![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aruanSo, everybody and their mothers have been on to Book Seven spoilers months ago, but having just finished Half-Blood Prince myself, I'm going to reflect. I was far from the floor, in the bad way, about it, though mostly because of what we didn't get to see than what we did, exception to be made in the case of Remus/Tonks. [shudder]
Glad to see that all the rot about making difficult choices over easy ones has been so casually tossed aside when it comes to our lead antagonist. He was born bad! I mean, that's all the backstory really accomplished, that he was born from crazy stock under deceptive circumstances and demonstrated that inherited dark side. All before he ever set foot in Hogwarts and started making those choices that allegedly, if a theme built over five books is to be carried over, set him down the Dark path. But not because he was sorted into Slytherin. The whole business of Harry's choosing between Gryffindor and Slytherin at the first Sorting is, frankly, bunk. He wasn't choosing between good and evil - as we've all said, what is the point in training evil wizards? Slytherins are cunning and ambitious by definition, not inherently bad. Conversely, brave and loyal aren't necessarily positive characteristics when channeled into, say, the Ministry? Oh, Percy.
My sounding board in all this,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
walkingshadow (who did her own much more technical and thorough writeup here), mentioned that Dumbledore should've recognized the signs of sociopathy in Tom Riddle when they met. I thought he was adequately concerned for someone who hadn't read the DSM IV. And let's remember that for SOME reason (because I refuse to believe Dumbledore acknowledged professed remorse about James and Lily's deaths as adequate to forgive a DEATH EATER [although the theory of Snape being in love with Lily gains more ground with every passing moment]), Dumbledore trusts Snape. And seeing as how little faith Dumbledore places in people (even his own staff! He tells nothing to nobody!) I'm going to go with his being a zealous paranoiac. It would explain his megalomaniacal pursuit of making the prophecy come true (though could we please stop with the destiny stuff if our theme is supposed to be choices? My wee brain gets confused.)
But then, is that what Dumbledore's been doing? Besides himself, because of course he's too paranoid to teach Harry (and on some level knew since the beginning that Harry could well be a Horcrux), Snape was the next most qualified candidate, but we didn't come around to having him teach Harry until Order of the Phoenix. What kind of strategic sense does that make? If you want to hone yourself a weapon, why not HONE YOURSELF A WEAPON? We've been given information that Dumbledore only trusts Snape so far, as he's cited the possibility or "relapse" if Snape were allowed to steep himself in the Dark stuff. A concern that, of course, doesn't stop Dumbledore from SENDING SNAPE INTO THE BELLY OF THE BEAST ON A REGULAR BASIS.
On a related note, what I want to know is if, perhaps, the animosity between Harry and Snape was at least somewhat manufactured, either by Snape or Dumbledore himself. Snape would need to keep up pretenses in front of his own house, riddled (no pun intended) as it is with the children of Death Eaters; but honestly, he's Harry's best hope for having the necessary knowledge and abilities to defeat Voldemort, and we make them (or let them become) enemies? Miranda and I discussed Snape being spiteful, which we agree on, and petty, which I disagree on. Snape spent too long in Voldemort's service to not know how little it takes to incur his wrath or in some other totally unspectacular mistake exact the ultimate price. I think his demands of Harry were not petty but the kind of real-world training he's gotten precious little elsewhere during his six years of education, as evidenced by his overwhelming mediocrity as a general rule.
As to the identity of the Half-Blood Prince, I'll just quote Miranda:
Snape as the Half-Blood Prince is AWESOME. No, really. Really! Making Snape the Half-Blood Prince and making Harry short-sighted enough that he didn't make that connection meant Harry spent the entire book admiring, learning from, and defending Snape. Hermione even played devil's advocate. It was fantastic.
On a personal note, HE WAS TEACHING HARRY EVEN ON HIS WAY OUT THE DOOR OMGLOVEHIM. How thoroughly frustrating that all of a sudden, Snape gets his heart's desire to teach Defense and we see ONE LESSON. Granted, it's an important one that comes back at the end and will obviously mean even more later on, but that last conforntation would've meant so much more if we'd seen a year's worth of what I'm certain (there's a reason the DA wasn't reinstated, yeah?) were AMAZING Defense lessons.
