find the books an enormous cheat and a waste of time.
Just one last thing (and I’m sorry for the length) – you don’t need stoppered death or any other obscure theory to explain the events on the tower. Like Sigune (another Snape fan whose theories are worth a look), I’m not convinced Snape ever told Dumbledore, in full, about the Unbreakable Vow. So I don’t think the argument in the forest had anything to do with it. I don’t think Dumbledore was urging Snape to finish him off on the tower, nor do I think he was begging for his life (certainly not!). What was he begging for, then? What was that argument about – what did Snape not want to do anymore?
The answer is simple: to protect Harry. That was what Dumbledore was urging with his last breath. Snape is Harry’s bodyguard, and has been throughout the series. Not because he wants to be, but because Dumbledore has ordered him to be – and Snape obeys Dumbledore. This is why Snape is protecting Harry to the bitter end of HBP, even when it’s quite obvious he’d much rather lay the kid out.
So – let’s look again at what happened on the tower. Dumbledore is poisoned and quite clearly dying. Harry is frozen, and Draco is quite unable to act; he’s surrounded by Death Eaters who, Jodel argues convincingly, are most likely there to execute the boy if he doesn’t commit the murder he’s supposed to. Snape arrives. What are his choices?
He can fulfill the UV, or he can try to turn and fight – and, as we learn, he is a formidable fighter. But we mustn’t forget how the UV works. If Snape fails to fulfill it, he will drop dead on the spot. So there is no opportunity for him to strike a blow for the right side, whether he wants to or not.
Sirius Black, of course, assuming he’d also been suckered into an Unbreakable Vow, would have chosen to die. As Sigune points out, Snape has more sense. Granted that it was pretty darn stupid to get suckered into the Vow, he can see that Dumbledore is going to die no matter what he does. And the headmaster has asked him to protect Harry. If he tries to protect Dumbledore, he – Snape – will drop dead. What protection will he be able to offer either Harry or Draco as a corpse? As far as he can see, it’s a choice between one dead body on the tower, or three or four – two of these the boys he’s sworn to protect. From Snape’s pov, casting the AK is a textbook example of doing what is right rather than what is easy. I am sure he would far rather have died. But that would have been the easy way out. And there are not going to be any easy roads for Severus Snape. Nor for Harry.
As I said, I think the main theme of these books is love and redemption. Harry is the protagonist, so they are ultimately about his redemption. In what way is Harry a sinner? What is *his* major temptation to evil? I would argue it is his tendency to rush to judgement and hold grudges. Does that sound like someone else we know?
This is why I am convinced that, whatever else she does, a reconciliation between Harry and Snape is essential to Rowling’s story. And I hope I’m right. I guess we’ll see in a few months.
Good stuff, Mary. I don’t agree with all of it, but I do agree with most. And I think you got the emotional tones right.
I especially agree about the themes of love and redemption being central to the books. I’d add one more theme: wisdom and maturity. The whole saga is that of a boy becoming a man and learning life lessons along the way. He’s mastered a few – courage, loyalty, determination – but he still has to master understanding and compassion. I absolutely agree with you that Harry has to reconcile with Snape, by recognizing that people are not always what they seem – for good as well as for evil. Harry has to learn to admit that he was wrong.
As does Seriously-Black, by the way.
And speaking about the nature of evil, I think Rowling’s views are shown in three of the main characters: Harry, Severus Snape and Tom Riddle. We have all seen how those three came from strangely similar, unhappy backgrounds: Harry and Tom were orphans, brought up in less-than-loving environments; Snape was socially rejected and bullied at Hogwarts. We don’t know much about Snape’s childhood, but we suspect emotional if not physical abuse. They are all three intelligent, powerful and ambitious people. Given these common elements, they have each pursued a different path. Riddle chose to use his powers for evil, by controlling and hurting people. Harry uses his powers for good, by trying to protect people from evil. He is still growing, however, and I think at some point he too will have to come to terms with the temptation to use the dark side of the Force (oops, slipped into the wrong mythology). And Snape – well, he’s the interesting one. After an initial flirtation with evil, and using his talents for harm (during his student years), he has turned to good. It’s not an easy path for him for many reasons, but true repentance is supposed to be a hard path.
Anyways, here is the lesson: evil was done to all three when they were small and powerless. One overcame it, one embraced it, and one is still trying to make amends.
Harry, Tom, and Severus: brothers under the cloak.
Interesting comment, Reyhan! And I’m glad you liked what I had to say. I do agree with a part of yours, as well: Severus, Harry and Tom are indeed “brothers under the cloak.” (Their fourth brother, as two people have pointed out to me, is Hagrid.) Where I differ from you is here: “evil was done to all three when they were small and powerless. One overcame it, one embraced it, and one is still trying to make amends.” This puts Voldemort as black to Harry’s white and Severus’s grey. I don’t quite see it that way. As I think I said before, Rowling is actually painting in shades of grey – or so it seems to me. And Harry just isn’t that good. Indeed, I think at this stage it is possible Severus is a better person than Harry, simply because Harry utterly refuses to recongnize the evil within him, while Severus has (apparently, as far as we know) been forced to face it. I don’t really see how anyone could read HBP and conclude that Harry was in any way good, pure or innocent. I ended up disliking the boy pretty intensely by the end of this book.
I do agree completely that these books are the story of Harry’s maturation, so they’re almost bound to be the story of his errors and the faults he (eventually) overcomes. And I have no doubt that, in the end, Harry will become the good person he’s capable of being. But he’s not there yet. Not as far as I can see.
Well, it’s hard to be good when your head hurts all the time…
I wasn’t going to go there, because I’m not sure what I think about this, but you’ve opened the door, so here I go.
There are two ways of looking at the struggle between good and evil in Harry himself. One is the magical way; the fact that Voldemort left his mark on him and the two seem to be emotionally connected and can occasionally “see” through each other’s eyes. Putting aside the question of whether Harry’s scar is actually a Horcrux, the solution to this problem would be to kill Voldemort so he’d get out of Harry’s head.
But the other way of looking at the struggle is the more human way: to recognize that good and evil reside within each person, and each of us has to decide which one we’re going to nurture. I agree with you that Harry has been a bit of a pain of late: impatient, irritable, hostile, a little disrespectful of others’ privacy, using some pretty nasty spells, willing to cheat to succeed, often alienated from those close to him, and with a bit of a messianic complex. Does this make him evil? I don’t think so. It just makes him a not-nice person. I wonder, however, if it brings him closer to the decision that the end justifies the means, which is one of the more common roads to perdition. I might not have been so far off the mark in comparing him to Anakin Skywalker.
My six year old has watched each of the movies several times, and we’re now reading HP6. The other day he told me that he’d dreamt that Harry was turning into … Voldemort. Do you suppose he knows something we don’t know?
mary and reyhan, lots of good and interesting points here, only a few of which I’ll respond to for now.
mary, your point in response to seriously_black about Harry having never thought Snape was good (so that the Harry filter deceived us when he turned out evil) is well-taken. However, Rowling tricks us all in HBP by making Harry correct about Draco. So we can no longer assume that she’s fooling us with the Harry filter all the time. She’s blown that one right out of the water.
