GoF 27

[pauraque_bk]

GoF 27: Padfoot Returns

And so do we. By popular demand, I think I can fairly say!

[Rita's article:] However, it might not be Miss Granger's doubtful natural charms which have captured these unfortunate boys' interest.

'She's really ugly,' says Pansy Parkinson, a pretty and vivacious fourth-year student, 'but she'd be well up to making a Love Potion, she's quite brainy. I think that's how she's doing it.' (444)

If you like the theory that Ginny's using a love potion in HBP, here's more foreshadowing.

'I told you!' Ron hissed at Hermione, as she stared down at the article. 'I told you not to annoy Rita Skeeter! She's made you out to be some sort of -- of scarlet woman!'

Hermione stopped looking astonished and snorted with laughter.

'Scarlet woman?' she repeated, shaking with suppressed giggles as she looked round at Ron.

'It's what my mum calls them,' Ron muttered, his ears going red again. (445)

Certainly reminiscent of Ron's "D'you think I want peo­ple saying my sister's a--" in HBP, though I doubt he was going to say "scarlet woman" that time. Ron is very worried about the girls he cares about being seen as sluts.

'If that's the best Rita can do, she's losing her touch,' said Hermione, still giggling, as she threw Witch Weekly onto the empty chair besdie her. 'What a pile of old rubbish.'

She looked over at the Slytherins, who were all watching her and Harry closely across the room to see if they had been upset by the article. Hermione gave them a sarcastic smile and a wave[...] (445)

I don't know whether this should be a surprising reaction from her. Instead of getting upset at the petty bullies, she later exacts her revenge on Rita, the one who's really done her wrong.

'Ah ... reading magazines under the table as well?' Snape added, snatching up the copy of Witch Weekly. 'A further ten points from Gryffindor ... oh, but of course ...' Snape's black eyes glittered as they fell on Rita Skeeter's article. 'Potter has to keep up with his press cuttings...'

The dungeon rang with the Slytherins' laughter, and an unpleasant smile curled Snape's thin mouth. To Harry's fury, he began to read the article aloud.

'Harry Potter's Secret Heartache ... dear, dear, Potter, what's ailing you now? A boy like no other, perhaps...'

Harry could feel his face burning now. Snape was pausing at the end of every sentence to allow the Slytherins a hearty laugh. The article sounded ten times worse when read by Snape. (446-447)

It's a pretty long article, too! I hope no one was actually trying to, you know, do some schoolwork while Snape was hamming it up. This is one of those times where you can't really justify Snape's behavior; he's just being an ass.

Interestingly, we get no reaction shots from Hermione here. Perhaps because the entire performance is really directed at Harry, as we can see when Snape moves Harry to sit in front of his desk, and carries on:

'You might be labouring under the delusion that the entire wizarding world is impressed with you,' Snape went on, so quietly that no one else could hear him [...] 'but I don't care how many times your picture appears in the papers. To me, Potter, you are nothing but a nasty little boy who considers rules to be beneath him.' (447)

Which is nothing we haven't heard before from him, though every time Snape complains about Harry "breaking rules" it sounds very disingenuous to me. Snape doesn't hate Harry because he thinks rules are beneath him, but because of James (and I don't think he hated James because he "broke rules" either).

Anyway, this segues into:

'So I give you fair warning, Potter,' Snape continued, in a softer and more dangerous voice, 'pint-sized celebrity or not -- if I catch you breaking into my office one more time--' (448)

'[...]But unless you watch your step, you might just find that my hand slips --' he shook the crystal bottle slightly '--right over your evening pumpkin juice[...]' (449)

Though the context is not the same, I'm surprised at how closely the dialogue here matches the "closet scene" in the movie. Of course, the movie doesn't convey Harry's reaction very well:

He didn't like the sound of that Truth Potion at all, and nor would he put it past Snape to slip him some. He repressed a shudder at the thought of what might come spilling out of his mouth if Snape did [...] there were all the other things he was concealing ... like the fact that he was in contact with Sirius ... and -- his insides squirmed at tthe thought -- how he felt about Cho ... (449)

Nice foreshadowing of the Occlumency plotline in OotP, how strongly he resists Snape's intrusion into his memories of kissing Cho -- ie, his sexual feelings (the ones that make him feel all squirmy inside! my goodness). Snarry isn't my favorite pairing, but I will totally grant that there's a wealth of relevant canon to make it more interesting.

Next comes the Trio's visit to Sirius's Cave of Angst and Rat-Eating. I always found this scene sort of pointless, and didn't resent it not being included in the movie, but now that I look more closely at it, it's actually very nice as a character interlude.

[Harry says Crouch Sr has been ill.]

'Getting his comeuppance for sacking Winky, isn't he?' said Hermione coldly. She was stroking Buckbeak, who was crunching up Sirius' chicken bones. (453)

Hermione's protectiveness of Winky is obliquely compared to affection for an animal, not a human being. Clever.

Sirius paced all around the cave in silence. Then he said, 'Harry, did you check your pockets for your wand after you'd left the Top Box?'

[...]

'Are you saying whoever conjured the Mark stole my wand in the Top Box?'

'It's possible,' said Sirius.

'Winky didn't steal that wand!' said Hermione shrilly.

'The elf wasn't the only one in that box,' said Sirius[...] (454)

Indeed not. But as usual, Sirius's advice is of mixed value. He raises some valid points and introduces a lot of information, but also casts doubt on a number of innocent characters.

'Oh, I know Crouch all right,' he said quietly. 'He was the one who gave the order for me to be sent to Azkaban -- without a trial. [...] Crouch used to be Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, didn't you know? [...] Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorised the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects. I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark side.' (456-457)

It's not clear whether Crouch had special wartime powers that someone in his position wouldn't normally have. Ron gasps along with Hermione at the revelation that Crouch imprisoned Sirius without a trial, but is it the act that shocks him, or the person who committed it?

