Like Flesh in Flame: Tom's Avoidance of Harry's Mind
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 ( Read more... )
“…. Do not think I underestimate the constant danger in which you place yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what appears to be ( Read more... )
Albus at least had a reason to do so; I fear we can say nothing in the author's defense except that she's seriously morally confused.
Thanks for your comment on the McLaggen drabble. Yes, the only reason why the Trio DIDN'T leave more of a visible trail of dead and maimed bodies behind them, is that Jo as authorial God chose that no action could produce its predictable consequences unless it served her plot....
Which, you know, really, is what she seems to think fantasy ia about. That's the only thing she tells us about how [Dark] Magic is supposed to work: "You have to really mean it."
Not just that magic allows its users to do, with an effort of will and a word, what the rest of us have to do (if at all) slowly and laboriously with technology. But that its consquences are never what you don't intend. At least not for the heroes. However much the universe must contort itself to make it so.
Sirius meant to scare Snivellus by making him confront a werewolf face to maw? Snape's "pathetic" and immature still to regard that as attempted murder, because if it had been, there'd have been no deus ex machina James to save him. Harry casts Sectumsempra, and Snape is right there to save Draco from dying, or even being badly scarred. Harry throws a magical firework into another little boy's cauldron, exploding hot liquid directly into the other boy's eyes, and showering the Slytherins in class with a potion that could have killed them if it hit them wrong. But all he wants is a distraction, and so that's all that happens. Goyle blunders about blind and roaring for only a moment, and then Snape heals him. That's that.
Magic won't WORK to really harm someone, unless you "really mean it" to.
Unlike, of course, all actions in the real world. In which, if I, say, drove drunk, my lack of deliberate malice towards others wouldn't protect them from being hit by me. Or me from being responsible if I did kill someone.
Do you think that might be Jo's fundamental confusion? Not a moral one at all, but that she's set up a pocket universe in which natual laws don't really apply, because intent matters more than what you do? And she thinks that's what fantasy, and magic, IS?
Reply
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've reified their feelings. In their minds, their feelings have the same real world substance that their actions do.
This idea that feelings matter more than actions was also mentioned in my sporking of chapter 25: Harry suggests Griphook could be lying, and Hermione asks if that really matters. Harry replies, “Changes how I feel about it.” Yes, Harry, because your feelings are what matters. The facts are irrelevant.
In addition, as I pointed out in my sporking of chapter 18, many people stall in the child-to-adolescent stages of spiritual development and never mature beyond them, even without addiction. To refresh your memories, this is part of what I wrote about immature spirituality in chapter 18. Notice the bolded sentence in particular:
The Literalist, age 6 to 11 or 12: This stage “is characterized by concrete, literal thinking.” (29) Children begin to look outside the family for other authority figures, but authority is still almost entirely external. People in this stage believe there is only one way to do or be, and they belong to that righteous group. When people say, “[Authority figure] said it. I believe it. That settles it,” they are expressing a belief from this stage of development.
This is the stage many JKR fans are stuck in. When Rowling says, “James reformed and became a good guy,” or “Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness, but Snape is a deeply horrible person,” they just accept those assertions. It doesn’t occur to them to look at the textual evidence and make their own decisions based on that evidence. If they do accidentally confront evidence that contradicts Rowling’s words, these fans just ignore it. It must be a mistake. What matters is what the author intended to write, or says she wrote, not what is really on the page. The idea does not even enter their heads that JKR could be a deeply conflicted person who is not aware herself of the subliminal messages or contradictions in her writing. As the creator of this universe, Rowling is the ultimate authority--the Goddess, if you will--and what she says about her creation goes. Period.
Reply
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!
Reply
Oh, no! JKR + Rush Limbaugh = OTP! :O (He put his name on a book called, The Way Things Ought to Be. It was ghostwritten, of course.)
I'll have to go back and reread that spork--you said some good things there!
I'm glad somebody appreciates it. I've been feeling like Beethoven, i.e., writing for posterity because my contemporaries don't understand my ideas.
Reply
But, y'know, the whole "death happens [only] because evil people evilly make it happen" thing--that's exactly what we see with the Potter's Fidelius. The great Secret-Keeper Switch Caper failed because the Secret Keeper secretly was a traitor, not because it was a stupid and unworkable idea. That's why Sirius didn't have to grow up when he realized his failure had caused James's death--he could still blame Peter. He could go on thinking that the universe worked such that the only conceivable consequences to his actions were the ones he explicitly intended--unless overridden by someone ELSE's bad intentions.
That's why the surviving Marauders, and Jo, and those who follow them, can still diss Snape for holding "a schoolboy grudge" about almost being violently killed and never subsequently shown proper remorse. Sirius didn't mean to kill Snape, just scare him. Thanks to JKR-ex-machina James, Snape was only scared, not killed or infected. So what's the big deal about what predictably would have happened as a consequence of Siri's actions had God/JKR/James not successfully intervened?
Same with all those other people who almost were killed/maimed by the Marauders letting Moony out for walkies.... Yeah, sure, TECHNICALLY the Marauders were committing a serious felony by releasing a werewolf in an inhabited region, yes it could have killed some innocent, but it never DID, so chill already.
