Why Not Potter-napping?
| Ok, Here is a consideration I just thought of and I think it presents some of the strongest physical evidence for the "Good Snape" theory. When Snape hit Potter with that invisible whip spell, he pretty much beat his butt beyond any challenging of that ruling. Plus, with that mountainous death eater there (whom I shall refer to as "turret-gun-blouter-boy") ... he pretty much has Harry out-gunned until Buckbeak intervenes (Hagrid NOTABLY, in the text, being pre-occupied with saving Fang). Why didn't he just Petrificalus Harry and Accio or Levicorpus him or something to just outside the gates where he could apparate with him? "But, he may just not have thought of it!" you reply? ... I don't buy it - not of a wizard as cunning as Snape. I think he had to know his timing well, like Dumbledore atop the tower. He had to know that intervention could come at any moment - so why waste his time blasting out his feelings for Potter on him when he could have kidnapped him and saved the spite for later? (I think his livid state come subsequent to making the choice to follow the path of not kidnapping Potter but not being able to resist the opportunity to throw a few jabs, and then he gets caught up in his own emotions a little once he's into the situation and Potter calls him a coward) It would have been in no way a violation of Voldy's orders (that we know of) like turret-gunner-boy hitting him with the Cruciatus was. How appreciative would Voldy have been to have Potter delivered to him on a platter like that (like he had him delivered in book 4 ... only this time he'd know about Priori Incantatem and use somebody else's wand or something like that)? I think Snape has some explaining to do with Voldy to get out of not doing that one. Either way, I think it is pretty conclusive that Snape is protecting Harry ... whether due to a UBV or to his own core commitment to doing the right thing. |
Comments on "Why Not Potter-napping?"
-
Anonymous said ... (January 09, 2006 10:02 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 09, 2006 11:11 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (January 10, 2006 9:02 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 10, 2006 9:47 AM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 10, 2006 4:15 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 10, 2006 4:23 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (January 10, 2006 4:36 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (January 10, 2006 4:47 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 10, 2006 5:28 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 10, 2006 5:41 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 10, 2006 5:47 PM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 10, 2006 5:59 PM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 10, 2006 6:04 PM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 10, 2006 11:13 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 11, 2006 2:29 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 11, 2006 2:48 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 11, 2006 2:52 AM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 11, 2006 4:35 AM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 11, 2006 4:43 AM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 11, 2006 4:44 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 12, 2006 12:56 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 12, 2006 1:11 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 12, 2006 1:13 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 12, 2006 1:18 AM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 12, 2006 3:50 AM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 12, 2006 3:52 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 12, 2006 9:22 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 12, 2006 9:57 AM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 12, 2006 3:49 PM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 13, 2006 12:23 AM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (January 13, 2006 9:17 AM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 13, 2006 4:00 PM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (January 13, 2006 9:20 PM)
:
post a commentI also thought it strange that Snape didn't take Harry with him, which as you say, would have been easy to do, as Snape was toying with an exhausted Harry. Another thought, too - unlike so much fanfiction out there, Harry's not showing much prowess - compared to Snape's abilities anyway - methinks Harry will defeat Voldy in some other way than wizarding ability. The gift of love, perhaps? Admitting finally that he was wrong about Snape?
yeh, i think that's a great point. he could have taken him to voldy! how happy would LV have been? and then snape would secure himself as the 'favourite' for sure!
so by leaving him there he acts *well*, but his spite can't help but get back at harry for the 'coward' comment, since he is actually in the midst of doing one of the bravest acts of his life!
going on the run from both sides, and no dumbledore to speak for him!
jkr2
That's a pretty good point. In the first reading it isn't noticed that Snape is still protecting Harry. After you check it out again it does appear a bit strange that Snape leaves "the boy with the power to vanquish the dark lord?"
I guess the devil's advocate would point out that there might be direct orders which Snape is following and that his main concern is to get Draco safely back to Narcissa. And isn't the death of Dumbledore a good enough prize for one battle?