'Most go mad in [Azkaban], and plenty stop eating in the end. [...] You could always tell when a death was coming, because the Dementors could sense it, they got excited. [...] Crouch never came for his son's body. The Dementors buried him outside he fortress, I watched them do it.'

Sirius threw aside the bread he had just lifted to his mouth, and instead picked up the flask of pumpkin juice and drained it. (459)

That last is surely significant. The Trio brought that pumpkin juice, so it's not spiked, but doesn't it seem that Sirius reaches for a drink out of habit, subconsciously wishing to dispell the horrible memories he's just relived? Very much the Sirius of OotP who smells of stale alcohol, I think.

The image of Dementors burying a corpse is perhaps a little strange, but they are corporeal, so it's not completely absurd. The point is that a human gravedigger would have noticed it wasn't really Crouch Jr, but his mother, I expect.

'So you think Snape could be up to something, then?' asked Harry, but Hermione broke in.

'Look, I don't care what you say, Dumbledore trusts Snape--'

'Oh, come off it, Hermione,' said Ron impatiently, 'I know Dumbledore's brilliant and everything, but that doesn't mean a really clever Dark wizard couldn't fool him--'

'Why did Snape save Harry's life in the first year, then? Why didn't he just let him die?'

'I dunno -- maybe he thought Dumbledore would kick him out--'

'What d'you think, Sirius?' Harry said loudly, and Ron and Hermione stopped bickering to listen. (460)

This exchange works on two levels. With an example of his occasional uncanny intuition, Ron tells us the truth, but in a form we don't recognize.

Simultaneously, Ron and Hermione speak as Harry's inner voices, arguing back and forth until Harry himself has to yell for them to shut up, seeking a second opinion outside his own head. (Someone he sees as wise, though we may not agree.)

'[Snape] was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters.' (461)

That's Rosier, Wilkes, Bellatrix, Rodolphus, and Avery. If we take what Sirius says in OotP into account, we can add Lucius to the "gang", I reckon. Whether Snape was really friends with any of these people, or was more like their "lap dog", is up for debate.

'He showed Snape something on his arm?' said Sirius, looking frankly bewildered. [...] 'Well, I've no idea what that's about ...' (461)

The practice of marking Death Eaters wasn't and isn't widely known, even to someone who has every reason to know a lot about the DEs. It's sort of hard to imagine how the secret could be kept, unless you accept that the mark could be hidden at will.

[Sirius:] 'And don't forget, if you're talking about me among yourselves, call me Snuffles, OK?' (463)

Aside from just sounding silly, does this actually make sense? Why wouldn't they just call him Padfoot? Or, say... Bob. If you overheard people talking about "Snuffles", wouldn't you be more likely to ask who that was, not less?

Well, aside from that, this is a very nice chapter. I wish they were all like this.


Previous GoF posts are saved in memories here. I should probably go read them too, since it's been so long...

Comments

[pilly2009.livejournal.com]

I agree with a lot in this post, though I'm not entirely sure about this...

But really, we could equally read it as a quiet demand for an explanation – a reasonably direct request that Harry account for his behavior.

Well, we could -- and had Snape said the same thing to Draco Malfoy, a student he has some sort of understanding with at this point, chances are that he might have taken it as the same (because as Snape has never had cause or desire to insult him before, he could recognize it as such). But it's not exactly shocking that Harry couldn't, and I have doubts that any other fourteen-year-old could, even one with a neutral background with Snape, as it's not presented as a request for explanation so much as a rather insulting decided statement. And while we've never actually seen Snape interact with another student this way, with the exception of Neville (who, for obvious reasons, tends not to respond either), Ron did warn Harry against trying to defend himself to Snape way back in PS.

Additionally, Snape had just docked Gryffindor twenty points without letting any of the Trio get a word in edgewise (which would make a request for explanation after punishment had already been doled out a little odd, not to mention hard to detect).

I don't think Harry can fairly be faulted for ignoring Snape (and any possible overtures he was making) after the point had already been driven home that his explanations were worthless. And the only other reason he had for ignoring Snape was his refusal to let Snape get a rise from him; and while this could in some sense be taken as contempt, we have also seen what happens when Harry does let Snape get to him, and that too has continuously been described as insolence and contempt, which I more strongly agree with, but which also makes it hard for me to see his doing the exact opposite as the very same thing.

I can easily see how Snape would take it as such, though -- for all his gripes about Harry and James, he's quite the attention-whore himself, and doesn't take kindly to being dismissed either -- and maybe that's the important thing. But what Snape sees doesn't necessarily equate to what actually is, any more than it what actually is equates to what Harry sees. That's the important balance I've always personally seen, that each are in some parts wrong and right about each other.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not going to defend Snape's fairness, because I agree that Snape is not being fair. But what I think is important, here, is that Snape, however hostile he may be, is treating Harry like a human being. He is speaking to him frankly -- this is what I think of you, this is why I don't like you -- which, paradoxical as it may be, implies a kind of respect that silence and manipulation simply don't. It's an authentic communication, and Harry has the chance to reply and chooses not to.

I don't agree that Snape's prior behavior with the points excuses Harry's refusal to speak. The points business may, again, be unfair and disproportionate, but Snape is clearly within his rights. The trio is whispering in class, they're reading a newspaper -- it's an open and shut case, and there's no need to hear excuses. He may be unreasonably severe here (and more severe than he would be with others) but his motives are perfectly clear and defensible, he's not being obscure about them. The Trio know where they stand, and why.

And as soon as Snape separates the Trio after this incident, as soon as he secures a reasonably private opportunity to talk to Harry, he does talk. And Harry doesn't.

Snape is being a hard-ass, but there's a personal connection there, a personal message. Harry is refusing to recognize Snape even as a person.

[lanjelin.livejournal.com]

Hi, sorry for just jumping in, but I just wanted to add that even if Snape is just asking for information at this point, the history they already have together makes it more or less impossible for Harry to react in any other way.

