 |
| |
|
Lawless
All About Brad!
offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 07:06 PM
Location: Freezing in Colorado
Posts: 27143
|
First, a couple of things about my last article. I wasn't clear for example when I said that, "Priam is a good king, who's "big sin" is that he has a son who's a bit too good looking for his own good and who steals a neighboring king's (Menelaus) wife (Helen). His heir Hector is not an evil person either, but a great warrior who defends his city when attacked by the angry husband." "Attractive son" and "heir" are not referring to the same person here. The heir is Hector and the attractive son is Paris. Paris stole Menelaus wife Helen, Hector had to face the consequences. :-) Sorry about that, it was just so clear in my head that I failed to see the ambiguity in the sentence structure.
I also want to say something about what I write and why, since I've got a whole bunch of owls on the subject. I write the NT a) because I like it, b) because I want to share my ideas with other people and c) because I think that there's a spot to be filled in the literary analyzing and critically thinking department at the Ministry of HP theorizing. I can't please everybody, so those of you who think that my "educational" articles are crap, why don't you just skip them? I really like doing that kind of piece once in a while and apparently, a lot of people really appreciate it. The NT is supposed to be based on literary analysis after all, and I don't see the harm in giving anybody pointers in how to think critically. I know that we right now live in an age that promotes faith and sees skepticism as a bad thing (at least in some countries…), but that, in my opinion, shows an even greater need for people to be able to think critically, to be able to think for themselves. Every once in a while, I get an owl supporting a theory that I don't believe in, but that does it using solid argumentation. I love those owls, and I really respect the people who wrote them, even if I don't agree with them. Okay, enough about that.
I want to start today's article by thanking my boyfriend Jordan, who gave me the idea in the first place. Many people have written to me over the past months, asking me to write a piece on the house elves and what they might represent, so today I will. Since this piece will deal with religious questions, I want to start by making clear that I'm not looking to offend anyone and that I'm not Satan's little helper either. Okay, here we go.
The structure of the house elf storyline in Books 1-5 is as follows: In CoS, we meet Dobby for the first time and get an introduction to the concept of being a house elf and how they are treated by evil masters (the Malfoys). In GoF we see a different treatment of the house elves at Hogwarts, the different attitudes of many different people towards the elves and how Dobby and Winky - two freed elves - deal with their freedom in different ways. OotP presents a new perspective with the character Kreacher and develops the questions from GoF.
A house elf is thus a creature in the servitude of humans. They are very much like humans in the way that they are intelligent, capable of planning great schemes (Dobby in order to get Harry away from Hogwarts in CoS and Kreacher in order to get rid of Sirius in OotP), have feelings (e.g., Winky in GoF) and moral values (Winky is "properly ashamed of being free," GoF) and they are capable of a certain kind of magic. They serve the same family throughout generations and (generally) worship their masters and take great pride in being perfect slaves who "uphold the family honour" (CoS).
Their enslavement consists in that they normally can't disobey a direct order from their master and if they do or say anything he or she wouldn't like, they have to punish themselves heavily. The symbol of their enslavement is that they wear a pillowcase as their only piece of clothing, and the only way to freedom is to be presented with proper clothes by their master.
I see a clear parallel between house elves and fervently religious people. They both worship their masters and never question or criticize them. They are proud to keep their master's secrets and uphold the family honour. If they do or say something that goes against their master's will, (i.e., if they sin against him) they have to punish themselves (i.e., doing penance). They take a great dislike to anyone who speaks ill of their master (Winky, GoF) in the same way as religious fanatics tend to dislike anyone who criticizes their god. They are intolerant towards house elves that have "sinned," even when remorseful (Winky) and those who do not share the exact same views as themselves (Dobby) in the same way as some religious circles treat sinners (e.g., a girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock) and people with slightly different beliefs (e.g., the relationship between Catholics and Protestants in some places). Piety means orthodoxy which in turn brings honour to the family served. This is similar in many different religions, where you dishonour your family (and your congregation) when you sin against your god or break the rules of your church.
House elves are made in the image of humans, i.e., their masters, in the same way as humans are said to have been made in the image of God, i.e., their master. House elves and humans look alike, except for some physical exaggerations like big ears, eyes and noses (in the same way as God is said to be much more beautiful than we humans). Morally, they're similar too; there being both "good"( Dobby) and "bad" (Kreacher) elves. And, most importantly, they're able to do magic. As far as I know, this is the only non-wizard breed able to do magic in the HP series (okay, the goblins have something going on in Gringotts but they hire wizards to do their curse breaking for them, so they can't be that powerful). The big difference is that a house elf is not allowed to have a wand (which indicates that they'd be able to use one).
Now let's make the following parallel: Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and thereby acceded to some of God's power. He punished them, and they were degraded from his friends to servants who would do his bidding. The house elves have access to some of the wizards' power. Dumbledore says that house elves are "what they were made by wizards" (i.e., slaves, OotP). We don't know how the enslaving of the elves came about, but it might have something to do with the learning of how to do magic... just a thought. Another thing: what is the one thing that separates elves and wizards? That's right, clothes. The absence of clothes is the sign of the house elves' enslavement (CoS). Clothes mean freedom, which puts an elf equal to a human. It's the other forbidden fruit, the one that Adam and Eve never got to because they were kicked out of Eden, the only thing separating them from their God (immortality in their case). You can also interpret the clothes in another way; note the parallel: Adam and Eve were "freed" in the sense that they no longer had to live with their master and could go and do what they wanted, but that was an unwanted freedom, a punishment, just like they case with Winky and Mr. Crouch. AND, both the human couple and Winky were given clothes at that very time (Adam and Eve were naked until thrown out of Eden, except for some leaves after having eaten the forbidden fruit). Clothes/freedom is thus a double-edged sword, which can mean something great (Dobby) or something horrible (Winky), and it's very interesting to take a closer look at these differences in attitude.
