Like Flesh in Flame: Tom's Avoidance of Harry's Mind

[terri_testing]

The Twinkly One very kindly explained to Severus (and Jo to the inquiring reader) why Tom, after the debacle at the Ministry at the end of OotP, would never again voluntarily open his mental connection to Harry.

“…. Do not think I underestimate the constant danger in which you place yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what appears to be

Comments

[hwyla]

Brilliant! I'll need to think on this some more, but I think your theory quite sound.

The only bit I have any trouble about was the bit about VaporMort and whether he COULD actually 'pass on' if he wanted to be rid of the pain. I'm not positive that I think that possible. Not while the multiple horcruxes tied him to earth. However, I feel quite confident that he COULD have let go of the pain and become a ghost if he wished. So I agree with the premise that he was quite willing to put up with a great deal of pain and that his fear of death is a much more likely reason for cutting off his connection to Harry.

[terri_testing]

Thanks

[nx74defiant]

I wonder, by the way, if he test-drove a non-magical human body or so along the way here?

Well he did say animals and to Voldemort non-magical humans are animals.

[mary_j_59]

Yes, brilliant! I'd noted, some time ago, that Harry's willingness to die was being conflated with his ability to love, and the two are not necessarily the same. I don't think I was the only one to make that observation. But your analysis of Albus's manipulations is convincing and chillling - as is your conclusion. Wow!

BTW, I don't think I commented on the McLaggen story, did I? That is all too believable. It's really a wonder to me that Harry (who WAS a bully and a cheat in canon, though not, at that stage, a torturer) didn't do a lot more damage than he did.

[terri_testing]

Thanks! Yes, of course, Albus was deliberately conflating the two to manipulate Harry, and conflating BOTH with incorruptibility

[oneandthetruth]

No, her fundamental problem isn't confusion. It's spiritual immaturity. Her attitude is literally childish: I didn't mean for it to happen, so it doesn't matter that it did happen.

For example, a child might say, "Sure, I broke your favorite lamp playing ball in the house, Mommy. But I didn't mean to break it, so you can't be mad at me." Addicts do the same thing, often in reverse: "Sure, I got drunk instead of painting the living room like I promised. But I intended to paint the living room, so that's what really matters." That's because an addict's spiritual/psychological/emotional development stops at the age they were when they first became addicted, which is often in their teens. Abusers of all kinds are often the same way, particularly parents: "Sure, I was emotionally unavailable/hypercritical/drunk all the time. But I really wanted to be a good parent, so you can't be mad at me because I wasn't." In all those cases, the miscreant's feelings/intentions are what matter (to them), not their actions. To put it another way, they'

[terri_testing]

You're right. And so of course, she created a universe which reflects reality as it ought to be.

You know, that also makes sense of what someone said a bit back about some of the Pottermore retcons about minor characters' relatives' deaths--that all of the good guys ended up offed by Death Eaters. Of COURSE they were--whaddya think, someone good could ever die without a bad guy killing them? Bad things only ever really happen because someone evil meant them to.

I'll have to go back and reread that spork--you said some good things there!

[oryx_leucoryx]

Very enjoyable analysis that irons out some Albusisms that nagged me for a long while.

A comment on a side issue: IIRC your argument about Harry's magical protections, while Dumbly claimed to Harry (and possibly others) that Lily's sacrifice was the reason for Quirrell's death by burning, this was not correct: Lily's death gave Harry luck (which caused Tom's AK at GH to be reflected from some shiny surface and hit its caster). The power to burn one's assailant was the result of some magical ceremony Dumbles performed (possibly while using Lily's actual blood).

Regarding Twinkly's motivation to believe his own claims about the purity of Harry's soul - if a boy who kills in self-defense at almost 12, tortures at almost 16, and nearly kills at 16 is still pure then perhaps so is the soul of the wizard who may have killed his own sister after plotting world domination at 18 (and who is about to die soon and find out for himself).

[terri_testing]

Thanks!