True, Voldy could have given direct orders that Potter is not even to be taken - maybe feeling that kidnapping Harry would not be so clever and prove his greatness etc as much something else like maybe killing him on hogwarts grounds etc
But here is what I think (in the absense of such orders clarifying the thing): Voldy is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of guy. If Snape brought Potter back, he would criticize him using the above, but if he did not he will question him using the thoughts from my post and Snape will need all of the "devil's advocate" arguments he can muster. There really is no pleasing someone so paranoid - but I think Snape chose option B to do the right thing by protecting Harry.
and I think you're right Jo, Harry is pretty unprepared as a wizard, not exactly in "fighting shape" against a wizard like Snape or Voldy - but DD has never been pushing him that hard in that direction, maybe because he knows it will be the love thing that gets Voldy in the end.
btw 1st comment wasn't me :) (shock)
jkr2
one thing i haven't seen mentioned much in the discussions about harry is that he obviously has a natural ability to avoid the imperius curse. this speaks i think to where his abilities lie.(along with his producing a patronus so young)
when you think that the barty crouches were successfully placed under imperius for extended periods of time before they managed to come out of it. they were much more experienced and accomplished wizards.
also, dumbledore always seemed to feel that harry had done something special in the way he had handled the different climaxes in the books. so even though in other ways he is not 'up to par', he obviously has something.
jkr2
See, jrk2, it's too easy for someone to impersonate you! Go here and create an account.
Maybe Harry's wits are honed, so to speak, by years of being bullied, being grateful for very little, etc. Draco and Lucius and Snape and co. really resent his ability to squirm out of things without apparently having the magical talent. This is confirmed by Harry's speech at the D.A. meeting about using "nothing but your wits" to fight the dark arts.
This theory might also be strengthened by looking at the other extremely talent student at Hogwarts: Herminone. She angers all the usual suspects mentioned, even Snape, with her natural prowess at magic even though she has no "magical blood".
So Harry with no magic in his up-bringing and Hermione with her "mudblood" seem to compensate really well by using talents shared by humanity in general. Tom Riddle shares the lack of upbringing with Harry but he seems to have turned to the dark side fairly early and didn't embrace morality and responsibility along with his gifts and powers.
Uh Oh! We have a deluge of anonymity ... I hope it is not contagious - I have enough trouble as it is remembering my own name! LOL
(*raising his eyes suddenly at a faint, echoing taunt from the smokey upper reaches of darkened seating in the empty amphi-theater, "which name, you knuckle-head?!?!?!?"*)
Jo (*neurotically checking several times to make sure it was indeed your "anonymous"),
Well, I wuold not say he is COMPLETELTY impervious to Imperius (I love alliteration :) ) - Voldy does use it on him successfully in the Graveyard in Goblet of Fire ... but ONLY for the completely physical action of bowing, and Harry is concsious of what is going on the whole time.
So, yes, we have seen Harry as practically impervious to the use of Imperius to the degree that it was used on Rosemerta etc - nobody ever got Harry to do actions on his own time (I think Voldy HAD to be RIGHT THERE even to get it to work on the level he did manage) or to feign dispositions etc.
I think that the classical categories we were talking about before are helpful here: DD has noted Harry's ability to Love, and Love is technically the action of the will ... hence Harry is extremely strong willed.
And yes, I think the bullying had a lot to do with his "prowess" ... which sort of fits with some comparisons I made a while ago between Dudley and Draco ("D&D in HP": http://www.mugglematters.com/2005/10/dd-in-hp.html)
Ok, I officially need to spend an afternoon going back through the archives and saving titles and URLs into a Word doc I can take with me on my jump drive so that I don't have to keep rifling back through the (rapidly growing LOL) archives to find posts like I just did in that last comment.
Probably wouldn't hurt also to put in the HTML tag tag Pauli sent me once so I can use it and be able the urls of posts in as links rather than straight text.
I'm not quite the level of wizard at comp/web stuff as in other things LOL ... I'll have to work on that so I can also call myself "Merlinus Ambrettus, Wizard of the World Wide Web" LOL
happy now fellas?
not wanting to overstate this, but i really DO think it's significant. yes, voldemort got him to bow, but he also fought and said 'I WON"T!'. and he got the prior incantantum (sp?) to work against voldemort by pure force of will. against VOLDEMORT! i think that's pretty impressive.
(mind you i'd cave pretty easily.... i'm a bit of a woos i think)
jkr2
off topic - couldn't remember where to send this.
did you see this quote on mugglenet - they have a scanned interview with jkr from tatler magazine.
"She is a Christian (Episcopalian) and, 'like Graham Green, my faith is sometimes about if my faith will return. It's important to me.'