I'm not saying that Harry is in the right though, just that he has come to expect Snape to behave like the Dursleys in these sorts of situations; they've already decided what to think, and anything he says won't matter a bit.

This is also consistent with the irony theme I think JKR is so good at; here Harry has done what the Durleys are doing to him, which is disregarding what Snape actually does in favour of Harry's own preconceptions.

Of course, Harry has more of a reason to treat Snape this way, since Snape was pretty bad from the start. But he still does it, and I think it's a product of his upbringing, just as his habit of forgetting the adult world even exists (because for him it pretty much didn't, before he found out about Hogwarts).

[pauraque]

Jumping in is allowed. Encouraged, even. :)

I think you're right. Snape and Harry behave very similarly towards one another, which is sometimes disguised by the fact that Snape has authority over Harry, and makes his behavior appear much worse.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

Hey, jumping in is half the fun!

I agree with almost all of this -- except for the idea that it's "impossible" to behave any differently. Although I think I know what you mean by that.

I think your diagnosis of what Harry is doing, and why, is dead on target. But I also think it's possible to empathize and judge at the same time. I guess Harry's behavior is a function of a lot of things -- his experience of the Dursleys, which was not normal; his strategies for protecting his own ego, which may be necessary but aren't always ideally functional; his judgments about Snape, which may be naive or incomplete. It's good to understand all this, but it's also good to evaluate it, and to consider whether he has the capacity for growth or change. That's the only reason I'm judging him so harshly -- because I think it's useful to have a clear sense of what he's doing wrong, of how his limitations are affecting his ability to deal with problems like Snape.

I babbled on at ridiculous length to pilly, below, because s/he made so many specific points, so I'll just cross-reference that and not repeat it. :)

[pilly2009.livejournal.com]

The Trio know where they stand, and why.

I wasn't arguing that Snape's behaviour excuses Harry's refusal to speak (if it came off that way, I apologize), I was arguing more that his behaviour explains Harry's refusal to speak. Because we know for a fact that Harry didn't come to the conclusion that Snape was expecting an explanation from him; and Snape's behaviour explains why -- it's highly unorthodox to demand that Harry account for his behaviour after points had already been taken, because however deserving the punishment may be, what use is the explanation after the fact? It's not like the points are going to be given back. It's not like said explanation was demanded at a time when it could have actually made a difference. So that's why I think Harry didn't hear Snape's words as anything other than what they seemed to be, an insult.

Which is how we come to this...

It's an authentic communication, and Harry has the chance to reply and chooses not to.

...because it's starting to seem like a lose/lose situation no matter what Harry would have chosen to do. Because yes, he had the chance to reply. We know how he took Snape's opening statement, he was angry; let's face it, anything he would have said in reply would have been insolent. And we've seen Harry in situations like this before, where he did happen to talk back and thus acknowledge Snape as a person worth getting his opinion across to, and those scenes are still (correctly, IMO) viewed as Harry's being insolent and contemptuous of Snape's position. So...I don't know, was this what you meant by Snape always bringing out the worst in Harry, and vice versa -- no matter what Harry chooses to do, he's still showing a very ugly side of himself?

I guess I'm having a little bit of trouble getting behind the idea that ignoring someone = dehumanization, because...well I definitely agree that it shows a lack of respect, in a "you're not worth wasting my breath over" kind of way, but so often it is really the best response to a variety of different situations (this one included, imo).

I mean, if your infuriating boss at work starts railing at you because he is ticked off about something (that may or may not have anything to do with you personally), do you ignore him until he's done, or do you start railing back? What's the best choice? When spouses get ticked off at each other, they could either revert to the ignoring act, or they could keep fighting verbally, letting it escalate and acknowledging each other as people, though disrupting not only their own peace, but the peace of anyone else around them at the same time.

In GoF, Hermione completely ignores the Slytherin girls as they laugh at Skeeter's article, and is constantly telling the boys to do the same. Multiple times throughout they actually do attempt to take this advice, and ignore the Slytherin kids completely while the Slytherins acknowledge them as people ... but is this the less favourable option, below the option of acknowledging said Slytherins back and allowing the fight to escalate and become ugly and physical? I need someone to find me any instance in canon when the Gryffindors have not either become physical, or come very very close to it, on the times they have risen to the Slytherins' bait (at least the kids'). If they don't ignore them, this is what it comes down to, and this seems rather dehumanizing in itself. What's the better choice?

It's something I've never really looked at so closely before, but it's odd that both options are rather disrespectful in their own sense; most have called simply ignoring your nemeses 'taking the high road', but I guess when faced with antagonism, there really are very few ways to really take the high road, be the bigger person.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

You've got some really interesting points here, but I think we still have what we might call a "fruitful disagreement" that's worth going another round on!

First, I completely agree with your observations about Harry's take on the situation -- I think that's precisely what's going through his head, that he can't win, that he has nothing to gain by speaking. The question is -- is this an adequate assessment of the situation? What do we make of it? Does it reflect a deficit of understanding on Harry's part that forms part of our evaluation of his character?

Where I think we disagree, fundamentally, is in how we assess the range of possible responses to Snape-style hostility. I read you as suggesting that there are two options: escalating the confrontation, and "taking the high road" by ignoring the provocation.

But I don't think those options exhaust the possibilities or include the most effective strategies; I don't think that choice works. And it's an important issue, because confrontation is a fact of life, it's something people need to have an effective strategy for dealing with. To take your spouse example -- it would be kind of horrible, wouldn't it, if the only choices for dealing with conflict were to fester in silence or to escalate the confrontation? Clearly, a relationship is a situation where it's really important to get to the root of the conflict, to transform the conflict by talking and understanding and reflecting on the other person's viewpoint.