I’m not entirely sure I’d agree with “Snape is a better person that Harry” in any way. I agree that Harry needs to come to terms with his own potential for evil…but I’m not convinced this is a burden in Rowling’s story-telling. The alchemical pattern of each book suffices to put Harry through the purification needed for him to be “good.” And Dumbledore has told Harry that he doesn’t realize how special he is, and he’s spoken of his purity of heart.
Very, very interesting points about the dilemma Snape faced on the Tower. And if Snape and Dumbledore were not as in cahoots as we might have thought, that’s a very valid scenario. But I’m not convinced that if Snape has been the good guy all along, protecting Harry and so on, that at the point when he was most-needed by Dumbledore, he’d throw up his hands and say, “That’s it, I’m sick of protecting Potter.” That doesn’t really fit for me when it comes to the overheard argument.
I’ll try to get back later with more response. I had forgotten that Trudy was the advocate for evil!Snape at the hogpro forum; I’ll have to go back and read her thoughts on that which I never fully had time to digest before.
Thanks for the response, Travis! Just want to clarify a couple of things:
First, you say: “Rowling tricks us all in HBP by making Harry correct about Draco. So we can no longer assume that she’s fooling us with the Harry filter all the time.”
Well, I don’t think there was ever a reader foolish enough to think Harry was wrong all the time, was there? On the contrary, I’ve encountered readers (two of them Snape fans!) who insist the Harry filter doesn’t exist. I think it *does* exist, but that doesn’t mean Harry is entirely wrong about everything. I very much doubt he’s wrong about Vernon or Dudley Dursley, for example, and he hasn’t been very wrong about Draco, ever. But he is extremely prejudiced against Snape, which brings me to point two.
The overheard conversation: I am convinced that Snape is just as prejudiced against Harry as Harry is against Snape. By this, I mean Severus is convinced Harry is evil. So why protect him? Snape would far rather catch him at something and have him thrown into Azkaban where he can’t do any harm, IMHO. Of course, I could be quite wrong about this, but it makes sense to me. Severus is also under an enormous amount of stress this year, and Harry is, as usual, giving him nothing but grief and refusing to learn anything Severus tries to teach him. As I said, that’s just the way I see it.
Finally, the thing that has disturbed me most about HBP is that I see absolutely no purification or development of Harry’s character. As far as I’m concerned, the boy has regressed. He is an arrogant, thoughtless and self-righteous bully and cheat. That’s a great contrast to the basically loveable little boy he was in PS/SS, and I don’t see it as an improvement.
I know I said “finally” above, but this is really the last paragraph! I don’t think it’s a given that Severus has become a better person, at 37 or so, than Harry is at 16. On the contrary, the two of them *still* seem to me to have many of the same failings – they really could be brothers. It is *possible* that Severus is a much better person than we have yet been allowed to see; it’s certainly possible that the (apparent) murder on the tower was an example of doing what was right rather than what was easy. But it’s at least equally possible that Severus Snape, like Harry, has a lot of growing up to do. I just hope they will both live to do it.
I do urge you to read my two essays when you are able. I go into much greater depth about who, exactly, Harry and Severus are and why I see them that way, and you might find them interesting. The Harry essay is “To love and Be Wise”, and the Severus one is “Severus Snape as a Pillar of the Universe”? They’re both at my blog.
Travis,
FWIW, in respect of our discussion about the question of whether fandom in general is pursuaded of Snape’s goodness, you might find some points of interest in the recent news story headed “Severus Snape and a Fandom Enthralled” over on TLC.
Mary, I agree with your posts in most respects, but I disagree about the decent of Harry’s moral character in HBP. We are dealing with a young man who has recently witnessed the only person he considered “family” be violently taken away from him. He is constantly dealing with people who think he is a “freak” and a liar. He has been under scrutiny since entering the wizarding world. He has faced, fighted, and walked away from death on more occasions than I am sure he cares to recount. And he probably feels responsible for the death of Cedric Driggory and for LV being back in the first place, since it was his blood used to regenerate him. Add that on top of the normal 16-year-old woes; he has the pressures of school and love to deal with as well. These things might have altered a person in much more dramatic ways than they have Harry. What I see is a teenager who has not had been raised by a loving family, and who has had to deal with issues, at a young age, that most people will never have to face. But I see a teenager who still chooses the right path when it matters. JKR has said that her characters are flawed, but that is what makes them human, rather than the Disney I-am-perfect-and-even-though-my-life-sucks-I-never-complain-and-I-sing-like-an-angel-and-wildlife-flocks-to-me image that no one can relate to.
Now as for Snape…
I should have said “fought” instead of “fighted” above…I guess the kids woke me up too early this morning (either that, or living in GA for 4 years has finally caught up to me!)
Mary, I’m also hesitant to say that Harry has gotten worse in his character throughout HBP. It doesn’t fit the alchemical pattern as I understand it. I’m going to try to finish up my work on Snape this weekend, and then take up this topic, which is fascinating to me.
I’ve got to say – with all of you intelligent commenters, I’m not having any difficulty with lack of material lately
Travis, I do understand that a deterioration in Harry’s character would not fit the alchemical pattern as you understand it. Nevertheless, a deterioration in Harry’s character is exactly what I see in HBP. Consider:
He is willing to try out spells and recipes from an unknown source, without having a clue what they do. (As others have said, what if he’d casually tried out ’sectumsempra’ on Ron?!) It’s the mental laziness that gets to me here.
He hexes people in the corridors for fun.
He hexes FILCH! Twice! As I’ve said before, Filch, nasty man though he is, is a Squib, and entirely helpless against this kind of abuse. It’s the moral equivalent of hitting or kicking a deaf, blind, paraplegic.
He cheats his way through Potions.
And, through all this, he remains utterly convinced of his own virtue and worthiness. I basically couldn’t stand Harry in HBP, and I’m not alone.
Christina, I understand your point about Harry’s having lost Sirius, but that was another of my frustrations with him. Why absolutely no (obvious) grief for his godfather? It’s just possible, I suppose, that all his bad behavior in HBP is sublimated grief, but it sure doesn’t feel like it. At least, not to me. On the contrary, Harry seems to completely compartmentalize what has happened to him – he shuts the door on it entirely. I didn’t like this at all, and it’s something he was never able to do before. It is, however, a coping mechanism we’ve seen before – in Draco, Severus, and Voldemort. Just a thought-
mary, actually, understanding some of his behavior as grief over Sirius fits the alchemical pattern nicely…the white stage is the most significant stage, but all of its events occur sort of behind the scenes, or secretly.
You know, it’s funny…I actually kind of liked Harry in HBP, because of the way Dumbledore interacted with him and he grew as a person in those interactions (especially his admitting he was wrong to delay the attempt to get the memory, and he apologized for it without excuse. That was huge.) But when I do the re-read of HBP, I’ll give your points due consideration.
In short, however, I’m skeptical of the “Harry got worse in HBP” theory, mainly because HBP is set up to represent Harry’s transformation into “Dumbledore’s man through and through.” It’s the most important transformative stage of the mythological hero’s journey and of the alchemical process. If I’m reading this right, Harry is supposed to have emerged from the White Stage as the Philosopher’s Stone (if John is still reading this, he can help a bit here, since he is more knowledgeable that I am at alchemy).
We have to be very careful when we talk about Harry’s dark side, Mary. Are we talking about unpleasant and self-centered behaviours which make him less likeable, although more human? Or are we talking about a drift into evil, in the sense of the desire to hurt others?