Dobby, Winky and Kreacher
Three elves that are at the same time very different and very alike (again, like humans). If we again make the parallel to religion, Winky is the most orthodox, feeling terrible shame when freed and staying loyal to her master even after he kicks her out. Caring for her master is her reason to live, "right" and "wrong" are what her master considers it to be (e.g., it being right to break out his son from Azkaban even though he was guilty), etc. In short: if Crouch tells her to jump, she'll ask "how high" and then add another foot.
Dobby and Kreacher are very much alike. They were both slaves to masters they did not love or respect and suffered equally under them (as Dumbledore says in OotP). They are in a way each other's mirror images, the same but opposites. They both act against their masters to ruin their plans (Dobby, CoS; Kreacher, OotP). They're both "bad elves" in the sense that they disobey their masters, and they're both "good elves" in the sense that they try to work against what they believe to be wrong. This is VERY important and goes closely together with religion: you think in a certain way because that's how you've been raised to think and/or taught to think. You are not born a Catholic/Protestant/Hindu/Muslim/-Insert religion here; you are raised one. It's like with languages: any child born could have any language as his mother tongue, depending on where he or she is raised. A child born to Chinese parents does not have a native ability that makes it easier to learn Chinese than, for example, French. (just think of all adopted children and linguists have made studies on this) Same with religion.
A vast majority of religious people are religious because they've been raised that way. The number of people "finding God" on their own is MINISCULE (I'm not counting people that have been "saved" by missionaries when starving, non-educated, in jail, depressed, alcoholics or under other physical or emotional stress, since these people are in the same vulnerable situation as children and therefore highly suggestible). Same with morals, and Kreacher is a good example of this. To him it's WRONG to associate with Muggles for example. His feelings and sense of morality are just as real as Dobby's or Harry's, just different. For Kreacher, being killed and stuffed and hung on a wall is an honour, to help bring down the anti-Voldemort side is a virtue. His morals are different because he's been raised that way (think of the religions/cultures where it's an honourable thing for a widow to let herself be burnt alive next to her dead husband (India) or where it's your duty to kill your daughter if she sleeps with somebody before she's married (several middle eastern countries)). Dumbledore sees and understands this; Harry doesn't. Most of us readers don't either. We see Dobby as "the good guy" and Kreacher as the "horribly bad evil guy who got Sirius whom we all loved killed." Wrong. Kreacher is only evil and Dobby's only good by the anti-Voldemort side's standards, to the other side, Kreacher's a good guy and Dobby's the big traitor.
Here, we're approaching a question that has kept philosophers and ideologists busy for millennia: is there an objective truth regarding morals? Are there things that are universally good or bad? Different people have reached different conclusions. What is your opinion? (And remember that you too have been conditioned by your environment!)
I'll give you my point of view next week when I'll continue the parallel between house elves and religious people. Just think about all this till then. See you!
Maline
12/07/03
|
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<::: |
|
12-10-2003 03:31 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
Lawless
All About Brad!
offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 07:06 PM
Location: Freezing in Colorado
Posts: 27143
|
Hi, everybody! Whew! I was expecting quite a lot of owls following my last article as the subject was somewhat controversial, but not this many! Thanks all of you for your support and comments. What really surprised me, though was the fact that I didn't get any hate mail (at least not a lot), but so much the better! Okay, so before we start with today's article I'd like to say a couple of things.
I was really unhappy to find that, despite my trying to be diplomatic, some people were offended by what I wrote last week. This is sadly always the case: it's always the wrong people who feel bad. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, so I'll be more explicit. (If you get too tired of the part to follow, just scroll down to "Okay, let's get on with the article!!!").
I do not have anything against people who believe in God (any god), as long as those people respect other people's belief systems. I think faith is a terrific thing, as long as it's not mixed with intolerance and hatred. The term "religious fanatics" referred to people who believe in a god AND who lack tolerance towards others. If you're in that group (meaning that you think that everybody who doesn't think the same way you do is 1) wrong and 2) inferior to you), sure, go right ahead and feel offended. If you're not in that group (which I can tell none of you who wrote me are... okay, maybe a couple...), don't take it badly! I'm not against you; I'm not bitter towards religious people (don't misinterpret this term; it just signifies "people who believe in some kind of god." It's not a negative term!) and I don't mean any harm. "Fervently religious people" is (to me) a softer term than "religious fanatics," but it still implies a degree of intolerance. If you're not an intolerant person, I'm not talking about you.
What I do think (and please read this carefully, because I'm not trashing anyone here) is that when a person believes in a god, she enters into his (most gods are considered to be male, but if you believe in a female god, just substitute all "he" with "she," okay?) servitude, in the sense that she will change her behavior and way of thinking to what that god says is right. In that sense, that person will be very much like a typical house elf, i.e., Winky or the Hogwarts house elves (HHE). I would thus like to modify what I said last week and claim that ALL religious people can be compared to house elves (which does not imply that all religious people react like the HHE regarding how they treat Winky. You have tolerant and intolerant house elves just as you have tolerant and intolerant people.).
I do not see this "enslavement" as something negative. Winky and the HHE are HAPPY serving the humans and they don't want anything else. Winky even seems to have a very close relationship to Mr. Crouch and Crouch, Jr.; she takes care of them and loves them. She's almost a substitute mother for Crouch, Jr., caring for him at all times and looking out for his happiness (e.g., she argues with Mr. Crouch so that Barty could see the Quidditch World Cup in GoF). Likewise, the HHE are proud to do their best for their masters and help them in any way they can (e.g., the Welcoming Feast for the Triwizard Tournament and when Harry, Ron and Hermione visit the kitchens). I personally see nothing degrading or shameful in their situation. They're not weird or stupid for not wanting to be freed (just like people who are happy with their faith); to themselves they are not slaves - they have the best job in the world! (GoF). The negative side of their situation only appears when Hermione judges their situation to be a negative one (more on that later on).