But the marriage example is maybe a bad one because everyone would agree that you need to go to extraordinary lengths to resolve differences there. Maybe a better case is your "boss" example. Because a boss has a great deal of license for Snapish behavior. And sometimes you can let it pass, or blow over, but sometimes you have to deal with it because otherwise it would just create an impossible situation if your boss made a contemptuous judgment about you and you let it stand. At the same time, a contest of "face," an escalation of the confrontation, isn't very smart either.

But there's a third choice, which I think you'd agree is perfectly normal and ordinary and happens all the time in effective resolution of problems between people. And that is to talk about the problem, to first stand your ground with self-respect but also to show respect for the other person's concern, and to sort of tactfully manage their reaction to whatever is bothering them. "Let's talk this out, let's get to the bottom of this. Here's what I think. Here's what I think you think. Can we work this out?" And you do this in a way that's not about face, that's not about competing for who's taking the high road, but that is genuinely oriented toward solving the problem. And again, this is a necessary skill, because confrontation happens all the time, and the person in a power position isn't always going to be the first one to be tactful about differences, so people have to come up with a constructive strategy for dealing with this sort of circumstance.

To take this back to Harry and Snape, there are a couple of issues.

First, you suggest that Harry has tried talking before, and it hasn't worked. But I don't agree that he has tried this. When he's "talked" to Snape in the past, he's basically just mouthed off. There's no acknowledgment that Snape has an issue with him, that needs dealing with.

[continued . . . ]

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

[. . . continued]

Second, you raise the "points" issue again. So I should make a clearer case here about how I see that. I'm not actually suggesting that what they need to talk about is the points. The points are a closed issue. The Trio were talking, they were reading a paper in class, they got points taken. There's nothing to talk about. And Harry needs, at a minimum, to recognize that that was basically a fair disciplinary act and get over it.

What's left to talk about is something else: their underlying tension, their hostile relationship. The root of Snape's hostility is that he thinks Harry is an asshole. He may be wrong, but Harry has to start by acknowledging that fact and coming up with a strategy for dealing with it. Or, he can choose to just live with the situation, but where does that get him? So he needs to have enough respect for Snape just as another person, who may be right or wrong about things, and needs to have enough distance on his own ego, to conceive of the idea that correcting Snape's perception is a problem worth working on. (And quite frankly, I'm not sure Snape is entirely wrong about Harry, or at a minimum, I think he has a partial insight that Harry might profit from taking to heart.) If Harry can't imagine that as a live possibility, that's his own failure of imagination -- and I'd feel more sympathetic to him if he'd ever given it a try.

Third, I agree that Snape's comment doesn't sound very much like an invitation to talk, it sounds more like a considered judgment and an insult. But again, in power positions, that's often what you've got to work with. It's an overture, it's an opening. I continue to think that it's significant that Snape addresses Harry, that he lays out, quite plainly, what his issue with Harry is all about. It's a handle for communication, and if Harry wants to change the situation he's got to seize it.

What should he say? As much as the situation permits: That he acknowledges Snape has made certain judgments about him. That he thinks Snape is mistaken but is willing to hear his issues. That he's not his father and isn't willing to inherit Snape's issues with his father. That he recognizes he shouldn't have been discussing the newspaper in class. That he thinks it's reasonable to be concerned about hostile gossip, and not a sign of egotism or collecting press clippings. The main thing is to be calm, to be self-assured, to indicate that he knows they have a problem but wants to get to the bottom of it.

Is this a reasonable thing to ask from a 14-year old? Well, I'm not going to give a glib answer to that. I'm not mainly interested in "scolding" Harry but I think it's useful to look at his mistakes and the things he does badly or out of ignorance. It's probably true that the great majority of 14 year olds are too self-absorbed to show this kind of tact. But not all of them. I think we all knew people in high school and even in middle-school who could just startle you with their insight, their ability to defuse situations, to command spontaneous respect and loyalty because of their ability to manage people. It's probably a matter of native social intelligence. (And I certainly don't pretend to have scored very high on that at that age.) The point is that it's a trait that exists, and that Harry doesn't have.

Again, my goal here is not primarily to dump on Harry. It's just that as adult readers, I think we're meant to see Harry clearly and ironically -- to see his limitations, his blind spots, and the way these things contribute to his total situation. He's much too self-absorbed and self-righteous to deal effectively with Snape, and that's something that's going to continue to cause him problems in analagous situations until he figures it out. Of course, Snape is no prize either -- but that's another post!

[lanjelin.livejournal.com]

I'll just move down here, since having the same conversation in two places in the same thread seem a bit unnessecary. :)

I think we essentially agree. And you're right, it's not impossible for Harry to behave differently. I just think that it's a lot more difficult for him to do so with Snape than with any other teacher.

I mean, Snape always hits Harry where it hurts most - in this case his parents - and Harry's emotions take over. I think Harry is acting badly, but it's simply the function of a range of confrontations, starting with that first Potions lesson.

I think Harry no longer can have an argument with Snape without seeing it as a continuation of their ongoing fighting and enmity. The first Potions lesson was deciding in that way; he had just left the Dursleys, who constantly told him how worthless he was because of his useless father, and what happens? He gets a teacher who share their sentiments perfectly.

Harry's opinion is decided then and there, and Snape, who doesn't get the response he's after, feels he's right about him. Now, since Harry is used to those very same insults, though he still gets upset, he dismisses Snape. I think you're completely right about this, and Snape probably senses it, and feels even more sure of his opinion.

Good grief, sorry for being confusing, but I'm extremely tired right now...

Anyway, Harry has these issues that, frankly, he needs to work on. (And I think by HBP he has overcome them somewhat, except, of course, in relation to Snape.) But his childhood with the Dursleys has left him very sensitive in some areas. It's notable to see how easily he forgives others, especially when they haven't insulted his parents. Maybe he just have a visceral reaction to a certain kind of behaviour (that he subconsciously connects with the Dursleys)?