Tatler magazine Jan 2006"
that quote really touched my heart.
jkr2
Jo,
Yeah, serious recommended reading if you have not read it is Greene's The Power and the Glory ... and his A Burnt Out Case is good to, but the first one is the real power-house - actually they are both great. I started The Heart of the Matter and still have it on my shelf but never finished it ... but not because it is not good - just got ditracted onto other stuff. Of course, along the lines of white writers writing forma 3rd world setting, Alan Patton's Cry the Beloved Country is hauntingly beautiful and his Too Late the Phalarope is simply down-right haunting ... I also have Ah, But Your Land is Beautiful but have not gotten around to reading it. But the Title reminds me somehow of the Song of the Entwives, which Pauli had me read at his and my sister's wedding because it is a favorite of hers and she got me into Tolkien (the first copy I read of the Hobbit and the Trilogy was her paperback set, most of which I read on a car trip on which our Dad and I were taking her out to Yellowstone Park where she was going to work for the summer) - speaking of which, on my comments last evening on Lev and his journeying ancestor, one of my favorite haunting verses is still "I sit beside the fire and think" by Bilbo Baggins somewhere around the council of Elrond in the Fellowship of the Ring
PS you and your kids are supremely interesting and beautiful in that picture ... and you have officially dispelled all of my conspiracy theories - back to the drawing board LOL
Jo,
On the thing of Harry and the Imperius curse ... I concur with you completely.
Pauli and I were talking about this a while back in several posts on the Priori Incantatem chapter of GOF and on Voldy's Nietzschian side. I think Voldy actually dislikes the curses and wands in general the way Darth Sidious shows contempt for the light Saber in Return of the Jedi. What floats Voldy's boat more is when he can let Wormy use his wand for him without worry because he can "wield the wills of others" without a wand, simply by his personal hold over them. And Harry is One person he CANNOT do this with. Like DD, Harry is not afraid to name him like the rest of the Wizarding world is. Of all the things Harry may be confused on in life, on this thing he is absolutely clear headed. I think it really must disgust Voldy that he must "stoop" to using Imperius and his wand to get even physical compliance from Harry (and even then, as you say, Harry seems to take the lesson to heart and redoubles his resolve and efforts and eventually forces Voldy's magic back along the beam of light onto him - in the end he "out-wills" Voldy)
And, like we both said, Harry does not "stumble" into the Imperius curse as others do, he knows exactly what is going on, exactly when it starts and ends, and he fights it with everything he can muster (and, as said above, learns very quickly how to muster more) - even at great physical pains to himself.
I think this is a really good example: a child's will must be formed rightly and taught rightly but do not break that "stubborn" will - it may save their life someday ... in and of itself that resolve is a VERY good thing when properly habituated.
Oh, and that "strong-willedness" can be pretty stinking funny sometimes when you are the sympathetic bachelor uncle :)
If God really does miracles and I ever marry, I sure I'm gonna get my come-uppance someday for that remark ... and Paul will be laughing his butt off LOL
my dh just adores 'the power and the glory'. it affected him deeply when he was at college.
we actually named a little acoustic set up we had 'whiskey priest' in homage!
i've never actually read it. really powerful moving things about suffering etc in real life are a bit too much for me. it's traumatic enough in fantasy!
one day i'll gather up my nerve and give it a go.....
that particular quote from jkr struck me, as my 'favourite scripture' (if one can have such a thing...) is (paraphrased badly) where the man comes to jesus to ask for healing for his son and when the lord says 'just believe' he says "lord i believe, help thou my unbelief".
cuts me to the quick every time. it's the cry of my heart.
jkr2
on "strong willedness" i'm a proponent of something called 'grace based parenting' (not a very good example, but we are headed in the right direction anyway!).
one of the central tenants of my parenting is that it's not my job (or anyone else's) to 'break' my child's will! i hope my children to grow to be strong willed adults who choose, with all the force of that will, to do good and willingly submit their hearts to god.
the only breaking that goes on is in god's hand imo!
i like your point re voldemort and seeing the 'physical magic' as being below him somehow. he sees himself as above that somehow and yet he is bound to. in a similar way that he is bound to mortality i guess. he wants to be anything else apart from an 'ordinary man'.
jo (i'll sign that now huh?)
oh, and that photos a little dated now (about a year and a half), but i like it! it's pretty 'true' to everyone.