I can see how people feel bad about being compared to slaves, because the word has very negative connotations. You could change the word to "servant" or "assistant" or something else that's more politically correct, but I personally don't like that. As Dumbledore says, "Fear of the name only increases the fear of the thing itself," and I completely agree. Therefore, I don't feel uncomfortable using the word "slave" in this context, stating clearly that, here and now, in my articles, it only means "being in the servitude and mental submission of another." Note again that "mental submission" does not equal "being retarded or unable to think for yourself;" it means that you have a certain frame of thought, just like everybody else.
Further, I think that each and every person must figure out who and what they are. If you are religious, you should be conscious of the fact that you are a slave to your god, and then it's up to you to decide whether to you that's a good or a bad thing. I found it pretty amusing that so many of you seem to perceive me as an atheist. I'm not an atheist at all. I believe in my god and try to be a good slave. I'm just aware of the fact that religion does not equal truth, and that other people's faith (or lack thereof) is just as "right" as mine, and of equal value. That's what religious freedom is all about. I might not agree with you, but I respect your faith as long as you respect mine. In addition, I'm not being condescending about people who've found God when in a sensitive and suggestible state of mind. I'm not saying that these people cannot think for themselves. I'm merely pointing out the fact that very few people start believing without being conditioned in some way, and that every religious person should be conscious of the fact that she probably would not have believed in her god had she not had that experience (and the same goes for non-believers; an atheist could just as well have been a Catholic altar servant had he been born in a different family).
Two more things and then I'll move on. :-)
1) About widow burnings in India: It was made illegal quite some time ago, but before that it was practiced and according to some, it's still practiced in some places. This doesn't mean that Indians in general practice or agree with this! (So you Indians who don't burn widows, don't be offended by this.) A parallel would be, "in the USA it's illegal to shoot people, but some people still do." The other example was, "Killing your daughter if she sleeps with somebody before she's married." Again, this might be illegal in the country in question, but practiced nevertheless. In Sweden we had a very big legal case a couple of years ago where a man (from Iran or Iraq, I don't remember which) argued "religious freedom" (I'm not saying that the Koran agrees with this, but this man thought it did) in order not to be punished for having killed his daughter (who was no longer a virgin), and I've read about similar cases in Saudi Arabia.
2) About my interpretation of the Adam and Eve story: I got great examples for what I've been trying to say about literary interpretation on that one. :-) I gave you MY interpretation and defend it as follows:
- "Adam and Eve didn't become God's servants when thrown out of Eden" - Well, no in the sense that they kind of already were ("The Lord God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and to care for it," Gen. 2:15); yes because almost every time that God speaks to man in the Bible it's to give him orders or forbid him to do something. Plus, he is called "Lord"...
- "Adam and Eve weren't given clothes, they made them themselves" - Well, no, they "sewed fig leaves together to make loincloths for themselves" (Gen. 3:6) but it's God who gives them real clothes ("For the man and his wife the Lord made leather garments, with which he clothed them," Gen. 3:21), like how Winky wore a pillowcase and Mr. Crouch gave her real clothes when dismissing her. (By the way, the Adam and Eve story was compared with Winky's fall, not Dobby or Kreacher's; sorry if it wasn't clear.)
- "There was no second forbidden fruit; Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from every tree except the one who gave knowledge about good and evil". - Yes, UNTIL they ate from the tree of knowledge, THEN the tree of life (immortality) BECAME the forbidden fruit ("See! The man has become like one of us ("us" meaning "God;" isn't it interesting how he's referred to in the plural form?), knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat it and live forever," Gen. 3:22).
These are my arguments. You don't have to agree.
|
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<::: |
|
12-30-2003 12:15 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
Lawless
All About Brad!
offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 07:06 PM
Location: Freezing in Colorado
Posts: 27143
|
Okay, let's get on with the article!!!
The House Elves' Enslavement - Different ways of looking at it
Different people react very differently to the elves' situation. The Hogwarts house elves (HHE) think that they have the greatest job in the world (according to Fred and George in GoF); they're happy with and proud of their situation. Winky is happy serving the Crouches but unhappy being a free elf. (Note that she's still wearing her real clothes at Hogwarts and not the Hogwarts pillowcase. She's thus not a "true" HHE; she's serving wizards, but she's still free.) Dobby is unhappy being the slave of the Malfoys and happy serving the wizard kind while still being free (at Hogwarts). Kreacher is unhappy being Sirius' slave but happy being the slave of the other Blacks (e.g., Mrs. Black), and his ambition is to one day have his head cut off, stuffed and hung on a wall. Except for Dobby, the house elves seem very happy about being slaves because they consider their status a privilege, without any kind of negative aspects.
The wizards express different views. Ron, Fred and George take the elves enslavement for granted and think that's the way it should be. The elves are HAPPY; they don't want freedom, so why should the wizards give it to them? Since they have grown up in the system, it's logical that they should think this way, but what's interesting is that Harry seems to be more on their side than on Hermione's. As long as the elves are happy and being well treated, why change things? Hermione represents the other side of the coin: elf slavery is wrong and the elves are wrong not to want freedom; thus you have to force the elves to change their minds.
Hermione is the great abolitionist. (You can, of course, read the elf storyline in a whole different way, making the parallel between elf slavery and African-American slavery in the USA before the civil war instead of making the parallel house elves-religious people. There are always different angles that you can use to analyze any one text.) In her struggle to "save" the elves, she doesn't stop to think about what they themselves want. She's being intolerant, presuming that freedom is the best thing for everybody. She considers her opinion to be more important and more "right" than that of the elves themselves. She "knows better." This opens up a very interesting debate: should every person be allowed to decide what's best for themselves or should somebody else be allowed the authority to make their decisions for them? What is more important, independence or happiness?
A superb example of this dilemma is Aldous Huxley's book Brave New World. I really recommend it to those of you who haven't read it. It's generally seen as a dystopia (the opposite of a "utopia," which means a perfect world (and a book that's a utopia is thus a description of a perfect world or system)), but I think that view merits discussion. Personally, I don't agree. I think Huxley's universe is a utopist one. (This is really a book where your social conditioning plays a huge part. It's extremely hard to see things from a different perspective than your own.) Well, if you get the chance, read it.