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

Oh, I definitely agree with a lot of this -- and I really hope I'm not coming off as some kind of nanny who wants to lecture the nursery children on how to behave! I agree completely that it's important to see how hard this is for people, as we all know from our own experience. Because all these characters are a little damaged, everybody has trouble fighting their way to clarity and maturity. And in fact I think JKR's point, one of her major themes, is the way damaged, muddled people perpetuate all kinds of awfulness without intending to or being able to help it, because they do lack insight, because they do have issues that compromise their self-control and self-awareness. I just think that part of interpreting this world is applying a measuring stick to it that is based on some sort of vision of health and sanity. :)

[lanjelin.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree. I hope I'm not coming off as someone who tries to excuse things just because of a bad upbringing! I just find it interesting to see what the reasons for behaviour is, and if the characters are developing or not.

I think, for example, that a big point of the books are to make Harry grow up and realise certain things, and to break the cycle of hate. I wonder if Snape isn't shown as some sort of contrast in that matter? Though it's hard to say before the story is finished.

I do think that the whole Slytherin question is a function of this. The first books built up a hate and suspicion for that House (and certain comments in the very first book created impressions of all the Houses that readers still believe in despite counter evidence in the books) that he gradually, and starting, I suspect, whith Slughorn, has to start to question.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

And I'm jumping in as well just to mention this issue elsewhere, that is, the issue of "just ignoring" the Slytherins. The Slytherins (with Snape being the most obvious problem) are often very aggressive. Sometimes they are openly teasing and trying to get a rise out of people. But they aren't *always* doing that. It's Gryffindor policy to ignore or be defensive by default. In the readthrough of PS more people noticed that Draco's actions with the dragon could easily be read as an attempt to make some connection with Harry. Yes, he's going about it in an aggressive way and it's very easy to see why the Trio takes it as they do, but for many readers it still comes across as Draco blatantly trying to be included. I feel the same way when he grabs Neville's Rememberall the first time and asks what it is. It's aggressive, it's haughty, it's Draco's style, but it becomes a fight when Harry and Ron rise up together hoping for a reason to hit him. Draco's opening conversation in the robe shop is also often painted as being a bullying one when to me it doesn't seem that way at all.

In this book there's the scene on the train where Draco comes in seeming to want to talk about the tournament, assuming these people will also be in the know. He arrives with an insult to Ron, but I just don't see the Slytherins as trying to start a fight there, though the Gryffindors respond to it that way.

Again, this isn't to paint a picture of the poor Slytherins trying to be friends while the mean Gryffindors smack them down, but when I read some of those scenes I also don't see a situation where the Slytherins are always attacking and the Gryffindors can only ignore or defend themselves.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

It baffles me that ignoring people is considered a "mature" response to them, since it really strikes me as nasty, passive-aggressive, and one of the most dehumanizing things you can do to people. But no one would mistake the HP series for a text on mature conflict resolution, or an education in interpersonal skills. Maybe it takes a certain coarseness in interpersonal matters to be a successful Gryffindor type -- you have to simplify the world to act in it so aggressively and unselfconsciously.

I love your take on Draco as a kind of attention-seeker. I hold back a little bit, because I do think he has a streak of sociopath to him that I find troubling -- especially the way he aligns with muggle-killers in CoS, which is one of the few times, for me, that he really goes over the line. (I actually judge him less harshly in HBP because of the pressures on him.) But yeah, a lot of it is just that he has such a craving for attention it's sort of endearing, even if he's not always the most suave about how he goes about seeking it. I've never had a personal problem with the robe-shop scene -- he's obviously trying so hard to make a good impression on his new, potential Hogwarts friend, that I just want to hug him!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

"Ignore them" is good advice when the Slytherins really are just trying to get a rise out of them. Harry should have ignored Draco on the Quidditch Pitch in OotP, for instance. And when Draco's taunting him I don't think it's rude to ignore him. It's just that it goes beyond that. I think Harry has always come across as someone who judges them all and finds them wanting. It crosses the line between ignoring them until they are polite and just total disdain. It's really the same thing as Harry and Snape--they have no reason to believe that Harry will ever treat them with any respect so ignoring them when they're being jerks isn't like a way of teaching them to treat him better.

I love your take on Draco as a kind of attention-seeker. I hold back a little bit, because I do think he has a streak of sociopath to him that I find troubling -- especially the way he aligns with muggle-killers in CoS, which is one of the few times, for me, that he really goes over the line.

Since HBP I've re-read and re-appreciated Elkins' "Draco the Nutter" essay. I tend to see this streak the way she describes it there. I think JKR is setting up some interest contrasts in evil characters. Tom is a true sociopath having no empathy for others. Snape, from the little we know, seems quite a bit along that path himself. We're told he slithers out of action, but his Sectumsempra spell and apparently successful stint in the DEs (where he rose to prominence) to me suggests a strong stomach for evil deeds. Draco is interesting in that he certain aspires to that. If Muggleborns are not human and are just a disease to be cured or a vermin to be exterminated, the Heir is doing a good thing. He could be a bit like those kids raised by terrorists who are 7 years old and still spouting genocidal rhetoric--not to mention they are willing to blow themselves up in its service. That's the thing about kids, that whatever they grow up with is normal.