In HP6, Dumbeldore tells Harry about the qualities in Tom Riddle which concerned him when they first met: secrecy, cruelty, and wanting to dominate people. He also tells Harry that Riddle has never had any friends.
Is Harry edging towards the same tendencies? I don’t think so.
Perhaps we can see some cruelty in Harry in HP6, although it’s no more than what his father’s clique got up to when they were students. Secrecy? No. He keeps confiding in his two best friends. Interestingly, Dumbledore encourages him to do so. And he keeps listening to his friends, although he doesn’t always take their advice (and a good thing too!) And wanting to dominate others? I don’t see it. He loves people, and his actions are guided by his love and loyalty – sometimes too much so.
And I have to completely disagree with you that he shows no grief for Sirius. We see it very clearly. Compartmentalization? Well, what did you expect? Howling grief? That’s not the Anglo-Saxon hero’s way.
So no, I don’t see an overall drift to the dark side. But he’s no angel either.
And you know what? I don’t think that’s entirely a bad thing. There are lessons he needs to learn in order to be able to defeat Voldemort. And some of those lessons do come from the dark side. He needs to learn some dirty fighting skills. Not to get too comfortable with them, but to have them. Because the enemy isn’t going to be fighting “clean”. And his best teacher for this is someone who’s already fought for the other side, and then returned. One of the funnier lines in HP6 is when Harry comments to himself that he learned more from the Half Blood Prince than he ever did from Snape.
I guess the argument I’m making is that HP6 shows the “toughening up” of Harry. Not beyond all recognition. But he certainly isn’t the sweet kid he was in HP1 or HP2. And this is a goood thing.
Travis and Reyahn-
First, I do not see Harry as “Dumbledore’s man through and through”. He *says* he is, but what he says he is may be a long way from what he *really* is, seen objectively.
Reyhan, there is a name for the type of compartmentalizing we see Harry doing in HBP. It’s Occlumency. Rowling has said Harry will *never* be able to do Occlumency, and that this is a *good* thing. She has said, repeatedly, (through Dumbledore) that the power that will enable Harry to defeat the Dark Lord is love. So, to see Harry “toughening up” and getting better at battle skills strikes me as profoundly beside the point. Harry will never be able to out-fight Voldemort. There is an implication that even Snape cannot do that, and he is (at the end of HBP) a far, far better fighter than Harry. I imagine he always will be. Harry is *not* going to defeat Voldemort by out-fighting him. Are battle skills what enabled the boy to defeat the Dark Lord (twice, so far) before? I go into much greater detail about those two victories in my essay. It’s far too long to paraphrase here, but I’ll try to do so (at least, I’ll quote the relevant section) if you want me to.
But the point you raise, Reyhan, about Harry being like the Marauders at the same age, is well-taken. I think you’re right, and Swythyv has a lot of interesting comments about the Marauders and what they were *really* like. Have you read her stuff?
Travis, I think Harry will never be Dumbledore’s man through and through while he holds grudges and refuses to forgive. But I guess we need to remember that HBP is not complete. It’s part one of a two part story, and I expect I’ll see the moral development I’m hoping for in DH. at least, I hope I will. If not, this whole series will strike me as a huge cheat – but I said that before, didn’t I?
I, too, tended to like Harry (most of the time; not always) when he was with Dumbledore. (But, then again, I did not always like Dumbledore, either!) He – Harry – seemed extremely mutable depending on what he was experiencing and on who was influencing him. As I said to Trudy, the boy was extremely passive in HBP. He just drifted along and never seemed to *think* about anything. I far preferred Capslock!Harry in OOTP.
But I’m afraid I’m rambling now, so I’ll stop. Thanks for a good discussion. )
mary, yes and no – I think Harry is Dumbledore’s man through and through in that he is on a Dumbledore-trajectory. All the implications of that have not yet been worked out, but there is only one major factor in that: age. Surely Dumbledore wasn’t the model of forgiveness and morality at Harry’s age, either.
I’ll have to give the “Harry was passive in HBP” thing some thought.
I haven’t been a huge fan of swythyv’s theories, but I may try to check out her stuff on the Maurauders.
The capacity to love is one of the main differences between the good guys and the bad, and between Harry and Tom Riddle. And yes, I agree, that the power of love is crucial for the victory of good over evil in the saga.
But how is that power shown? In many ways, through caring and loyalty and kindness, yes. But also through fighting to protect the innocent and the powerless, and the ones you care for. That is Harry’s task in life (and his Achilles’ heel, of course, as shown in HP5)
He may not be the best spell-caster (Hermione is better) may suck at Occlumency (Snape is better),may not be the best potion maker, etc, etc., but he’s the best fighter. And in HP6 he’s honing his skills as a fighter, getting ready for the final battle.
As for his not thinking his own thoughts in HP6, you’ve got to be kidding. He follows Draco’s plot almost step by step, persists in his suspicions when everyone – everyone – dismisses them, and charts his own course as Dumbledore’s man even when Dumbledore is not around to guide him. The young man sees his path very clearly, I would say.
Mary, it almost seems to me that you want Harry to be saintly: you expect him to be compassionate, and forgiving and incapable of anger and vengeful thoughts. He is not that. And again, that’s a good thing, because that would be kind of boring. And in order to reach that kind of Zen-like transcendence, he’d have to experience all the human passions first, including anger and hatred. You would not expect that of a 16 year old.
Truth be told, I like Harry’s anger. I like it when he tells off Scrimgeour, when he stares down Snape, and when he outlasts Umbridge in their pissing match in HP5.
As for Harry being Dumbledore’s man, well, don’t take Harry’s word for it: take Fawkes’.
Okay – I am summarizing the relevant portions of my second essay, “To Love and Be Wise”. I do hope some of you may read it in full if you find these excerpts unclear.
But, Reyhan, I think these books *are* the story of Harry’s journey toward sainthood. And I don’t think a saint is quite the boring figure you suggest.* It is going to take everything Harry has to defeat Voldemort, and I do mean everything. Here are the excerpts:
This, then,is the conflict in the Harry Potter books. Love, in particular, self-sacrificial love, is opposed to the fear
of death. That fear, personified in Voldemort, ironically brings death to everyone and everything it touches; love, on the other hand, by fearlessly accepting death, brings life from it.
The Harry Potter books are also a 7-volume Bildungsroman. (I go on to explore Harry’s capacity for love and moral and
emotional growth.)
To expect an adult level of empathy and forgiveness from (Harry) is unreasonable.As far as Harry is concerned, evil has always been external to himself. Its physical embodiment has been Voldemort, who killed both his parents and tried to kill him when he was a baby. Harry also locates evil in Slytherin house, and particularly in its head, Severus Snape. He has a tendency to project his failings onto Snape (who has failings enough of his own) and to blame the man for things he himself has done. Perhaps the clearest example of this is at the end of Order of the Phoenix, after Sirius has died. Harry blames Snape for taunting Sirius and thereby pushing him to go rescue Harry. “He felt a savage pleasure in blaming Snape, it seemed to be easing his own sense of dreadful guilt, and he wanted to hear Dumbledore agree with him” (OOTP page 833). And again, shortly later:
“Snape had emerged from the staircase leading down to his office, and at the sight of him Harry felt a great rush of
hatred . . .Whatever Dumbledore said, he would never forgive Snape. . .” (OOTP, page 851)
As with Sam’s hatred of Gollum, Harry’s hatred of Severus Snape is constant and relentless. If there is anyone in these books who represents Harry’s shadow, it is surely Snape. This is one reason why I believe Harry’s forgiving Snape will be one of the climaxes of the final book.