Yes on the burning-curse. I wrote it this way so someone who'd not read (or not accepted) that theory of what was really going on would not be distracted from my main point here. Of course, on further reflection Dumble's being responsible for the burning curse makes his use of the "flesh in flame" metaphor more, um. Definitely more something

[oneandthetruth]

That’s our Twinkles! Offering Severus trust and praise with one phrase, damnation with the next.

As you're probably aware, that's known variously as double bind, impossible bind, and crazy making speech. I go into that subject in great detail in chapter 33, part 2. This conversation is one of the ones I examine.

And the veiled accusation worked. Severus instantly refuted that he objected to Albus’s gross betrayal only because he had transferred his “greedy” interest in Lily to her son:

“For him? ” shouted Snape. “Expecto Patronum!”

But Snape apparently accepted that any further protest would count as a petty insistence on his personal feelings (his obsession with Lily, if not her son), not a principled objection to deliberately twisting an unprotected child’s love and trust into a willingness to suicide on order.

And so Albus turned Snape’s moment of clear moral superiority into an opportunity to condemn Severus, yet again, for indecent selfishness.Not necessarily. It may be that Severus had finally reached the point where he

[oryx_leucoryx]

Whether or not Albus cared about his soul depends very much on how the wizarding afterlife 'works'. If the purity of one's soul determined one's 'next adventure' he would care very much. Maybe even obsess about it.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Wouldn't obsessing about his own soul lead Dumbles to prefer death by Severus over carrying poison on his person? (That's in addition to plotting to get Severus killed, of course.)

[oneandthetruth]

Not necessarily. You seem to be assuming magical culture has a prohibition against suicide. We don't have any info on that one way or the other. They certainly aren't religious in any conventional sense. Unless you're assuming self-murder rips one's soul the same way murdering another person does.

In any case, Scummy did commit suicide. He browbeat someone else into killing him, but Severus wouldn't have done it if Scummy hadn't been controlling him. That's only "murder" in the most technical of senses. That would have to be one enormously screwed up universe in which Severus's soul gets ripped for that, but Scummy's doesn't. Of course, we are talking about the Potterverse, so screwedupness is assumed. :D

[oryx_leucoryx]

So I was thinking of the purity of one's soul and how it mattered. Something changed Tom Riddle's face for the worse, yet that did not clue Dumbles in to him having a Horcrux (well, more than one, but that aspect was innovative, we are told). So there is magic that affects one's looks. Several DEs are described as looking uncommonly ugly - Yaxley has a brutish face, Dolohov a twisted one. Is it possible we see a mild version of Tom's symptoms? A deterioration of one's looks in response to performing a lot of Dark Magic? If so, we must conclude at least some DEs knew not to go too far with that - especially the Malfoys. Though even pre-Azkaban Bella appears to have retained her looks, after what she did to the Longbottoms.

[attilathepbnun]

Ah, but that could be explained by her insanity.
I believe Bellatrix is several times described (chiefly by Sirius, true, by others also I think) as 'crazy Bella'. And the insane, traditionally, are held to be incapable of sin, because they are incapable of understanding. Presuming that the practice of too much Dark magic affects one's looks because one understands one is doing wrong/evil/being sinful, Bella's looks would remain unaffected because she is incapable of such understanding.

Presuming she truly is insane, that is.

[jana_ch]

It’s the Ruddigore effect. Saith W.S. Gilbert:

When in crime one is fully employed
Your expression gets warped and destroyed.
It’s a penalty none can avoid;
I once was a nice-looking youth.

But like stone from a stong catapult,
I rushed at my terrible cult-
Observe the unpleasant result!
Indeed I am telling the truth.

Oh, innocent, happy though poor!
If I had been virtuous, I’m sure,
I should be as nice-looking as you’re!
You are very nice-looking indeed.

Oh innocents, listen in time!
Avoid an existence of crime,
Or you’ll be as ugly as I’m!
And now, if you please, we’ll proceed.

Gilbert and Sullivan were making fun of the simple-minded morality of old-fashioned melodramas-and they were old-fashioned even in the 1880s when Gilbert was writing. I don’t think JKR has quite the subtlety and sophistication of WSG in that regard.

[hwyla]

Kind of a twist on 'ugly as sin'