jo
Jo,
I like the acoustic setup being called "whiskey priest." It reminds me of one of my fovorite songs by Gillian Welch called "Nowhere Man and the Whiskey Girl," from her "Hell Among the Yearlings" album - I really like Welch's writing - her last album "Soul Journey" was not as impressive as the rest but it was good and I figure when you have put out 3 strong albums in a row like she did you deserve a bit of a "low key"/"taking a break" album :)
On that Scripture ("help thou my unbelief") - I hope this does not seem "proseletyzing" but it is also an important Scripture for me that I actually recite/use on at least a weekly basis, and sometimes daily, in a way having to do with my Catholic Faith. As a Catholic I believe that when a priest says the words of Consecration the substance of the bread and wine actualy become our Lord's sacred Body and Blood (although maintaining the appearance, or "accidents," of bread and wine - technically known as the doctrine of "Transubstantiation"). I became Catholic because I came to believe this (although there were many "arguments" that assured my head it was OK to follow my heart, this is the reason my heart was there in the first place), and that happened one afternoon kneeling in a small-town Catholic Church before the Blessed Sacrament praying and conetemplating the mystery of all that had been passing into my mind and heart concerning the Church etc, and I was dwelling on the formulation of a prayer I had heard that echoed the words of St Thomas when I Lord held out His sacred wounds for him (basically the initial address in this short prayer is taken from that), "My Lord and My God, I Firmly believe that you are here in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity." Since then this is what I pray every time a priest elevates the Consecrated Host in the Mass, and along the way I began adding that Scripture ... "Lord, help my unbelief" (and I have also begun to close that brief prayer with the words of the publican in the temple in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican in the temple, Luke 18:13b - "God be merciful to me a sinner." - a citation I know well becuase, in a moment of "rash masculinity," although hopefully excusable, I got the Latin of that text in the Vulgate translation, "Deus Propitius Esto Mihi Peccatori," tatooed as a thin text band around my upper left arm - the left hand being, in Christian Latin Tradition, the "sinister hand.")
I find so often that the crossover between "faith" as belief and "faithfulness" as obedience is so true in my own life ... when I falter in the latter is when I falter in the former.
I love Latin (which is one of the reasons I simply love how Rowling uses it - things like the verb "Expecto" in "Expecto Patronumn" being the verb used in the Latin of the Creed for "I look for (expect) the Resurrection of the Dead.")
I find so often the Latin of the Liturgy extremely fitting for the trials of daily life,
"Dona Nobis Pacem" - "grant us peace."
"Domine Non Sum Dignus ut Intres Sub Tectum Meum, Sed Tantum Dic Verbo et Santibur Anima Mea"
-"Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only speak in word and my soul shall be cleansed."
The life-long prayer of my patron Saint (my patronus :) ) Saint Jose-Maria Excriva, "Domine Ut Videam" - "Lord that I might see"; "Domine Ut Sit" - "Lord that it might be"
And so often my weary cry of pressing on in spite of weariness and my own muddle-headedness (LOL), my own personal translation of Henry V's St Crispan Day Speech, "Denuo Ad Perfractum" - "Once more unto the breach"
(for the day of the final in an intensive course in Latin I took I figured out a translation for and wrote on the board before anyone else got to the class-room, "Once more unto the Breach ... Cry havoc and let slips the dogs of Latin" - the prof thought it was funny)
Sorry, mistranslation of the "Domine Non Sum Dignus" - should have been "and I shall be cleansed in my soul"
BTW, in reviewing the comment thread - not meaning my statement on the meanings of "Faith" and Faithfulness" to apply to Rowlings statement on her faith ... that was meant to be purely self-incriminating :)
i know a family who have converted to the same 'brand' of catholosism as you i think - the latin mass etc.
they also do a full classical education for their kids with latin etc.
my 'higher self' aspires to that kind of life, but the reality is pretty way off!
i had a giggle at your tat'.
i would like to get a tattoo each for my kids - just a symbol, and one for the lord, but i'm too big a wuss!
jo
btw, glad to see you guys are still talkin' to me! don't feel conned or anything.......
jo
Jo,
Just for clarity, Pauli and I are both NOT from the branch of Latin Massers that have sort of broken away from the main of the Latin Rite.