Okay, so back to the house elves. If we continue with the religion parallel, Hermione's an atheist who is happy being an atheist and wants to make everybody else believe the way she does. She doesn't respect the house elves' belief system. You could also say that Hermione represents a believer of Religion X who tries to save the poor house elves from their enslavement under a false god. Nobody is truly an atheist; everybody believes in some form of divinity, whether that be the Christian God, the forces of Nature, Logic, Love, or something else. Faith is always the same. That's my point of view (my boyfriend, a former Catholic and now a proud atheist strongly disagrees with me. :-)). Hermione's thus the missionary of Religion X, trying to "save" the house elves.
The problem is that the house elves don't want to be saved because they believe their "religion" to be the "true" one. To me, this is very important, and I've discussed it with many different people with different beliefs. No matter how strongly you feel that you're right, no matter how strongly you feel your god's presence, no matter how many other people share your beliefs, you should always keep in mind that you might not be right. And why is that? Because so many other people feel equally strongly about their beliefs, and who is to say that your feelings are more "right" or more valid than theirs? What makes you superior to another human to the extent that you can say that that person's feelings and beliefs are simply "wrong"? Maybe you're wrong. Or maybe both of you are right. Maybe there's a god for every belief system; maybe they all exist. Maybe none of them exist. We don't know, nor will we probably ever know.
The thing is that it doesn't really matter who is "right" because faith doesn't need an objective truth to exist. Faith is an emotional thing; it's there to help us, to comfort us and to answer what we can't answer ourselves. Whether you believe in God, the Easter Bunny, Logic or Buffy the Vampire Slayer doesn't matter as long as it works for you. This is my definition of religious tolerance. If any of you feel like I'm attacking your faith with this, sit down and think for a while about the following: if you believe that a god created you, that god would also have given you the ability to reason and to ask questions. How then could that ability be dangerous to your faith? If your faith is strong, thinking about it in a critical way shouldn't hurt. Reason is not the enemy of faith, and faith isn't the enemy of reason. Or, as the Holy Augustinus put it: "I think, therefore God exists" ("Cogito, ergo Deus est"). Find your own way.
I don't know what JKR's point of view is on this, but tolerance is one of the big themes in her books. If we take a look at Dumbledore again (and JKR has said that she often speaks through Dumbledore, not saying of course that she agrees with everything she has him say), he looks at the elf question in a different way than both Hermione and the Weasley group. He keeps house elves at Hogwarts in the traditional way (i.e., as slaves), but he also offers Dobby to work there as a free elf. He feels sorry for Kreacher and thinks that he should be treated with kindness and respect (OotP), but he doesn't suggest that he'd be better off as a free elf. He claims that wizardkind has abused its fellow magical creatures for too long, and that it'll have bad consequences. (Sirius' death for example) It's a pretty straightforward "you'll reap what you sow" moral. Dumbledore seems to want to make up for former abuse of the elves (the elves are what they were made by wizards, OotP) by making them happy. He lets them decide what sort of situation they want to live in (even if I think Dumbledore, too, would prefer all creatures to be equal, free and happy about being so). He doesn't try to free them; he just respects their wishes and treats them well. I think he's the very symbol of tolerance, accepting that people are different (not only regarding house elves) in the HP series.
Wow, this article turned out quite different from what I'd planned. I guess I'm influenced by the Christmas spirit. :-) Maybe I should have kept my views on religion to myself and just concentrated on things in the Harry Potter books, but I wanted to share them with you because I think that if everybody just learnt to accept that people are different and believe in different things, the world would be a little better. Trust in yourselves and don't be afraid of beliefs that contradict your own. Try to understand, but know that you don't have to agree. Find your own path. Voilà, that's my message for Christmas, and I promise that my next article will be hard core Harry Potter analysis. :-)
A very merry Christmas to you all (and to those who celebrate other things, a very happy celebration). See you in the new year, I'm taking three weeks off to eat candy and work on my much delayed 40-page sociolinguistics research project.
Take care
Maline
PS: I know that I said I'd display my views on morality in this article, but I think you'll be able to figure that out by yourselves having read this. I'm basically a relativist who believes in the Golden Rule.
12/21/03
|
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<::: |
|
12-30-2003 12:15 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
Lawless
All About Brad!
offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 07:06 PM
Location: Freezing in Colorado
Posts: 27143
|
Hi, everybody. Hope you all had some nice free time in which to eat a lot of good food and put on a pound or two (or five in my case... Ah! the evil powers of chocolate!) I just came back to my apartment in France two days ago and found that the electricity company had decided to give me a present as well: no electricity (heating, stove and hot water included). Fortunately, my laptop has some battery left, so I'm happily back at work, writing this article with mittens on. It's hard to write when wearing mittens. I'm very glad my computer has a spell check function… Okay, enough about that. I promised you a hard core HP article this week, so that's what you're going to get.
"And here we have six missing Death Eaters... three dead in my service. One too cowardly to return... he will pay. One, who I believe has left me forever... he will be killed, of course... and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already re-entered my service." (GoF, p. 565)
These ominous lines were given to us by Lord Voldemort at the end of GoF. I guess most of us thought that with the "one who had left him forever," he was referring to Snape. It seems logical as Snape's now in the Order and all. I personally didn't even stop to think. It was Snape. End of story.
Then I read the excellent (in my opinion) editorial "Uncovering Severus Snape" by Cindy Eric, and it really made me think. The only things I found a bit questionable in this article were the parts on the Sorting Hat choosing Slytherins because they hate Muggles and on how Snape might be Voldemort's "most faithful servant." Otherwise I just bow my head to an article full of interesting ideas and solid argumentation. I've even decided to take "article about Snape" off my to-do list as it would be pointless to repeat the same things. I'm still going to do another one on Snape-Harry-Voldemort though, as soon as I get the time. I really recommend this other article to you. Read that.
Anyway, this article argues that Snape is probably not the Death Eater referred to as "having left me forever" in Voldemort's speech (above), the reason being that he was probably present in the ring of returning Death Eaters. You can read all the arguments supporting this in the above mentioned article. I personally believe that this is correct, but who then is this missing Death Eater, having supposedly left Voldemort forever?