And really, it couldn't have hurt anyone, because the Marauders meant no specific harm (in this case) to anyone in their path.
This is a world in which drunk drivers never kill anyone. Because the only way a car can ever kill or seriously hurt someone is if the driver really tries to. Being careless, driving drunk, playing chicken.... can't possibly have unintended results.
"You have to really mean it."
The kid whining, I didn't mean to break it, and expecting to be let off of any consequences if believed.
Reply
Which is why Snape is more spiritually mature than MWPP, his creator, Harry, or that idiot woman you argued with who insisted Sirius shouldn't be held responsible for attempted murder. Snape's still too immature for a man his age--not surprisingly, since Scummywhore actively interfered with his maturation--but he's more mature than his contemporaries, the Trio, or many fans. That's a major reason he has to be beaten down and ridiculed. That kind of mature, rational thinking can't be allowed to flourish. No telling where it could lead! Why, people might start thinking for themselves, instead of letting Albus do their thinking for them. Can't have that!
Berating him for refusing to "let it go"--i.e., forgive his tormentors--also fits in with society's propensity for blaming victims and abusing them again for not being noble enough. You can see talk shows and news interviews up the wazoo that harp on how important it is for victims of wrongdoing to forgive, and laying guilt trips on them if they don't. Yet those same hosts and interviewers never berate abusers about the importance of admitting to wrongdoing, asking for forgiveness, or trying to make amends to their victims. They never have guilt trips laid on them for their failures to be noble. And don't get me started on those damned studies that purport to prove the "benefits" of forgiveness! Beating up on victims for not forgiving, rather than abusers for not making amends, is just another way to keep victims anxious, in pain, and feeling inadequate, which allows abusers to feel superior and powerful. I call forgiveness "the other F word."
This is a world in which drunk drivers never kill anyone.
A few years ago, there was a letter in my local paper from a man who suggested, in all seriousness, that drunk driving shouldn't be a crime unless it caused damage of some kind. There are people passing as responsible adults who actually agree with Jo and her creations about this.
Reply
There’s a story currently unfolding on The Petulant Poetess in which Severus, during a near-death experience after the Shrieking Shack, is depicted as the spiritual equivalent of a six-year-old who had trouble in this life because he incarnated before he was ready for it. Every dead person in the cast is shown as being more spiritually advanced than him as they discuss his case, and decide to send him back to life with the ghost of Fred Weasley as his spirit guide. The entire Weasley clan (including in-laws and honorary members) unite in providing him with therapy by forcing him to allow their rugrats to crawl all over him, and reminding him to play nicely if he ever dares to be less than delighted with the situation.
That’s right, Severus Snape, who protects all children from harm regardless of how he feels about them personally, needs spiritual guidance from Fred Weasley, who kills puffskeins and salamanders for fun. I sent in a brief and extremely mild review, saying that this particular spiritual relationship seemed incongruous to me. (I couldn’t quote chapter and verse on the puffskein and salamander, so I mentioned only the twins’ bullying, not their animal abuse.) The author claimed to see canon personalities differently, which is fair enough, so I let it drop.
Now I find I can’t submit reviews on PP; I hope it’s just some kind of log-in issue. I’d hate to think I was banned for not having drunk the Kool-Aid. I quit reading that story anyway, though I’d followed it for a fair number of chapters. I’m okay with reading a story I profoundly disagree with, but only if I am allowed the emotional release of the occasional snarky comment.
Reply
Reply
The only thing I can say for the story is that all those supposed spiritual giants do recognize Albus’s less-than-stellar record with Severus, and manage to keep him thoroughly squashed. On the other hand Fred explicitly lets Lily off the hook for having done anything wrong, but he would.
As you can tell I’m really ticked off, and wish I could chew out the author. But there’s no denying that every fan is entitled to her own interpretation, no matter how horrifying. There’s no point in arguing with someone who’s not going to get it.
Reply
I do like the idea of a squib therapist. Someone who knows about the wizarding world, but has lived outside it.
Reply
This is a world in which drunk drivers never kill anyone. Because the only way a car can ever kill or seriously hurt someone is if the driver really tries to. Being careless, driving drunk, playing chicken.... can't possibly have unintended results.
Only if a driver is a good person. If the driver is a bad person then braking in attempt to avoid hitting a child causes the child to panic and fall and get run over anyway.
Reply
But notice that Snape's giving the prophecy to Voldy not only ends in the deaths of the Potters without him intending it, but also without it needing to be even a reasonable outcome for them specifically. Snape not only didn't intend for Lily (and Harry and James) to die, he didn't even know it was a possibility since he apparently didn't know she was pregnant.
So, his telling Voldy the prophecy is rather aligned with the Marauders freeing a werewolf once a month. Unknown persons are at risk. One could even put it as less 'irresponsible' than the werewolf romps since the prophecy does at least suggest that the people affected have repeatedly stood against Voldy on the other side, whereas those at risk of werewolf are totally innocent of any 'harm' specific to the Marauders.
Reply
Leave a comment