But there is no doubt that, at the end of HBP, Harry is a very long way from any such mature understanding. He desires
vengeance on both Snape and Voldemort, and pushes away the young girl who loves him – in order to protect her, true, but to
deny love of any sort when you have been told repeatedly that it is your best weapon seems unwise at best. What most frustrates me about the sixteen-year-old Harry is his lack of curiousity about his own mother and her sacrifice. It is really Lily who has defeated Voldemort twice, but, when Dumbledore reminds Harry about the power of love, the boy is dismissive:
“But I haven’t got uncommon skill and power,” said Harry before he could stop himself.
“Yes, you have,” said Dumbledore firmly. “You have a power that Voldemort has never had. You can -”
“I know!” said Harry impatiently. “I can love!” It was only with difficulty that he stopped himself adding, “Big deal!” (HBP, page 509)
As Jodel remarks in her essay, “The Premature prediction”, “Harry is still ignoring the implications of his mother’s
sacrifice. In fact, he is not just ignoring is mother’s death. He is largely ignoring her life as well.” She adds, “Harry really does not come across in the books as a particularly loving child.” (http://www.redhenpublications.com/Premature.html) Still, if Harry does not seem particularly loving and aware, he is capable of love, and, as I said at the beginning of this essay, that fact alone is remarkable given the upbringing and training the Dursleys have given him. And – though he does not yet realize it – he has already used this power to defeat Voldemort. Harry’s victory takes place in the Ministry of Magic, and an essayist called Beyond_Pale has written a brief, but insightful analysis of his struggle. She points out that Harry accepts death willingly – even gladly – at the thought of being reunited with his godfather, Sirius Black. And this acceptance of death is what drives Voldemort, who has been possessing him, out of his body. Here is the link to her essay: (http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/147638.html)
Beyond-Pale contends it is really Harry’s acceptance of death that drives out Voldemort, not the boy’s ability to love.
However, I don’t think these two capacities can be separated. It is precisely because he loves his godfather that Harry experiences something akin to joy at the thought of being reunited with him. And that is what gives him the victory. In his willingness to accept death, Harry is imitating his mother, who willingly accepted death so that he could live. But Harry has not consciously realized this, and no one has pointed it out to him. I hope Harry will realize exactly what his mother did for him at some point in the seventh book.
I’d also like to point out that there seems to be a logical progression in the acts of love that have defeated, or will defeat, Voldemort. A mother’s love for her child is primal and instinctive; I think any mother would gladly risk her life to protect her baby. A boy’s love for a loving godfather – the only father figure he has ever known – is natural and human. And this love has brought Harry the second victory. But Lily’s sacrifice did not destroy Voldemort completely, and Harry’s victory in the Ministry was only temporary. The third and final victory will, I believe, require something more. I think Harry will be required to love his enemy. If Harry can manage to do so – to love and forgiveSeverus Snape, his shadow figure, as Sam forgives Gollum on Mount Doom – Voldemort will be defeated forever. Perhaps this seems an impossible task for Harry, especially given the events of HBP. But the boy was not able to kill Sirius Black when he thought he had good reason to do so. He was willing, in POA, to listen and forgive, and he found that the man he had thought his worst enemy was actually his godfather, who loved him and sought to protect him. It may be that the toxic relationship between Harry and
Snape will likewise be transformed by Harry’s forgiveness. Even if this is not the case, it seems clear that nothing less
than loving his enemy will be required of Harry if he is to win the final victory.
(taken from “To Love and Be Wise” by Mary Johnson)
To sum up very briefly, I don’t think, and have never thought, that Harry will kill Voldemort. He will vanquish him, and it is the power of love that will enable him to do so. I believe Harry will sacrifice his life to save Snape’s. So – that’s my prediction. )If I am anywhere near being right, Harry is on the wrong path pretty much throughout HBP. But we’ll see-
I do agree we only grow up by making mistakes, and Harry is very young. So I don’t want to be too hard on him!
(*for what I think a saint is, you should read my essay on Snape!))
I made a long post this afternoon responding to you, Reyhan. In it, I cited extensively from the essay I mentioned, but my entire response has vanished. Maybe it was too long?
Anyway, very briefly:
1. I think these books are *about* Harry’s path to sainthood. In my tradition, every human being on this planet is called to be a saint, but it is a lifelong journey and often involves some hard lessons.
2. What sort of love has been efficacious against Voldemort before? (I can’t believe I just said efficacious!) How did Lily defeat him? Did she fight him? No, the most effective and powerful love we’ve seen in this series has been the willingness to die for another person. Harry has shown this before, and I believe he will show it again.
3. Also, saints are not boring. Goodness is not boring. It is, or can be, frightening. I go into detail about that in my earlier essay – let me know if you’d like more on this.
4. Finally, as my sister just said, the end does not justify the means. Harry cannot and should not use evil, or even mixed, means or motives to defeat Voldemort. I believe he will become the second Voldemort if he fails to forgive and allows anger to master him.
Oh, and the thing about Harry’s independence of mind in pursuing Draco? What good did it do, exactly? The point at which I began to lose all patience with Harry was when he went into Draco’s carriage on the train to try and spy on him. That was just excruciatingly stupid. And Harry never did find out exactly what Draco was trying to do, did he? The attack by the Death Eaters came as a total surprise to everyone, if I’m remembering correctly.
mary, no, it wasn’t too long. It had links in it, and any post with links in it gets held for moderation (to limit spam). It’s up now!
Thanks, Travis! And I’m sorry for doubleposting; after I saw the very long post was not up, I was afraid I’d broken some rule or highjacked the thread, and I don’t want to do that. But I *did* want to say that Harry’s story must be a journey to spiritual, as well as physical maturity. I don’t think we disagree there. We simply disagree about how far along he is. He certainly *intends* to be Dumbledore’s man, just as you say. )
You have a very strong and clear vision of Harry’s journey, Mary. And while the story can (barely) accomodate that vision, I’m not convinced it’s the author’s vision.
Sainthood requires self-perfection and self-sacrifice. Harry isn’t trying to be perfect or even good. He doesn’t particularly want to sacrifice himself – although he will if he has to. He’s just a normal kid, who happens to be a wizard, who was almost randomly selected to be the saviour of the wizard world (and the human one as well, for all we know). The cool thing is, it was Voldemort who selected him. So now he and Voldemort are locked together in this dance of death, which goes on until one or the other fulfills the “prophecy”.
He’s a classic hero. Actually, the hero he resembles the most is Achilles, whose mother, Thetis, dipped him in the river Sytx, so that he became almost invulnerable. So love is the source of his strength, and it’s also his weakness – the kid will do anything to save the ones he loves. He has the sense to know this, hence his pushing Ginny away at the end of HP6. I’m betting he’s going to push away Ron and Herminone as well, in HP7, for the same reason.
As for forgiving Snape: what does he have to forgive Snape for? Being mean to him in class, docking points off his House and giving him detention? Well, all the times that Snape saved his life might go a little bit to offset that. For killing Dumbledore? That’s not something Harry can or should forgive him for – it’s got nothing to do with him. Harry doesn’t need to forgive Snape, just understand him.