Let's start with what we know from the text:
1) "HE will be killed" = it's a man.
2) It's not "one too cowardly to return" or "my most faithful servant," which excludes Karkaroff and Crouch, Jr. We are told that Karkaroff fled when he felt his mark burn (GoF), and on the pages following the above quote, it's pretty certain that Crouch, Jr. is the "most faithful servant," not Snape as has been argued by some. Best argument against "Snape could be the most faithful servant" is that that wouldn't leave a position open for Crouch, Jr., who's a Death Eater that's not present in the circle, and thus must be among the six missing ones. He's not dead at the time. Voldemort knows that he's neither abandoned him nor fled, ergo he must fulfill the last position of most faithful servant. There are simply no other positions open.
3) It isn't any of the Death Eaters present in the circle (duh), which excludes Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, Macnair, Avery, Wormtail, and the unnamed ones (probably including Snape). It also includes the Death Eaters then imprisoned in Azkaban (Dolohov, Rookwood, the two Lestranges and five others)
4) It must be somebody who was a Death Eater when Voldemort was powerful, at least 14 years before OotP. All present students at Hogwarts can thus be excluded, including all of Ron's older brothers, as they would have been only children back then.
5) "One, who I believe has left me forever." "Believe" indicates that Voldemort isn't entirely sure that this person either a) has truly left him or b) has left him to never come back. It's a bit ambiguous. A) would suggest that it's not somebody in the Order, i.e. somebody who's "openly" allied with Dumbledore against Voldemort (e.g., Arthur Weasley). B) would suggest a person that might have started infiltrating the Order but then been won over by that side and renounced Voldemort (kind of like Snape, but not Snape). I'm personally leaning towards A rather than B.
Okay, that was the text part; now, over to the logic part.
1) It has to be a character of some consequence, because he will probably have quite a big role to play in the last books. I doubt very much that it'll be a new character or somebody that nobody knows anything of (like Professor Tufty for example). I think JKR will use this character as a surprise, a little shock to the readers who didn't think he was a Death Eater at all.
2) Okay, this gives us quite a list. My possible candidates are: Prof. Flitwick, Prof. Binns and Hagrid at Hogwarts; Lupin, Mundungus, Kingsley, Arthur Weasley, Moody, Aberforth, Dumbledore and Sirius in the Order; and Lockhart, Crouch, Sr., Bagman, Amos Diggory and Cornelius Fudge in general society. Let's take them off one by one shall we?
Prof. Flitwick: in the Order and seems way too sweet and nice.
Prof. Binns: totally uninterested by anything except History of Magic.
Hagrid: Too close to Dumbledore
Lupin: Seems too decent, gut feeling.
Mundungus: a crook that was helped out of a tight spot by Dumbledore some sixteen years ago. Possible, but I don't think so.
Kingsley: I really don't think so, plus I have him on my "canon fodder" list.
Arthur Weasley: Too close to Dumbledore
Moody: same thing, plus he'd probably not have been as effective in catching Death Eaters if he was one of them.
Aberforth: I think that Aberforth is the barman in the Hog's Head (he kind of looks like Dumbledore and there is a smell of goats around the place). I think he was the one who threw out the eavesdropping DE the night of Prof. Trelawney's first prophecy (and no, I don't think that the eavesdropper was Mundungus). Plus, he's Dumbledore's brother, so no.
Dumbledore: That would be pretty bad. Dumbledore's the only person Voldemort fears and the only one that calls him "Tom" and isn't afraid of him. I really can't see him being Voldy's humble servant.
Sirius: No, because he seems to hate everything about dark magic. Plus, he's dead now so there's no point for him to play that role.
Lockhart: He's too poor a wizard and too vain to recognize Voldemort as his master.
Crouch. Sr.: Fought hard against Voldemort and is also dead = no point
Bagman: I think he's a bit too thick, to tell you the truth. He's like a sporty version of Lockhart.
Amos Diggory: Too concerned about what's right.
Okay, for all the above characters I don't think that they're the missing Death Eaters for more or less fuzzy reasons, but the most important one is that Voldemort's words can only apply to ONE person, and I think that that person is Cornelius Fudge (i.e., if it is Fudge, then all the others are excluded automatically, like with Neville and Harry: if one of them is the One, the other one isn't, as there can only be ONE One). I thus don't really have to prove that each character above isn't the missing Death Eater, only that the one character I've chosen is (i.e. attacks should be on the argumentation concerning Fudge, not on the short arguments above as they are of no consequence).
|
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<::: |
|
01-17-2004 06:58 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
Lawless
All About Brad!
offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 07:06 PM
Location: Freezing in Colorado
Posts: 27143
|
Why Fudge?
Well, for a bunch of different reasons:
1) He's very ambitious and doesn't mind using dishonest tricks to remain in power (e.g. badmouthing Harry and Dumbledore, changing Harry's hearing at the last minute and creating new (pretty fascist) school rules.)
2) He's very good friends with Lucius Malfoy and places too much importance in the "purity of blood" (GoF).
3) This person described by Voldemort is one who was a Death Eater but who left Voldemort but probably didn't join the opposing side (the Order), as indicated by "believe." He probably wasn't one of Voldemort's most ardent supporters (i.e., he could have been unknown by most of the other Death Eaters) as Voldemort doesn't specify who he is. I get an image of an ambitious character who probably turned to Voldemort out of fear and/or to achieve power and then, when he had achieved that power, wanted to leave him. He probably left after Voldemort's fall, as there seems to be no clear rupture between them (for one thing, he's still alive), when he deemed it safe to be his own master again. He's now extremely happy with the situation, able to suppress the memory of his Death Eater days and scared to death that Voldemort will return as that would ruin his life and career. Sounds like somebody we know?