But that's not exactly what JKR is doing with Draco, because when he's at his worst, where he's literally facing DE murders and saying they are a good thing, JKR writes him as seeming not truly happy but on the edge, feverish, quivering, overly-bright eyed. A bit mad sounding. So the effect of evil on him is a little different than it is on Tom or Snape. Tom becomes ugly and twisted and inhuman. Snape is still human but is also repulsive and unhappy, bitter. Draco may just shatter and go mad, since embracing this sort of thing always seems accompanied by signs of physical distress: a flushed face, bright eyes, quivering, trembling, grey skin, shadowy eyes, cracked voice, looking like he might throw up. So yeah, the sociopathic streak is definitely something to worry about, but it doesn't manifest the same way as, say, Barty Crouch's does.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

p.s. For clarity's sake. I'm not saying that Draco's sociopathic moments are only important because they hurt him. I think part of the idea is that even if you don't really believe or understand what you're saying your choice to say or act a certain way effects you. So I don't want to make it seem like I'm separating Draco's worst moments from his essential character. They are part of his character, only I think with him we're encouraged to see him weakening himself.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the rec on the "Draco the Nutter" essay. Maybe the point is to show that Draco, in "evil mode," is painfully posed between accepting and rejecting all the hatefulness? He's fascinated by the possibility of transgression, it excites him -- but at the same time, it does so because it's so highly charged, because part of him does recognize it as breaking out past the limits of his own identity and comfort zone. So he's a basically decent kid who's been introduced to evil, and can't make himself look away from it, and feels a temptation -- but also feels how much of a crackup it would be for him to succumb. And maybe, part of him wants to experience that crackup.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

What a great way of putting it. I mean, I guess you can think of it this way too. Draco comes from a long line of DEs, he's been raised to think Voldemort is the best. But he must be aware of his own terror at the idea, the way he really doesn't thrive on the Dark Arts, certainly not the way Snape does. He's good at certain things, but it seems like his whole personality is based more on shutting down things he's feeling to be what he thinks he's supposed to be. So it makes sense there'd be a desperation there, a desire to just cross over the line hoping that it will either destroy him or make him stronger. Only it doesn't seem to do either. He never appears to be able to make himself fully numb or lose it. Not yet anyway. The amazing thing about DD's offer is he seemed to be offering a solution that wasn't completely unpleasant--his family is offered safety? And he doesn't have to kill anybody? What's the catch?

[pilly2009.livejournal.com]

Hope you don't mind me joining in a little late in the game. Those touchy Gryffindors.

But for the sake of argument, I don't really recall anything aggressive starting up from the Norbert fiasco between Draco and the Trio, passive-aggressive or otherwise. They never confronted him about what he'd seen, and to the best of my knowledge, the only time Draco confronted them was when he visited Ron in the hospital wing (and I don't think we're ever given the full description of what happened there). Yes, they reacted defensively, concocted a scheme to get Norbert out of the school ASAP, but this was also in reaction to a very real concern -- Malfoy could have gone to a professor at any time, and if not him, someone else could easily have done so too.

And about the infamous robe-shop scene...surprisingly, I do agree that Draco was not being a bully there in the least, though I do feel that there were underlying issues there that prevented Draco and Harry from becoming friends, issues that aren't placed solely on Harry's shoulders. To C&P something I once said to onlyinfatuated (though it has more to do with the Hogwarts Express scene than the robe shop scene):

Next meeting on the Hogwarts Express: for all the griping about how little Harry said to Draco during their first meeting, it must be pointed out that he didn't even open his mouth to the first two lines Ron said to him -- even though Ron was also asking him questions about himself, as Draco did. This wasn't instant preference. Harry didn't just fall madly in love with the Weasley-red hair and decide "that's it, I'm going to be their friend". He was just as socially repressed with Ron as he was with Draco.

Which is why I think the differences in Ron and Draco's characters (at least back then) played a huge part in the "Final Decision". As opposed to hopping from subject to subject trying to get Harry to talk so that he could find out as much about him as possible, Ron was quiet and actually let Harry talk, let him ask the questions himself so he could determine Ron's character on his own, and actually feel like he could become a friend. It's NOT Draco's fault that he was more talkative and less shy than Ron was at this point, and it definitely isn't a bad thing that he was, or that he came off that way. It's just that, you [onlyinfatuated] accuse Harry of being socially crippled, and then rant about the fact that he acts socially crippled instead of like a normal, talkative human being when he talks to Draco. This makes no sense. You have to know that if he was really socially awkward, he wasn't going to feel comfortable with an almost-inquisition, that he is better with having to offer the information himself (as he did about his own situation at the Dursleys) rather than having it pressed out of him.
This is what I think doomed the Harry/Draco first interaction; the fact that Draco didn't know this, and on some level (maybe because he was a little socially awkward too), Ron did. You'll notice in the Harry/Ron first-meeting, Ron barely asked Harry any questions, but rather let him ask, and reveal what he wanted to.

People go on about Harry having seen something significant and key in Draco's and Ron's characters from the very beginning, or about Harry having refused to give Draco a chance while he gave Ron one; I just think it came down to Harry and Draco's being too different.

I do think it can be said that even if he were trying to be friendly, Draco was rather careless in his speech in that robe shop, and there was no way for Harry to know that Draco actually wouldn't get his broom, but ultimately, this is what I think that scene came down to.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree with this take on both situations--I didn't want it to sound like I was laying things at Harry's door or making Slytherins into victims of Gryffindor all the time by any means. I was just saying I think there are times when JKR is writing it that the Slytherins aren't victimizing so that the Gryffindors have to defend themselves. I agree, for instance, that Ron and Draco are very different. Harry is reacting to Draco in the robe shop, just as he's reacting to Ron on the train, and for obvious reasons Draco puts him off while Ron is someone he likes. It's just that that doesn't necessarily completely tell the whole story of the Slytherin in question.

[pilly2009.livejournal.com]

I think we still have what we might call a "fruitful disagreement" that's worth going another round on!

Hey, I'm game. :)

And there is still a lot that I agree with in your posts here, but I think we may be looking at it from slightly different perspectives. Yes, I definitely agree that my own range of possible responses to a hostile situation was rather limited, but I was trying to work within the ranges that we have actually been given in canon, and this is the extent of them. From all the characters, young or old. I can think of very few characters in these books who would seriously consider your third option, let alone act upon it. Everyone from the Trio to the elder Weasleys to Voldemort himself is a child in many ways. Even Lucius, for all he may be the most "adult" of the Death Eaters, has his golden moments (that CoS brawl might as well have taken place at Hogwarts twenty-five years ago). Dumbledore is possibly the only one who would consider the option of talking out his problems with his nemeses...but this is doubtful, as we haven't actually seen him do this. He's okay with laying out his own faults in front of Harry, but rarely seems to address the issues that his antagonists have with him...and you know, he wasn't all that diplomatic in his approach to the Dursleys in HBP.