Also, whatamanuensis1 said < ahref="http://amanuensis1.livejournal.com/107445.html">here: Nodded at every word Snape yelled at Harry, nodded as he blocked every curse Harry threw without returning one of his own, goading Harry all the while, you must be stronger than this, you must remember every lesson I have given you, foolish boy, if you are to destroy the dark lord and justify this sacrifice --and not only nodded but wept at his "Don't call me coward!" as Snape broke just that much, unable to bear that that word should be used to brand the bravest act of his life.
Apparently, those who thought Snape was good before HBP are even more convinced [raises hand]; ditto for those who thought he was evil. Fascinating. You know, if the former is true, of anyone Snape is the one who's been making the difficult decisions. Granted, so has Dumbledore since the day he heard the prophecy, but as my personal grand unified theory of Harry Potter has it, they've been a series of unconsulted and unreasonably risky ones that, while their ends were noble enough, were unjustifiably costly. Also, I've never found martyrdom to be an admirable act (as much as I adoredfabularasa's interpretation of the Astronomy Tower scene). Even in death my utter conviction that Dumbledore is a ruthlessly calculating man has wavered none. I bet he orchestrated it even, dying in front of Harry at the hand of someone he already hates - maximum sympathy, sealing the deal of Harry's quest to avenge the only person he's been manipulated into loving. ARGH.
walkingshadow ranted about Rowling's methodology, too, which I will quote because it sums up my rationale, rationally. Err, yes.
Dumbledore's ordering Harry to get Slughorn's memory out of him—it's quite hideous. Over the top and out of line and all those things. It wouldn't be quite so bad if D. admitted how irregular it was, but he acts as though it's a reasonable enough request and shames H. into thinking he's inadequate for not doing it quickly enough (428). I wanted to say earlier that JKR is better at plot than she is at characters (prompted by the Tonks/Remus fiasco, et al.), but maybe she just treats her characters like her plot, as components of the plot rather than people. She's like Dumbledore, who is as ruthless with people as he has to be to get them to do what he wants, to do whatever needs to be done. Someone said this is all a game of wizard's chess to him: it doesn't matter how battered and broken the pieces get, or who gets sacrificed, as long as everyone gets into position and they win. Rowling is brutal to her characters and often heavy-handed with relationships (romantic ones especially), but in the end they'll all fit together so beautifully, won't they?
Relatedly, the whole Tonks/Remus thing? Totally irrelevant and there, personally, to spite the Remus/Sirius people. Plus the other thingsthroughadoor said here. Grr. The pairings focus in this story was interesting, as was the fact that everyone but Harry will get to be happy. As Miranda said, Harry doesn't get to have nice things, which includes family and friends. Interesting that to his face, Dumbledore encourages relying on those around him, yet the characters' actions and story events reinforce that those we love are our weaknesses and can be used against us. Though Snape and Draco are Unbreakably Bound at the beginning and running off together at the end, and Ron is well on his way to Cluetown wrt Hermione, so the theme wasn't entirely a wash.
For all the talk about Harry's strengths lying in his willingness to rely on the people around him, Dumbledore has been a piss-poor example, and has even theoretically actively sabotaged Harry's ability to trust. Placing him with his hateful relatives, doing nothing to abate and perhaps even fostering the hate between him and Snape, depriving him of Remus and eventually Sirius. And I realize all of it was justifiably to the ends of keeping Harry alive, but there is nothing about Dumbledore's character that invites discussion of his motives. And really, even in death he's beaten the lesson of YOU HAVE ONLY YOURSELF into Harry so thoroughly that, as much as it pained me to read while it was going on, he ended things with Ginny. Because while everyone gets someone to love, Harry gets to fight a battle to the death for someone who's never cared for him beyond a possessed fraudulent woman's ravings that he is the Chosen One to fix the biggest mistake Dumbledore ever made - taking a chance on Riddle.