If we look at Fudge's background we find that he worked for the Ministry but that he only got the Minister of Magic job when Crouch, Sr.'s son was judged a Death Eater (maybe there was a reason to why Crouch, Jr. got caught?...). Fudge then became MoM and kept very close to Dumbledore in the beginning (looking for protection in case his old master came back?...) but then got more and more confident (as time passed without Voldemort coming back) and stopped listening to Dumbledore. Other than that, we don't know much about him. Nothing of his background, his time at Hogwarts, etc. (although I'd be willing to bet that he was a Slytherin). He's a bit mysterious.
4) This character (the missing DE) ought to be extremely afraid that Voldemort should ever come back. That would ruin his world. He does not want that and will try to prevent it in any way possible (makes sense, Voldemort would kill him). What is Fudge's reaction when Harry tells him about Voldemort's rebirth? Denial. Very strong denial even. Fudge simply refuses to believe the truth and continues on this path all through Book 5. He'd rather believe that Harry has lost his mind and that Dumbledore is conspiring against him, even though that makes no sense. Fudge is not stupid. If he'd look at things in a rational way, he'd see that the only sensible explanation is the one offered by Harry and Dumbledore. He doesn't. He refuses to.
If he's been a Death Eater, he'll have the Mark. He'll have felt it burn the night of Voldemort's return, just like Snape and the others. This could be why he reacts so strongly when Snape shows him his Mark. I mean, he lets out a yelp of fear. As I understood it, nobody but the Death Eaters knows about the Mark on the arm of all of Voldemort's supporters (if it was general knowledge, then the "good guys" would have had it a lot easier at the trials, for example). If Fudge hasn't been a DE, he wouldn't know about it, so why then react so strongly when he saw it on Snape's arm? Sure, the Mark in itself is a scary thing, but I think that there is more to it than that. Especially as, a little while later, he seems to give in to reason and says, "He can't be back Dumbledore, he just can't" (GoF). This seems to be a wish rather than a rational statement. In his heart he knows the truth but he refuses to see it. He most certainly felt his Mark burn too, but explained it away somehow (like some women manage to convince themselves that they're not pregnant (God, I'm getting fat, must cut down on the chocolate) and panic when they "all of a sudden" get severe contractions. ("It must be something I ate! Help!")). It's like the Muggles who are so easy to hide magic from because they simply refuse to believe in it, even if a stone turns into a cow in front of them. That is how I see Cornelius Fudge in Books 4 and 5. He sees what he wants to see.
5) Fudge's relationship with Lucius Malfoy and other DE (like Nott and Macnair). Karkaroff said when witnessing that the DE didn't know who all the other DE were. At Voldemort's rebirth, Voldemort named some of the DE and just went past others in silence, not revealing who they were. If Fudge used to be a Death Eater, it's possible (and even probable) that most of the other ones didn't know about him. I think that we can be pretty sure that some knew however, and that Cornelius knew about them in return. Fudge is Minister of Magic. Several DE work for the Ministry. Wonder how that came about... Malfoy reeks of Dark Magic, and everybody in the Order knows exactly where his loyalties lie. In spite of that, he was never convicted as a DE (even though he was probably the most well-known among the DE themselves, seeing as he's very close to Voldemort). Again, I wonder why that is... This is, of course, a big conspiracy theory, but what if the DE who work at the MoM are the ones who know about Fudge? Maybe there's blackmail involved. Maybe in both directions (i.e., Malfoy shuts up about Fudge if Fudge shuts up about Malfoy, not to forget all the money that Malfoy gives to Fudge. I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine...). It seems like a big game, who is manipulating whom, really? This is what I think:
Fudge is the DE referred to by Voldemort as the one who has probably left him forever. He knows that Malfoy and the other DE who work at the MoM used to be DE but probably thinks that they've done what he's done and decided to work for themselves. Lucius and co. are smart enough not to fill him in on their boss's return because Cornelius does such a good job unconsciously helping them (or is it really unconsciously? Maybe he knows that Voldemort is back and figures that his best chance of survival is to play along, or at least not oppose him...). Cornelius has achieved his ambitions, and now he wants things to stay the way they are. He doesn't want to get dragged into a conflict between Voldemort's supporters and Voldemort's opponents, and he doesn't want his previous alliance to be known to the public because they'd kick him out of office. I think that this is the key to Fudge: he doesn't really care about much except securing his own power. (In PoA, for example, does he protect Harry because he's concerned about him or because it would be very bad publicity to have Harry killed by an Azkaban fugitive?)
This leaves one question: What does he know about Snape, Wormtail and Sirius and their connections to Voldemort? Malfoy seemingly didn't know about Sirius being an animagus before Wormtail told them all somewhere between Books 4 and 5, so the other DE probably didn't either. It's possible that Fudge was unaware of the whole "Wormtail being the true spy and DE"-part and thought that he was going after the right man in PoA. More interesting still is his relationship to Snape. Obviously Fudge knows that Snape used to be a DE (everybody does), but what does Snape know? Remember that Snape and Malfoy are very close. I think he knows about Fudge, but for some reason or other, he's chosen not to reveal this little piece of especially juicy information to the rest of the Order (or maybe Dumbledore knows, who knows? He's famous for being discrete and giving second chances after all...).
This theory (if it's correct) opens up for a whole new twist on the story. Many people have guessed that Percy will play a pivotal role in Books 6 and 7 and that he'll have to make a choice about whose side he wants to fight on. Percy, who in Book 5 is made Junior Undersecretary to none other than Cornelius Fudge... A good position for getting to know things about his employer... Maybe Fudge hired him to get information on the Weasleys and on Dumbledore (he probably did), but he just might get impaled upon his own sword if he's not careful. This also creates a need for a new Minister of Magic (Fudge's bad handling of Voldemort's return might be smoothed over, but the fact that he once was a part of the "team" certainly won't be. Assuming he survives, Voldemort has vowed to kill him after all. He'll probably be dead the moment he no longer can be of use to the DE). Who knows, maybe Arthur Weasley will get the top job as so many seem to think.
As for Fudge, he'll have to choose sides at the beginning of Book 6 and his choice will be an essential one: will he join forces with Dumbledore, or will he go back to Voldemort in an attempt to save his own skin? (Also, does he or does he not have an army of fire creatures to help whatever side he picks?)