So, do I consider your third option to be by far the best response? I really do (believe me, you have no idea how badly I dream of Harry telling Snape that he's not his father); but do I expect to see it actually used in HP? Book 7 may remedy all of this, but as things stand in the canon, I haven't expected to see anyone act so mature in the HP books, and am not exactly shocked to see how HP doesn't deliver. Do I think it's a character deficiency of Harry's that he's unable to look at things this way? Definitely; and while I would love to pull the age-card ("He's only fourteen!1!1"), as I tend to be fond of doing, it really is a response that I'd expect to see a nearly-seventeen year old considering, if not acting on; and yet Harry is still unable to do so. Of course, I would expect to see 35+ year-olds using this response as well, but this isn't happening in the HP-verse. So many of these characters seem to be stuck in the constraints of childhood...I don't pretend to understand why, though I've seen many theories on it.

I mean, it's all very well and easy to be the one to make the overture, lay out your problems with the other person and expect them to take up the offer by self-reflection on their part. There's no self-reflection required on your part, and especially in this case, you have the extra bonus of getting in an insult or two. The problem is, though, that however self-aware Snape may be in other areas, he hasn't come anywhere close to the level of self-reflection about his past with his Marauders that would be required to even begin addressing this issue. However valid he may be in telling Harry that he's an arrogant ass, and Harry would do well to work on that, if it ultimately comes down to "I hate you because I hated your father"...well, there's not a whole lot Harry can do about that, and Harry knows it. This was drilled into him during his first interaction with the man, that Snape would hate him no matter what he did...and so why bother fixing problems that only Snape seems to call him on, or even talking them through with Snape isn't ultimately going to resolve their relationship? This kind of gets back to the first "boss" example, where the boss may be picking on you because he has a problem that has very little, if anything to do with you -- this isn't something you can humanly control, and if his own issues are leading him to pick on you, there's not a lot you can do.

(cont'd...)

[pilly2009.livejournal.com]

We know now that Snape's attitude in festering over his schoolyard days is perfectly understandable, that he is more correct in his analysis of James's character than Harry ever was. Of course, we also know by said festering that these issues and differences were clearly never resolved, or talked over between Snape and Sirius (duh), Lupin, or even James I suspect. And it's really basically the classic Carrie story, only with far less violence and the grudges being held for much longer...yes, the mindset is understandable and sympathetic, but that doesn't make it any more healthy, or even productive for anyone else who would have to deal with the situation.

This isn't meant to sound like "Well, Snape didn't do it, so Harry doesn't have to do it either"...it's more that Snape didn't do it, and therefore Harry can't really do it, either...which is only making things worse with Harry's character.

They are nearly direct products of each other, Snape and Harry...Snape is the only one bringing up perfectly valid points about Harry's worst traits (yes, I do agree that at certain times he can be right on the mark about Harry), but Harry isn't listening because Snape wiill hate him no matter what he does (thereby rendering his points invalid, in Harry's opinion) due to his father; and Snape can't let go of hating James because James was so horrible to him, and God only knows why James was so horrible to him...but it's a long and ugly cycle. I keep emphasising it here because it's perhaps the main representation of the essential futility of childish outlooks on fighting, that nothing can be resolved until someone takes on a truly adult mindset, and hopefully it's the one example of this that will actually get resolved in the books...but you see this sort of thing inherent in all the characters in this series, this inability to actually talk through problems in a rational manner: you see it between Molly and Hermione in GoF, between Fred and George and the Slytherins, between Hermione and Pansy, even between the main founders of the series (Slytherin, who supposedly dropped a deadly monster into his Chamber and then left the school altogether because he had a fight with Gryffindor).

So, I hope I'm making myself clear here. Yes, it's a sign of a lacking character that Harry can't even consider the option of talking out his problems with Snape, but I strongly believe that the context in which he's being judged (ie, the HP-verse, where it's supposedly illogical to think as an adult) has to be taken into consideration when assuming what the best course of action would be in a conflict. The range of options is limited in these books, limited between ignoring someone or duking it out -- of the two, I still believe the former to be the best option. Not the best option in existence, perhaps, but the best option of those given in HP.

And damn, I know this sounds like "They don't do it, so he doesn't have to do it either", but it's really the way I see things in this series right now.

[pilly2009.livejournal.com]

Coming back to something you brought up:

I don't agree that he has tried this. When he's "talked" to Snape in the past, he's basically just mouthed off. There's no acknowledgment that Snape has an issue with him, that needs dealing with.

PoA, p. 209: "My dad didn't strut...And nor do I."

That's basically part of the main issue right there, isn't it? "You have a perception of my father and I that I don't agree with." (Whoever had the more correct perception is, IMO, irrelevant, but it was something that needed to be addressed.) And yet it was an example of insolence, of mouthing off, possibly because (again, surprises, surprises), it wasn't addressed in nearly mature enough a way...but was then shafted by discussion of the Prank, and then the Map.

Of course, Harry wasn't exactly speaking up to explain anything, but what he said was something he clearly felt was worth trying to get through to Snape (at least, I'm assuming so, as he said it "before he could stop himself".)

PoA, p. 265: "YOU'RE PATHETIC! JUST BECAUSE THEY MADE A FOOL OF YOU AT SCHOOL YOU WON'T EVEN LISTEN--"

Again, insolence and mouthing off. Again, a core issue is being addressed. Though admittedly, the issue being addressed probably isn't between Harry and Snape, but rather between Snape and the other Marauders, it could be taken the same way, I think. Sirius and Lupin aren't the only ones that Snape isn't listening to in this scene. Circumstances are a little more critical here. Harry wasn't exactly given much choice of whether or not he wanted to get his viewpoint across to Snape -- he had to, this time, or Sirius would go to the Dementors -- but that's basically what he was doing here, which Snape was again brushing aside, and yes, again things disintegrated into chaos.