So what's to be done about a sour taste in one's mouth? Rely on others' optimism and lather, rinse, repeat. Aah.
Glad to see that all the rot about making difficult choices over easy ones has been so casually tossed aside when it comes to our lead antagonist. He was born bad! I mean, that's all the backstory really accomplished, that he was born from crazy stock under deceptive circumstances and demonstrated that inherited dark side. All before he ever set foot in Hogwarts and started making those choices that allegedly, if a theme built over five books is to be carried over, set him down the Dark path. But not because he was sorted into Slytherin. The whole business of Harry's choosing between Gryffindor and Slytherin at the first Sorting is, frankly, bunk. He wasn't choosing between good and evil - as we've all said, what is the point in training evil wizards? Slytherins are cunning and ambitious by definition, not inherently bad. Conversely, brave and loyal aren't necessarily positive characteristics when channeled into, say, the Ministry? Oh, Percy.
My sounding board in all this,
walkingshadow (who did her own much more technical and thorough writeup here), mentioned that Dumbledore should've recognized the signs of sociopathy in Tom Riddle when they met. I thought he was adequately concerned for someone who hadn't read the DSM IV. And let's remember that for SOME reason (because I refuse to believe Dumbledore acknowledged professed remorse about James and Lily's deaths as adequate to forgive a DEATH EATER [although the theory of Snape being in love with Lily gains more ground with every passing moment]), Dumbledore trusts Snape. And seeing as how little faith Dumbledore places in people (even his own staff! He tells nothing to nobody!) I'm going to go with his being a zealous paranoiac. It would explain his megalomaniacal pursuit of making the prophecy come true (though could we please stop with the destiny stuff if our theme is supposed to be choices? My wee brain gets confused.)But then, is that what Dumbledore's been doing? Besides himself, because of course he's too paranoid to teach Harry (and on some level knew since the beginning that Harry could well be a Horcrux), Snape was the next most qualified candidate, but we didn't come around to having him teach Harry until Order of the Phoenix. What kind of strategic sense does that make? If you want to hone yourself a weapon, why not HONE YOURSELF A WEAPON? We've been given information that Dumbledore only trusts Snape so far, as he's cited the possibility or "relapse" if Snape were allowed to steep himself in the Dark stuff. A concern that, of course, doesn't stop Dumbledore from SENDING SNAPE INTO THE BELLY OF THE BEAST ON A REGULAR BASIS.
On a related note, what I want to know is if, perhaps, the animosity between Harry and Snape was at least somewhat manufactured, either by Snape or Dumbledore himself. Snape would need to keep up pretenses in front of his own house, riddled (no pun intended) as it is with the children of Death Eaters; but honestly, he's Harry's best hope for having the necessary knowledge and abilities to defeat Voldemort, and we make them (or let them become) enemies? Miranda and I discussed Snape being spiteful, which we agree on, and petty, which I disagree on. Snape spent too long in Voldemort's service to not know how little it takes to incur his wrath or in some other totally unspectacular mistake exact the ultimate price. I think his demands of Harry were not petty but the kind of real-world training he's gotten precious little elsewhere during his six years of education, as evidenced by his overwhelming mediocrity as a general rule.
As to the identity of the Half-Blood Prince, I'll just quote Miranda:
Snape as the Half-Blood Prince is AWESOME. No, really. Really! Making Snape the Half-Blood Prince and making Harry short-sighted enough that he didn't make that connection meant Harry spent the entire book admiring, learning from, and defending Snape. Hermione even played devil's advocate. It was fantastic.
On a personal note, HE WAS TEACHING HARRY EVEN ON HIS WAY OUT THE DOOR OMGLOVEHIM. How thoroughly frustrating that all of a sudden, Snape gets his heart's desire to teach Defense and we see ONE LESSON. Granted, it's an important one that comes back at the end and will obviously mean even more later on, but that last conforntation would've meant so much more if we'd seen a year's worth of what I'm certain (there's a reason the DA wasn't reinstated, yeah?) were AMAZING Defense lessons.