Some things to think about...
See you next time. (I'm starting my exams in a couple of days, so I might not be able to write every week for the coming month. I'll really try, though.)
Take care
Maline
01/11/04
|
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<::: |
|
01-17-2004 06:59 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
Lawless
All About Brad!
offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 07:06 PM
Location: Freezing in Colorado
Posts: 27143
|
Hi, everybody, I hope you all had a nice week. Firstly, I want to admit to a mistake I made in last week's article, about Professor Flitwick being in the Order. I thought that he was on the photo of the original Order of the Phoenix that Moody shows Harry in Book 5, but I was wrong; he's not, so there's no knowing whether he is in the Order or not (although he probably isn't or Harry would have been told). My mistake, sorry.
Secondly, I got some mails putting forward the following candidates for "the one who's left forever" instead of Fudge: Lockhart, Bagman and (of course) Snape. (I also got Percy, but since he would have been about four or five at the time he was an active Death Eater and even younger when he joined Voldemort, I won't even discuss that. :-)) Today, I want to discuss these three characters (Lockhart, Bagman and Snape) and try to shed some light over that ominous scene in GoF when Voldemort assembles his followers and leaves us readers in the dark about the identity of most of them.
Let's start with Snape. I believe that Snape was in the circle of Death Eaters around Voldemort at the time of his return, which leaves "the one who's left me forever" position vacant (for Fudge, in my opinion). I have received many mails arguing against this (and some of them are excellent, I might add, very convincing) and the main arguments seem to be:
1) There isn't enough time for Snape to get to Voldemort and back since you can't Apparate inside the Hogwarts grounds.
2) Dumbledore would have noticed that Snape went missing and this would have been highly suspect; Snape wouldn't take that risk.
Okay, number one. No, you can't Apparate inside Hogwarts, which we are reminded of all the time in the books. I went back and checked the passage of Voldemort's rebirth and this is what it says happens (since I don't feel like quoting the whole passage I'll just sum up the action; you can read it by yourselves if you want, p. 560-561 UK version):
Voldemort presses his finger to the Mark, Wormtail screams, the Mark turns black, Voldemort looks at it and then looks up. Voldemort looks around the graveyard and asks himself how many of his Death Eaters will come back. He paces around for about "a minute or so." He talks to Harry, then again paces the graveyard, looking at the snake on the ground. He speaks some more to Harry, paces some more and speaks again. The Death Eaters start to Apparate around him.
This seems to be a quite short scene. The parts where Voldemort speaks to Harry take about one and a half minutes (I've counted :-)); then he's pacing for about a minute that we know of and then two more times of undetermined length. I'd estimate the time from the touching of the Mark to the arrival of the DE to about five minutes, not more. This is not a lot of time for Snape to get outside Hogwarts, I agree (changing his clothes will only take an additional 30 seconds, he could easily have summoned them to him while walking towards the gates for example.) Four and a half minutes to get outside the gates. It is possible, as they're already down at the Quidditch pitch and not all the way up in the castle (In PoA, the Dementors, stationed at the gates, are attracted by the excitement at the pitch, so it can't be that far). What is more realistic, though, is that Snape started to make his way towards the gates the moment the mark came into clear focus at Voldemort's rebirth. It would make sense, he'd know what that meant and that his (former) master would soon call him to his side. If this is the case, he would have had an additional couple of minutes to get off the grounds. It is possible.
It's even more so for the return. Assume that Snape was at the graveyard. When he saw Harry disappear he could have said a quick goodbye to Voldy and the guys and Disapparated to the Hogwarts gates. Voldemort, thinking that Snape still works for him as a spy against Dumbledore, understands that he has to get back before his absence is noticed by the returning Harry and doesn't try to stop him. Snape should thus arrive at the gates at about the same time as Dumbledore and Fudge find Harry and Cedric. In the chaos which follows (p. 582-589) Harry lies on the ground for a couple of minutes before being led away by Moody. Harry can't really use his leg and Moody has to support him up to the castle, so we can assume it takes quite some time for them to get up to his office. In the office, Moody/Crouch, Jr., then takes the time to tell Harry about the whole scheme of making him champion and asking him about Voldemort's return. This part will have to take at the very least ten minutes, probably more like fifteen or twenty. This would give Snape ample time to get back and join Dumbledore and McGonagall. Also, Dumbledore says: "the moment he took you, I knew - and I followed" (p. 590), but he waited quite some time before following (or he would have caught up with them on the way back to the castle). What was he waiting for? Snape perhaps...
Considering the time frame, it thus seems like it would have been possible for Snape to be with the other DE at the graveyard. A bit tight, but he could have made it. (He's a fully trained wizard, after all; he can probably speed himself up quite a bit.)
Concerning the other argument, about risk-taking and Dumbledore noticing his absence, I don't really see it that way. Personally, I believe that Snape is working as a double agent, which means that Dumbledore knows that he's seeing Voldemort and the other DE and that he's giving information to them about Hogwarts and the Order while Voldemort knows that Snape's giving information about him and the DE to the Order. Both Voldemort and Dumbledore think that Snape's really working for them, though, and that they receive the good information while the enemy gets less significant things. Dumbledore would thus know that Snape went to see Voldemort when his Mark burned and understands why: if he didn't, Voldemort would grow suspicious and Snape would be of no more use as a spy. Snape is therefore risking absolutely nada by joining the DE; quite the contrary - he's protecting himself.
Okay, those are my additional arguments for Snape being in the graveyard as one of the cloaked and masked DE. I'm aware of the fact that they aren't irreproachable, the timeframe is quite slim and Snape would really have had to hurry to get to the scene in time, but it's possible. It all really depends on how you look at Snape. If you believe that he's a double agent, then it makes sense that he should have been at the graveyard; whereas, if you believe that he's fully abandoned Voldemort to work for the Order, it makes sense that he should be "the one who's left me forever" (meaning that Fudge is out of the picture as he couldn't possibly be one of the still active DE, being at Harry's side when he returns to Hogwarts and thus not in the graveyard). Although, if Snape's abandoned the DE, how come Malfoy is still so friendly, and what would Snape's job in the Order be?