These are the two instances of Harry's direct insolence to Snape that stick out most clearly in my mind (pre-GoF, anyway), and both times a key issue was being addressed, that nevertheless didn't change either the insolent tone of the interaction, nor the final outcome. Both examples did nothing to advance the situation between them, partly because Harry refuses to take into serious consideration the points Snape does raise (ie, the Prank), partly because Snape either brushes Harry aside (ie, from example A) or flies off the handle once the whole thing is addressed (Example B). Neither of these examples come close to a rational discussion about differences of opinion, and both tend to diverge from the main point, but I still think said main point is in there somewhere.

God, this is so long...

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

Hey, long comments are a blast! This one may be shorter, though, because I'm getting sleepy, but I really love your points here -- I think you're absolutely right, one of the most marked features of JKR's world is its severe and critical adult-deficit. Everybody in this world is so messed up and emotially stunted that you just want to scream and knock their heads together. (How's that for a mature, adult response?)

Honestly, though, I'm not sure what to make of your argument that we should evaluate Harry's behavior only by the standards that seem to prevail in this world. I could understand an argument that it explains his behavior, in terms of empathizing with him -- he has no examples of better behavior, so as a given character, in his own given situation, he can't be expected to know any better. But I don't see the point of ending the argument there. I mean, as a reader, reacting to the book, what do we make of that?

And the thing is, I honestly can't figure out what JKR's take on all this is. Really, she frustrates me sometimes so that I want to tear my hair out, one hair at a time. There are times I think she's a satirist and an ironist and she's three steps ahead of us and sees it all, and that the problems and messes and human damage in the books are her point, that she's trying to depict how this happens to people and how awful it is if they can't get out of their own personal traps. And yet, there are other times when I feel like she lets me down as a reader, when I look in vain for clues that she, herself, has any wider perspective than some of her characters. It really is the $64 million question with JKR -- is she in control of all of her effects, or is she what lunacy calls "an extraordinary talented mimetic writer," who seems more complex than she is because of how unconsciously she creates lifelike characters?

I don't know! I keep going back and forth on this!

But I do think that I would find it a very cramped kind of reading, to try to consciously suppress any sort of real-life insight that lets me, as a reader, have some wider perspective on these characters than they have on themselves. I have to believe that the point of the books is to explore what's wrong with all this, and not just to suggest that there's no other way to be, which after all is an empirically incorrect statement about people and their potential.

[pilly2009.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what to make of your argument that we should evaluate Harry's behavior only by the standards that seem to prevail in this world. ... I mean, as a reader, reacting to the book, what do we make of that?

I get what you're saying here, but I really believe that there are different ways to evaluate a character/theme/etc., from within the context it's presented, and from outside of its context. I do not at all believe that you can only do it one way or the other, and that evaluating one way should negate the evaluation of the other. However, I do think that both ways have equal validity and should have equal consideration.

I mean for example, we know that Harry is fine with showing compassion toward people who love him. So, say that the Potterverse was made up entirely of the Ron/Hermione-types, Luna Lovegoods, Dumbledores and Weasleys and whoever else Harry is friendly with. But none of the Snapes or the Malfoys, or even the Voldemorts who would challenge Harry's ability to be compassionate. Let's say that the entire series was written this way. When applying this text to the real world (as literature is always compared to RL), we can easily point out that Harry does not ever show true compassion in the series, because he's not ever shown to be compassionate to someone whom he dislikes; it's easy to love people who love you back. As an extra-textual analysis, this works, as do any conclusions on his character drawn from it. But can the same judgement placed on Harry from this outside analysis still fairly apply to him as he is written within the Potterverse, within the actual context, where people who don't love him don't exist, and thus the concept of loving people who don't love him back does not exist either? Harry shows compassion to the characters present in the text, he works with what he's got.

Thankfully, the HPverse doesn't actually work this way; it is a ridiculous context and, IMO, a sign of very bad writing, but not entirely unheard of. I haven't read the full Narnia Chronicles for a while now, but I still remember having a problem with Lucy Pevensie for reasons such as this. She loved and was loved by all who came into contact with her (who actually counted), and as such is often defined as a very compassionate character, although she was never really placed in a situation where she loved someone who hated her, and was hard to love (I don't count Edmund, as his own conflict had nothing to do with her directly). I had a problem with this because this argument could be made extra-textually, but am still convinced that it can't be applicable within the context of the books.

To get back to my original point, I'm not entirely certain whether these examples can fully compare to the Harry/Snape battles, and fights in general in the Potterverse. But it sort of seems the same thing. The concept of behaving like a mature adult during conflict seems foreign, if not altogether non-existent in the HP books. Granted, we're only really presented with this theme through the characters at the front of the story, and it may not be entirely fair to judge the entire WW based on this alone. Although, to use another example, in the GoF chapter currently being discussed ('Madness of Mr. Crouch), sending hate mail by the flock filled with jinxes and pus to a fourteen-year-old Muggleborn because of a love story they didn't happen to like, isn't exactly a mark in favour of the WW's maturity level. This may all be overturned in Book 7, but within the story as it's written now, acting like a mature adult seems to be an unheard-of concept. They just don't do it. I doubt I even want to know what JKR is trying to get across with all this, let alone attempt to guess, but that's the way things stand in canon at this time. And I think it's something that should be considered, because with this concept being apparently non-existent, the characters are all working with what they've been given. Passive-agression vs. outright-aggression in conflict. While neither response may be particularly mature, at least one of them will not result in injury and/or punishment by the school. And it's the same one actually promoted by Dumbledore in GoF, between Snape and Sirius.