By the way, I’ve never been that impressed by Frodo’s saintliness in LOTR. Frodo is kind to Gollum to what end? Gollum saves the world by biting off his finger at Mt. Doom. You don’t need to be a saint to get your finger bitten off.
“By the way, I’ve never been that impressed by Frodo’s saintliness in LOTR. Frodo is kind to Gollum to what end? Gollum saves the world by biting off his finger at Mt. Doom. You don’t need to be a saint to get your finger bitten off. “*
Good for you, Reyhan! My original paper is a comparison of Harry to Sam, who is the true hero of LOTR. You can’t really see that in the excerpts. But Frodo’s saintliness does matter too, even though it’s Sam’s journey to forgiveness and love that really saves the world. (Actually, Sam, Frodo and Gollum must act together to pull it off, just as some fans suspect that Harry, Snape and Pettigrew will act to destroy Voldemort.)
I do think that, since Harry blames Snape, he must forgive him. He is projecting his own capacity for evil onto Snape, and he’s got to stop doing that.
In this interpretation, I am taking seriously Rowling’s statement that she is writing a Christian story, and that anyone who knew her beliefs would be able to anticipate the ending. And it doesn’t matter in the least whether Harry wants to be a saint. That is what he must become, IMHO, in order to win. This series is the story of Harry’s redemption, I think, since Harry (like Sam) is the everyman figure. None of us are off the hook; we are *all* called to be saints.
But I may, of course, be entirely wrong in this interpretation. At least you understand where I’m coming from now!
(*But, actually, you do need to be a saint to get your finger bitten off. And Frodo is a hero, too, though his journey is rather different from Sam’s. Like Sam, Frodo spares Gollum and forgives him – and that matters. It really does.)
Mary, I read your comment skeptically, still thinking that Harry doesn’t have anything to forgive Snape for, when I suddenly had a blinding flash of insight: Snape betrayed the Potter family to Voldemort, leading to the death of Lily and James, and Harry being linked (if not actually Horcruxed) to Voldemort until death do them part. That is what Harry has to forgive him for. And that is what Snape has been atoning for for the last 16 years.
So, OK, Harry does have to forgive Snape. But that’s only going to happen when Harry sees that Snape is truly repentant. By sacrificing himself, perhaps?
The theme of forgiveness through repentance and sacrifice is an intriguing one. And if the series did end with Snape’s ultimate sacrifice, I’d be sad but content. But my understanding of the Christian myth is that an innocent has to sacrifice himself to save the world from evil. The likeliest candidate for that would be Harry (although Neville Longbottom is also a candidate).
Would JKR go the extra step and resurrect Harry? Could his mother’s protection (call it love) bring him back from the dead? Could Aunt P. be involved?
I’ve thought and thought about how you could write a sentence which ends with the word “scar”:
The only thing that had changed was the scar??
He was the same as before, but for the scar??
Beyond what I’ve already surmised – that Harry will offer his life to save Snape’s – I have absolutely *no* guesses about the ending. And that’s fine with me! The one thing I know is that Rowling will surprise me at least once in DH; I was astonished (and thrilled, actually) by the dementor attack and the Harry-Petunia interaction in OOTP. And the whole concept of the Unbreakable Vow was almost more surprising, and a great deal more unsettling. I don’t really think any of us can fully anticipate Rowling.
As for Snape dying to save Harry – it’s possible, and is the conclusion I leapt to in the first weeks after reading HBP. But I think now that Harry will die to save Snape. *I* would find that sad, but satisfying. I’m also starting to think that, as unlikely as this seems, Jodel and Swythyv may be right, and Snape may have been Dumbledore’s man, unswervingly, from the age of 12 or so. I’m not entirely convinced, and *would* be surprised if Rowling pulled off such a plot twist, but we can only wait and see. )
I do want to see Petunia with an important role in the last volume, but I can’t imagine how that could happen, either!
I don’t buy Joyce’s theory on that one bit. It seems to me that the only good reason Joyce, John, and Swythyv are pushing that theory is because it’s the only construction they’ve been able to come up with that would *really* be a surprise, and that’s just not a good enough reason. Rowling’s got a better story to tell than that, and there are far to many plot points against it, not least Dumbledore’s character (and the absolute monster he would be were it true).
OK. I just had a bad thought.
I’ve been re-reading the series, and finished HP2. I hadn’t realized, the first time around, just how deeply involved Ginny was in Tom Riddle’s evil. JKR – through Dumbledore – lets her off easy, saying she was imperiused and hence a victim rather than a perp. But the fact remains that she was possessed by evil, and did do evil things.
My bad thought is, what if Voldemort re-possesses her through some connection that exists as a result of the earlier connection? And the only way Harry can save her is by sacrificing himself, like his mother? He could save Snape, too, the same way. And Draco.
There is no real reason for believing this will happen except that it would fit the Christian myth: an innocent sacrificing himself in order to redeem a sinner – albeit unwitting.
Shades of Aslan and Edmund.
I hope I am totally out to lunch on this one.
Um – Travis? I don’t understand. That Snape has been Dumbledore’s man from childhood makes Dumbledore a monster? I don’t really see that at all. OTOH, it must be admitted, it would be a huge surprise if Dumbledore *were* a monster, but (like evil Snape, and passive Harry) that is not at all the sort of surprise I am looking for.
mary, yes – it makes Dumbledore an lying, manipulative, uncaring monster. If Snape was always loyal to Dumbledore, and the whole “leaking the prophecy” thing is true, there’s no way to get around Dumbledore’s willing complicity in the Potter’s deaths, risking of Harry’s life, and cold manipulation of Harry’s years at Hogwarts.
I’ve writtten about this at length in my two “Defending Dumbledore” posts.
You’re right – if Dumbledore were a monster, it would be a huge surprise. The problem is, it would really go against so much of what JKR has said in interviews, so it would be really bad form.
Well – sorry, but I think we do know Dumbledore is lying and manipulative. We’ve seen this in the books. His apparent cruelty toward Severus in POA and his acknowledgement that he had, in effect, lied to Harry for years in OOTP are two of the things that make me sure he is not the epitome of goodness, though he is a good man.
But I don’t think he uses people as tools. I also think that, where the prophecy is concerned, even a good Snape might well have chosen to reveal it on his own, because he thought it was (1) a lot of rubbish and (2) precisely the sort of rubbish that Voldemort was likely to believe, causing him to do something stupid. Actually, my wild theory is that Snape thought the prophecy referred to *himself*, so that he wouldn’t be endangering anyone else by revealing it. Dumbledore may possibly have thought the same thing.
In any case, Jodel is absolutely right to point out that Dumbledore lied about the prophecy – twice. And we don’t yet fully understand why.
I’m of the opinion that Joyce is quite wrong that Dumbledore has lied about the prophecy twice. I’ve written about it at length here. I think Joyce’s reading of this ignores a lot of facts, and I don’t think anything Dumbledore has said up until this point about the prophecy has been a lie. Dumbledore’s and Trelawney’s accounts are complementary, not at odds.
I also don’t see how Dumbledore lied to Harry up until Order. This was set up pretty clearly in Book 1. There were questions Dumbledore said he would not answer. “I will not, of course, lie,” he said. Dumbledore withholds information when he thinks it is necessary. He even lies when it is for the right cause. He hasn’t lied to Harry, as far as I can tell.
