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... )
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