Also, what
amanuensis1 said < ahref="http://amanuensis1.livejournal.com/107445.html">here: Nodded at every word Snape yelled at Harry, nodded as he blocked every curse Harry threw without returning one of his own, goading Harry all the while, you must be stronger than this, you must remember every lesson I have given you, foolish boy, if you are to destroy the dark lord and justify this sacrifice --and not only nodded but wept at his "Don't call me coward!" as Snape broke just that much, unable to bear that that word should be used to brand the bravest act of his life.Apparently, those who thought Snape was good before HBP are even more convinced [raises hand]; ditto for those who thought he was evil. Fascinating. You know, if the former is true, of anyone Snape is the one who's been making the difficult decisions. Granted, so has Dumbledore since the day he heard the prophecy, but as my personal grand unified theory of Harry Potter has it, they've been a series of unconsulted and unreasonably risky ones that, while their ends were noble enough, were unjustifiably costly. Also, I've never found martyrdom to be an admirable act (as much as I adored
fabularasa's interpretation of the Astronomy Tower scene). Even in death my utter conviction that Dumbledore is a ruthlessly calculating man has wavered none. I bet he orchestrated it even, dying in front of Harry at the hand of someone he already hates - maximum sympathy, sealing the deal of Harry's quest to avenge the only person he's been manipulated into loving. ARGH.walkingshadow ranted about Rowling's methodology, too, which I will quote because it sums up my rationale, rationally. Err, yes.Dumbledore's ordering Harry to get Slughorn's memory out of him—it's quite hideous. Over the top and out of line and all those things. It wouldn't be quite so bad if D. admitted how irregular it was, but he acts as though it's a reasonable enough request and shames H. into thinking he's inadequate for not doing it quickly enough (428). I wanted to say earlier that JKR is better at plot than she is at characters (prompted by the Tonks/Remus fiasco, et al.), but maybe she just treats her characters like her plot, as components of the plot rather than people. She's like Dumbledore, who is as ruthless with people as he has to be to get them to do what he wants, to do whatever needs to be done. Someone said this is all a game of wizard's chess to him: it doesn't matter how battered and broken the pieces get, or who gets sacrificed, as long as everyone gets into position and they win. Rowling is brutal to her characters and often heavy-handed with relationships (romantic ones especially), but in the end they'll all fit together so beautifully, won't they?
Relatedly, the whole Tonks/Remus thing? Totally irrelevant and there, personally, to spite the Remus/Sirius people. Plus the other things
throughadoor said here. Grr. The pairings focus in this story was interesting, as was the fact that everyone but Harry will get to be happy. As Miranda said, Harry doesn't get to have nice things, which includes family and friends. Interesting that to his face, Dumbledore encourages relying on those around him, yet the characters' actions and story events reinforce that those we love are our weaknesses and can be used against us. Though Snape and Draco are Unbreakably Bound at the beginning and running off together at the end, and Ron is well on his way to Cluetown wrt Hermione, so the theme wasn't entirely a wash.For all the talk about Harry's strengths lying in his willingness to rely on the people around him, Dumbledore has been a piss-poor example, and has even theoretically actively sabotaged Harry's ability to trust. Placing him with his hateful relatives, doing nothing to abate and perhaps even fostering the hate between him and Snape, depriving him of Remus and eventually Sirius. And I realize all of it was justifiably to the ends of keeping Harry alive, but there is nothing about Dumbledore's character that invites discussion of his motives. And really, even in death he's beaten the lesson of YOU HAVE ONLY YOURSELF into Harry so thoroughly that, as much as it pained me to read while it was going on, he ended things with Ginny. Because while everyone gets someone to love, Harry gets to fight a battle to the death for someone who's never cared for him beyond a possessed fraudulent woman's ravings that he is the Chosen One to fix the biggest mistake Dumbledore ever made - taking a chance on Riddle.
So what's to be done about a sour taste in one's mouth? Rely on others' optimism and lather, rinse, repeat. Aah.