And I guess that should be clarified too now that I come to think of it. "Latin Rite" (as in "A Latin Rite Catholic" in my profile) doesn't mean necessarily the Latin Mass, which is generally refered to as the Tridentine Mass, for clarity on this very thing. "Latin Rite" is simply an actually rather technical designation for what is commonly refered to as "Roman Catholocism" (a term which some Catholics think to be derogatory, kind of like "you romanist chain draggers" or something like that ... although I myself had not heard it in what I thought was a derogatory sense, but somebody did inform me of this when proof-reading an essay I wrote on Spiderman 2) - since there are other rites even within Catholocism (as distinct from the "Eastern/Greek Orthodox" and "Oriental Orthodox") - these other rites (rite meaning that they have their own individual hierarchy, although these churches as distintc from the Orthodox, are in full communion with Roman Curia etc, and most importantly, they have their own liturgical tradition, their own developed rite containing the same elements as the Roman/Latin liturgy and the "Divine Liturgy" of Eastern Orthodox, but a tradition/rite of the formulation of those things, a formulation unique to them, handed down and evolved in their own history)- these other rites are generally refered to as "Eastern Rite Catholic" (of which there are quite a few distinct rites, and often corresponding to various "Eastern Orthodox" rites, for example the Byzantine Catholic Rite and the Greek Orthodox) AND the technical term for them (been working round to this in a very haphazard way LOL) is "Sui Generis" meaning roughly something like "of origin to themselves", or simply what I said about their liturgical rite being unique.
Anyway, all that just to sort of answer what sort of "Latin Massers" Pauli and I are, simply because there are several "kinds" of "Latin Massers." There are the thos who unfortunately see liturgical abuses in the present confusion of many "Cahtholics" as a reason to pick up and officially be in schism with the present hierarchy of the Church in the Vatican, and then there are those Like Pauli and I who attend at least some of the time at a Tridentine Mass sacntioned or allowed by the (Pauli actualy used to sing in the choir at an "indult community" Tridentine High Mass on Sundays) but also often attend a "Novus Ordo" Mass on Sundays)
and FINALLY, after all the long-windedness - I started all that just to say that the "Latin Rite" in my profile is the general and official designation for what is commonly refered to as "Roman Catholic" and includes Triedentine Mass Indult communities, as well as the whole (much bigger) mass of "Novus Ordo" celebrating parishes, diocese etc - an Indult community is always under the same Bishop etc as everbody else)
Anyway, the tat on my right arm would take much longer to explain than the one on the left arm, and after that last comment even I am tired of my own long-windedness LOL but the right arm involves a 3-word Hebrew text from Genesis and a Celtic Cross known as the Pilgrim's Cross.
Generally I chalk it up as something maybe "allowable" but with which one should be cautious (being as one's body will be a part of one for eternity in Heaven) because there is a lot of confusion in the world on different levels.
Anyway, I would never say anybody "should" get one ... but in getting mine I have noticed certain things, like the guy who inked mine told me "yeah, guys come in here all the time wantin' demons and skulls and stuff and it's fine and I'll ink all that but I just aint into it ... and mainly they just look in a book and say 'that looks cool' and it's neat to see somebody like you come in who designed his own from ancient languages and you know what exatcly it all means as a symbol".
When I was getting one part of them done there was a woman a middle aged woman in there who was getting one of her breasts done by one the female artists, and she (the lady getting inked) was loud and kind of obnoxious (I felt bad for her though) ... all that to say that if you did go into a parlor and get one symbol for each of your kids and a Christ symbol, some artist would probably sit back for at least a few seconds and think, "wow, that is cool ... a woman getting a tat that isn't dominated by being sexually risque etc, a woman getting tats to symbolize her children -which is pretty cool symbolism cuz they came from her body originally" or something like that.
It turns out that one of the guys I teach in RCIA is friends with one of the girls at the shop I got my tats done at, and there were only 2 girls working there so I'm sure I would have seen here and she may have been the girl working on the "grasping at the fountain of youth" lady's breast, either way I'm sure she would have seen me when I was in getting mine done, it's a small shop (as most are). It's a small world in Wierton WV LOL
wow, who'd have thunk it! so many ways to be a catholic!!!!
i have always gotten the feeling that they are very orthodox and stuff, and assumed it was the 'real one'. curious to know more now. i don't see them often, i wonder how i can bring it up and find out!
jo
was there a comment here that was deleted?
jo
Yes; in our comments we have to stay on target with the original posts and not go too far afield. Sorry to be a wet blanket about this. A discussion about the Catholic church is 100% legitimate but not germane to this post about the question of why Snape didn't kidnap Harry.
sure thing.
if you had the time/inclination i would be very curious to resume that discussion over at my clueless ramblings......
jo