Tell you what – I’ll read your Snape essays, and you read my “Defending Dumbledore” essays
Well – a lie of ommission is still a lie, at least according to what I’ve been taught. To withhold important information when you are asked *is* a lie. And I believe I’ve already read your essays, but I’ll certainly look at them again. In the meantime, a few things I find screwy about Trelawny’s story versus Dumbledore’s:
1. Joyce is right to say that, if young Severus heard any part of the propehcy, it can only have been the end. Okay – the prophecy repeats, so perhaps he only heard the beginning of the first part, but, presuming Dumbledore’s story is completely straightforward, Severus and Aberforth were scuffling outside the door, and, in their struggle, knocked it open. You’ll note that, in PS/SS, when Dudley and Harry were fighting to listen at the door, neither child heard *anything* until they had stopped fighting and sorted themselves out. That’s realistic. Therefore, that Severus could have heard *any* part of the prophecy (which is short, and takes less than a minute to recite in full) seems a bit doubtful.
Also, assuming Dumbledore’s story is both true and complete, it’s obvious young Snape’s behaviour was highly suspicious. Aberforth had him by the collar! And, in the Wizarding World, “Obliviate” gets tossed around like candy at a parade. Why, exactly, didn’t the brothers simply obliviate the kid?
Because Trelawney’s story is obviously, absolutely, true. She has no reason to lie to Harry and no idea how important her story is to him. This is why, although Dumbledore is, in general, by far the more trustworthy person, I’m more inclined to believe Trelawney where the prophecy is concerned.
Can’t believe Dumbledore leaked the prophecy or that Snape was working for him from Day 1. The story loses too much by that, and becomes in effect another type of story, where there is no absolute good or evil, where the hero is a dupe, and there is little distinguishing the two sides. That’s not the story JKR has written to date.
However, Dumbledore does do a fair amount of lying by omission. To a certain extent, I think this is due to a hazard every author has to deal with when they have created a character who is more or less omniscient: if that character were to reveal all he or she knew all at once, there would be little opportunity for a journey of discovery and growth for the hero (and would make for a boring story).
And Mary, Dumbledore does use people as tools. There are at least three instances of this: Harry, Snape and Lupin.
Needing Slughorn’s memory about the coversation with Riddle, Dumbledore goes fishing for Slughorn using Harry as bait. I happen to think that Slughorn is one of JKR’s most vividly drawn characters, and would not be surprised if he was based on a real life person. I enjoy the character. However, I have to put aside a certain sense of distaste every time I read Chapter 4 of HP6 because of how Dumbledore uses Harry. The fact that he is underage makes it even more unpleasant.
As for Snape, well, where do I begin? I don’t accept the revisionist view of Snape as a modern-day Judas who had to betray the Potters in order to create the Harry we know. But if the good-Snape view is true, as I believe it to be, then Dumbledore has been using Snape for 16 years as his double agent. With his consent, perhaps. But you can see Snape resisting at the end. And Dumbledore’s murder – my interpretation makes Snape Dumbledore’s suicide weapon.
And the same goes for Lupin, having to live with the werewolves at Dumbledore’s orders.
As I was writing this, I couldn’t help but be reminded of John Le Carre’s world of spies and deception. Dumbledore begins to remind me a little bit of George Smiley: a good man, but a spy-master first and foremost, and doing things in the defense of freedom which don’t all stand up to scrutiny.
Well – Reyhan, I can’t quite agree with you that a good Snape makes Harry a dupe. I think it’s a bit more complicated than that, but I don’t feel I can go into detail now, since I’d just be repeating myself.* To me, there are hints throughout the books (1) that Snape is much more than he appears to be, and (2) that he may, indeed, be very deeply good. But I don’t see a good Snape as either minimizing Harry’s role (Harry *is*, after all, the only one who can vanquish Voldemort) or making Dumbledore a wicked puppetmaster.
As for Dumbledore’s using people – yes. He does use Harry against Slughorn, and it makes me uncomfortable, too. With Severus, Remus and others, I do think the headmaster tries to get their informed, willing cooperation, and that is quite different from the way Voldemort uses Draco, or even the way Sirius (arguably) uses Lupin as a weapon against young Snape. But you are right that they *are* his tools, nonetheless.
The way I see things is that Dumbledore actually *can* be cold and manipulative, but he is still good because he desires good for those he loves. That includes both Severus and Harry. I guess what I’m saying is that I see the headmaster as someone who has made mistakes, including some quite serious ones, but whose heart is in the right place. He is not the epitome of goodness, but he’s certainly good. And Voldemort is as certainly evil. Making Snape good from the outset doesn’t change that, does it?
Also, in spite of all the hints I see as to Snape’s true nature and loyalties, he’s far from perfect. The thing that keeps me from accepting the “Dumbledore’s man from childhood” absolutely is his “mudblood” comment to Lily. That he is firmly Dumbledore’s man NOW, though, is, to me, beyond question.
Sorry if this is incoherent – writing at work, and I shouldn’t be.
(* Read my essays! please –
)
It seems that a few folk here have some very odd ideas about what “lying by omission” is. Let’s not be confused about this.
Simply declining to divulge something is *not* lying by omission. None of us is at liberty to tell everyone everything, even if it were physically possible. The most outrageously unstoppable motor-mouth still can’t tell you *everything* (there isn’t enough time, for one thing) – and believe me, if they could, you really wouldn’t want to know!
But if it were possible, it would in fact be appallingly irresponsible and selfish to unburden ourselves indiscriminately on all matters and at every moment. Openness must be balanced against rights of privacy, decency, civility and loyalty to others, concern for their feelings and dignity – and occasionally, concern for the effect of deeply disturbing or needlessly frightening information, particularly on minors.
Lying by omission is when a person seeks to convey the impression that they have given an accurate and balanced account of essentials, while omitting one or more details that would lead the other party to different or even opposite conclusions. In other words *purposely deceiving* by being *secretively* selective about the information that is offered.
There is, however, nothing secretive about Dumbledore’s omissions. He states quite openly that he can’t and won’t tell Harry various things. Moreover whether we agree with them or not, he has his reasons, some of which he later divulges.
Dumbledore is over-protective and that is one of his mistakes. He was probably right to avoid telling Harry that either he or Voldemort must kill the other, when Harry was just eleven and not ready for the burden of such information. The fact that he held this information in reserve until Harry was 15 (ie in OotP) was unfortunate and an error of judgement perhaps, but that is not the same thing as lying.
As for the differences, such as they are, between Dumbledore’s and Trelawney’s accounts of the night of the prophecy, I see no need to assume they are contradictory. It’s very possible that Snape heard the first part of the prophecy with his ear at the keyhole, was engaged in a scuffle during the second half, and emerged into the room in the custody of Alberforth after the remainder of the prophecy had concluded. Trelawney, who it seems blacks out whenever overtaken by a real prophecy, can hardly be expected to provide an account of the scuffle or the timing, nor to shed any meaningful light on what Snape may or may not have heard. She doesn’t in fact even know what she said on that occasion or several others.
We are presented with an account of Dumbledore in which it seems that he wrestles with competing imperatives and attempts to act responsibly in sharing privileged and dangerous information. His errors in timing and trust do not amount to lying.
Um – sorry, Seriously_black. If Dumbledore told Harry a partial story while telling him it was the whole story, that was a lie. I think he has been more subtle than that, and has not (usually) deliberately misled Harry, but I do think he has consistently failed to tell him the whole truth – about many things. The full story of how he injured his hand is just one example.
And I really don’t see how young Severus could possibly have heard and retained *any* of the prophecy if Trelawney’s story is true. It takes no more than fifteen to twenty seconds to recite the whole thing, even if you do it slowly in a spooky voice. And he and Aberforth were scuffling at the door for how long? We don’t know. From what I can see, Dumbledore has absolutely no way of knowing for sure how much Snape did or didn’t hear.
Of course, all this could just be more clumsy writing on Rowling’s part. Like Jodel, I am starting to wonder if her story, in the end, will even hang together logically, though, unlike Jodel, I still have hopes that it will. We’ll see in three months or so!
Mary, I quite agree that if Dumbledore had claimed to be telling the whole story whilst withholding essential details, that would be a lie. However I don’t believe he did so. On the contrary, he explained at various points that he would not tell Harry everything.
The occasion (in the penultimate chapter of OotP) on which Dumbledore agreed to “tell Harry everything”, I think it’s reasonable to suppose that “everything” meant the salient points. For Harry to understand the situation, there was no more need for Harry to know which one of Voldemort’s spies had overheard the prophecy than there was for him to know what Madam Pince had for lunch that day. The fact that Dumbledore omitted some extraneous and potentially distracting points does not make his account a lie.
Indeed, had Dumbledore included what he must have presumed (since he trusted Snape) to be an irrelevant detail about the identity of the informant, he’d have risked drawing Harry’s attention away from the key facts and distracting him completely in a further round of rants (justified or not) against Snape. IOW to have included such a detail would have poured salt into a wound for no reason, would have served no useful purpose and would likely have been counterproductive. It would have moved Harry’s focus *away* from the truth, not towards it. In light of that, I believe Dumbledore did his best to convey the essential truth in a balanced way in the context of a sensitive and emotionally charged conversation.
Meanwhile, as regards the time it takes to recite the prophecy, I just timed it. Reading at a moderate (but not unreasonably slow) pace, it took forty-two seconds – more than twice as long as your estimate – and plenty of time for someone to listen at the keyhole for the first part but then engage in a scuffle during the remainder.
I see no reason to be flinging around accusations of clumsy writing or faulty logic. However (needless to say) you must do as you see fit.
seriously_black has saved me a lot of time by answering exactly as I would have.
I’d also add that not only would including the identity of the snoop been incredibly distracting to Harry, but Dumbledore also would have seen it as a betrayal of his trust in Snape – hence, Dumbledore would be doing Snape a great evil by divulging his identity as the snoop to Harry.
I think we can assume that Trelawney was speaking slowly, as she was in a trance of some sort. So with 40 seconds to a minute of speaking, there’s plenty of time for Snape to have stooped to the keyhole, heard the first couple of lines, then heard Aberforth’s footsteps, pull away, a scuffle to happen, and events to proceed exactly as Trelawney said. The accounts are complimentary, in my opinion.
I’d also say that “tell Harry everything” obviously didn’t mean “every important detail about Harry’s life up until this point,” or they’d have been there forever. He clearly meant, “everything I should have told you when you asked this question in your first year.” Which also would have not included the identity of the snoop, for reasons of loyalty to Snape.
Travis, I understand you. And, again, we don’t disagree that Dubmledore is protecting Snape, and that it is right for him to do that. And, although I still think it somewhat doubtful that Snape could have heard anything at all, and even more doubtful that Dumbledore could *know*, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he heard only the first part of the prophecy, I also think Jodel is reading a little too much into this. It is *possible* – just – that, as she says, Dumbledore ‘turned the prophecy loose’; it’s far more likely that young Snape acted on his own. Which, btw, would not necessarily make him Voldemort’s man at the time. But this may be one of the questions Rowling never clears up.
Seriously_black, I do think Rowling is a genius in many respects. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be reading and discussiing her books so eagerly. But, all the same, I have very serious questions about her characterizations and the moral messages she will ultimately be sending. That these are Christian books is absolutely clear. That does not mean that, when all is said and done, I will agree with her message in all respects. An example of what worries me – at tbe moment, as the plot stands, she is sending a very mixed message about bullying. This is awful when Dudley or Draco does it (quite correct – they are rather horrible boys), but, apparently, perfectly okay when the twins do it. It *looks* like a double standard, and I’m not really sure she has thought it through.
Also – we have been round and round in circles about this for months, and have agreed to differ, but the way she presents Tom Riddle is problematic, at least to me. He is apparently genetically disposed to evil, and odd almost from the moment he is born. Then there is Slytherin house: it seems perfectly okay for Harry and his friends to condemn every child in that house (and they are children!) just because they got sorted there at the age of 11. I don’t like that. Both these things, to me, undercut her message about free will; a message I strongly agree with. Contradictions again, and I cannot tell whether she intends them or not, nor what she means by them.
Of course, it is very possible that, by the end of the series, all these contradictions will be resolved. I am hoping so. But, at the moment, I just don’t know. Even if they are not, she’s clearly a skilfull writer in several ways, and she has gifts I don’t. I am a miniaturist, and something of a romantic. She is a satirist, very energetic and inventive, who paints with a broad brush. What she has done with the character of Snape looks like genius to me (but I’m aware my interpretation may be wrong. I hope not.) We could list the facts we definitely know about him on one hand; we are *never* privy to his thoughts or pov, yet he is (to me, at least), perhaps the most vivid, compelling and complex character she has written.
It’s too early to judge her, and I do not mean to do it. But I can’t help being nervous about DH because there are so many questions left unresolved, and so many ways she could go wrong.
I can see two ways JKR can “go wrong”. One is by writing a boring story. And that, based on the evidence of six books, is highly unlikely. The other way is by making her characters act arbitrarily – i.e. without enough of a link to what has happened before. I think there is a slightly higher possibility for that. The reason is that she did foresee the whole tale from beginning to end seven odd years ago, and has to reach that pre-ordained point by the end of book 7. She may not have left herself enough room to finish her tale convincingly.
On the other hand, what she has already done is so remarkable and unprecedented, that I would not be too surprised if she has saved the best for last.
mary, I suppose we’ve reached an impass on the prophecy thing at this point
I think you have put your finger on something when it comes to the book’s overall view of Slytherins (just as you have noted with Muggles), but you probably won’t be surprised to learn that I think (and have argued elsewhere) that Dumbledore is, once again, the exception – something I got skewered for over at HP Essays at one point.
But the point is this – I’m hoping Rowling does resolve this a little better, and I think she will do so as Harry continues to mature into “Dumbledore’s man.”
Mary, Dumbledore may not immediately have known “beyond a shadow of doubt” that Snape overheard part of the prophecy. Unless Legilimency told him so at the time, it is possible that all he knew was what Aberforth could tell him, which may have indicated that Snape could not have heard the last part of the prophecy, but would not indicate what he *had* heard if anything.
However you are forgetting that two events which followed shortly afterwards would have left Dumbledore in no doubt that Snape had heard part of the prophecy. Firstly Voldemort began to act on information his informant had given him and secondly, Snape capitulated and *told* Dumbledore what he had heard and what he had told Voldemort.
Since we know that Dumbledore came to trust Snape long before his account to Harry of the salient events of 1980, we have no reason to suppose that he was in any doubt that Snape heard part of the prophecy and exactly which part.
Frankly I don’t understand why you think it is doubtful that Snape could have heard anything at all. Sneaky people can and do listen at keyholes and sometimes they do hear things. Occasionally they are interrupted before they have heard everything. Sometimes a scuffle follows. It all seems perfectly reasonable to me – and it is consistent with both Dumbledore and Trelawney’s accounts.
Since we know that Snape will have long since given Dumbledore his side of the story and we also know that, wisely or not, Dumbledore believes him, I’m also at a loss as to why you doubt that Dumbledore knows what Snape heard.
To assert, as it seems Jodel urges us to, that Dumbledore was orchestrating the whole sequence of events (and told Snape what to tell Voldemort) is not only unnecessary to explain the events that occurred, but incomptaible with much we’ve seen. It’s an interesting flight of fancy perhaps, but hardly a useful speculation.
As regards bullying, again I take a somewhat different view from you. There is no *mixed* message. Rowling is showing humans as flawed and apt to behave badly sometimes, inclined to let their emotions get the better of them, especially when they are young. But she also shows something deeper and much more profound – that fundamental motivations matter. There is a key difference between the mischief perpetrated by the Twins and the mischeif perpetrated by Draco or Dudley because the Twins are not generally acting out of malice. The may be misguided at times – and irresponsible at others, but they seek, in general to redress the balance of wrongs, not to introduce new evils. They target Percy pecause they think he is too self-important and pompous, that he throws his weight around inappropriately and his loyalties are misplaced, they target Umbridge because they think she abuses her power also. By contrast, Draco and Dudley victimize those they think are weak and easy targets and they do it for personal advantage, entertainment, self-aggrandisement and other self-seving motives.
Rowling has shown that people don’t have to be perfect for their hearts to be in the right place and that flawed humans sometimes do the wrong thing, even if they are fundamentally loyal and their intentions are basically good. The Twins are an excellent example of this. If they (and all the others on the side of good, Harry included) were spotless goody-two-shoes then the story would be simplistic, uninteresting and would not resemble reality. Having flawed people who are nevertheless fiercely loyal and (overall) mean well, is in my view a crucial element of the story. Rowling is teaching us that motives, loyalty and fundamental orientation towards good or evil overshadow petty indiscretions. IOW *why* we act matters ever more deeply than *how* we act.
Again, as regards Slytherin, Rowling is showing us a slice of reality. Her characters tend to view things in overly simplistic and black-and-white terms and this leads them to wrong conclusions at various points. A deeper insight that is emerging throughout the series is that Slytherin house and its members are not necessarily irredeemable. In book Six, the introduction of Slughorn’s character and the wavering of Malfoy in the Tower scene lead us further in this direction. If Rowling has shown her characters as ignorant earlier in the series, she also shows their overly simplistic views being increasingly challenged, as the series progresses. Rather than being concerned that Rowling is telling us to think that Slytherin is pure evil, I think that Rowling is using the story to *show* us otherwise.
Shades of gray do make for more interesting – and realistic – characters. But there are defining moments. Where you stand at such moments defines you as a character, if not for ever, then for a good long time after.
There are three characters whose wavering orientation to good or evil currently interests me: Draco, Pettigrew, and Percy.
Seems like Draco has already reached his limits for evil. Schoolyard bullying and posturing appear to be it. He doesn’t seem to be a killer.
I’m currently reading HP4, and I realized that Peter Pettigrew seems to be pleading for Harry Potter’s life in the opening scene. Don’t know how far he’ll go with that. And he has killed a lot of people without any apparent remorse. But redemption seems possible, perhaps through an act of self-sacrifice. Unless of course he does a Gollum and scratches Harry’s scar off during the final confrontation.
And what about Percy Weasley? Will he diminish into a middle-level management bully as his star in the Ministry descends? Or is he going to convince himself that Death Eaters will carry the day and ally himself to them?
Two things tilt the balance towards Snape is good theories…
During the flight with Draco, never once does he try to attack Harry…
The second instance is when Harry tries some Unforgivables snape shouts “No Unforgivables from you Potter…”
Dipy, if *those* are the two things which are supposed to “tilt the balance” then I guess it’s pretty unlikely to tilt.
Snape himself gave a perfectly plausible reason why he would not have sought to attack Harry when leaving with Draco – he explicitly stated that it was the Dark Lord’s orders that Harry was not to be touched.
Moreover any suggestion that he was expressing justifiable indignation at Harry’s attempt to use an unforgiveable curse (rather than merely further mocking and humiliating him as he has done routinely throughout six books) is exposed as utter hypocrisy given that Snape himself gave voice to the “Avada Kedavra” curse just moments earlier.
The operative word here is YOU…Snape is clear when he says “No unforgivables from YOU, Potter”…It could also be a sort of a veiled advice that Unforgivable curses are not the way to take out Lord Voldy…
For me, Snape is still in grey and has yet to show himself as black (seriously or otherwise
) or white…
I think Dipy has a point about the Unforgivables. I don’t think Harry should be using Unforgivables. He’s not going to take out Voldemort with the Avada Kedavara, but with old magic, like his mum almost did.
I suspect that using an Unforgivable Curse, even the Cruciatus and the Imperius, damages your soul somehow, and perhaps makes it impossible for you to use the old magic.
An alternate theory I have is that because Voldemort is afraid of death, in order to defeat him, you need to be not afraid of death. The two examples of this are Lily Potter who temporarily defeated Voldemort by not being afraid to die for her son, and Harry himself who did a self-exorcism at the Ministry in OotP by thinking longingly of death.
Perhaps if you kill someone, you automatically become afraid of death.
Either way, Harry might inalterably harm his power to defeat Voldemort.
Which would support Dipy’s idea that Snape was giving Harry good advice. Advice that Dumbledore would have given him, had he been there.
I think that when Rowling told to Radcliffe that she was having trouble with Dumbledore, it doesn’t meant Albus, maybe she was having trouble with his brother Aberforth and he will appear in number 7 and Albus is really dead and will only appear in the portrait in hogwarts…
Reyhan, I think that young Tom Riddle considered death a “weakness”, and those who succumb to it are weak, like his mother. He honestly believed that if she was really a powerful witch, she wouldn’t have died. And we all know that LV believes that he has no weaknesses. We all know that to be untrue. As DD said, he underestimates the power of love. And I do agree with you that it will be that power, not any Unforgivable Curses, that will defeat LV.
Throughout the 6 books so-far, Dumbledore keeps saying how Voldemort “transferred some of his power into Harry” doesn’t that mean that Voldemort uninteltially made Harry into the last Horcrux, so he must die at the end of the book? And if he is dead, but really didn’t want to be, he could come back as a ghost and, i dunno – possess Voldemort and the love inside Harry would kill LV?
Jenny, the idea of Harry possessing Voldemort is truly revolutionary. Unfortunately, I don’t think Harry could bear to inhabit Voldemort’s evil soul any more than Voldemort could bear to inhabit Harry’s loving soul.
I don’t know anything about the role of stoppered death, but JKR said that Dumbledore is definately dead, so don’t get your hopes up!