Regarding the other two characters suggested for "Fudge's position," Bagman and Lockhart, we first need to outline the number of DE a bit better:
The DE are:
1) the DE present around Voldemort (Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Avery, Nott, Mcnair, Wormtail and the ones he just passes in silence, how many we do not know)
2) the DE imprisoned in Azkaban (the two Lestranges, Dolohov, Rookwood and five others)
3) the six missing ones that he mentions [three dead, the coward (= Karkaroff), the deserter (= Fudge, if I'm to guess) and the faithful (= Crouch, Jr.)] For those of you who think that Snape and not Crouch, Jr., is the "most faithful one," I recommend a re-reading of pages 565-570 (Voldemort's description of the most faithful) and a comparison with the pages 585-589 (Crouch's confession to Harry) and 593-600 (Crouch's confession under the influence of Veritaserum). For those who think that Bellatrix is the one referred to, I'd like to point out that she's already been mentioned by Voldemort and that she couldn't have been at Hogwarts because she was in Azkaban at the time. Theories carry a lot more weight if you base them on the actual text instead of on wild speculation. Just a tip. :-)
This means that there are more DE than we know of, (all the unnamed ones) and we don't know who they are or how many they are. Bagman might be one of them; we don't know. Lockhart, on the other hand, is far less probable because he couldn't possibly have been in the graveyard (because he was in St Mungo's at the time); so unless he's the "one who's left me forever" instead of Fudge, there's really no way. I find Fudge a lot likelier a candidate for that position (as argued last week). As for the DE remaining to be found, we'll find out sooner or later, so feel free to form your own theories on who they might be. Just keep in mind that they have to be old enough to have been DE last time around, too (they'll have to have the Mark), so anyone younger than 30 is not a possibility (for the DE at the graveyard; more could have joined during Book 5).
I think I'll finish here for today. I know that this is mostly a continuation of last week's article and therefore not incredibly fascinating, but things needed clarification so I decided to do just that. Next week, though, I'll do the piece that I had planned for today but didn't happen since those things above grew too long: a literary analysis of the Pensieve's function in JKR's story. See you all next week.
Maline
|
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<::: |
|
01-26-2004 02:34 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
Lawless
All About Brad!
offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 07:06 PM
Location: Freezing in Colorado
Posts: 27143
|
"A shallow stone basin lay there, with old carvings around the edge, rune symbols that Harry did not recognise. The silvery light was coming from the basin's contents, which were like nothing Harry had ever seen before. He could not tell whether the substance was liquid or gas. It was a bright, whitish silver, and it was moving ceaselessly; the surface of it became ruffled like water beneath wind and then, like clouds, separated and swirled smoothly. It looked like light made liquid or wind made solid - Harry couldn't make up his mind."
(GoF, p. 506)
The Pensieve is a mystery I've been wanting to take a look at for quite some time, as I find it a most fascinating thing. Since we all know what happens in the Pensieve, I will analyse the structure and language rather than the story, giving myself an exercise of good old comparative commentary analysis. Okay, here we go.
So far, the Pensieve has appeared seven times in the series: five times in GoF and two times in OotP. These seven appearances can be divided into three different groups: 1) Harry looking into the Pensieve without entering it (1 occurrence), 2) A figure forming and coming out of the Pensieve (2 occurrences), and 3) Harry being inside the Pensieve (4 occurrences, or actually 2 occurrences but 4 different scenes). I will deal with each type of appearance first on a general plan and then more in depth on each scene (which will probably be next week). For those of you who haven't got their books at hand, I've copied down the relevant passages and put them into separate files, which can be accessed through the little links for each occurrence. Okay, here we go. Let's start with the overall picture. To be less confusing, I've labelled each of the Pensive-related scenes as follows (all page directions refer to UK hardback editions for Books 4-5 and to UK paperback for 1-3):
1. SNAPE'S FACE (Harry looking into the Pensieve and sees Snape talking about the return of the Dark Mark on his and Karkaroff's arms, GoF, p. 519)
2. BERTHA JORKINS (The figure of Bertha Jorkins coming out of the Pensieve, GoF, p. 520)
3. SYBILL TRELAWNEY (The figure of Trelawney coming out of the Pensieve to deliver her first prophecy, OotP, p. 741)
4. KARKAROFF'S HEARING (GoF, p. 507-513)
5. BAGMAN'S TRIAL (GoF, p. 513-515)
6. LCU'S TRIAL (Trial of the Lestranges, Crouch, Jr., and an Unknown Death Eater, GoF, p. 515-518)
7. SNAPE'S WORST MEMORY (OotP, p. 564-572)
Time
There are two different timelines present: one that follows the storytelling (usually called "text-time," meaning the order of the scenes in the books) and one that follows the actual story (usually called "story-time," meaning the order of the scenes in the actual plot and in the characters' universe). The text-time timeline is as follows: Karkaroff's hearing, Bagman's trial, LCU's trial, Snape's face, Bertha Jorkins, Snape's worst memory and Sybill Trelawney.
The story-time timeline is different (i.e., when the events seen in the Pensieve actually took place) and a little more difficult to establish. First come Snape's worst memory and Bertha Jorkins, where Bertha Jorkins probably comes first as she's working at the MoM a year to a couple of years after Crouch, Jr's trial (because she discovers him in his father's house). If we start the story-time at Harry's birth (and no, I'm not comparing him to Jesus :-)), then Trelawney is -1, the court scenes between 1 and 2, Snape's face 14, Snape's worst memory around -5 and Bertha Jorkins somewhere before -5 (it's quite impossible to establish as we don't know how old she is; she could be Snape's age for all we know). We also know that the order of the court scenes is the same on both timelines (i.e., Karkaroff, Bagman, LCU), and we know that Trelawney must be placed before all of them, because Dumbledore talks in Karkaroff's hearing about how Snape turned away from Voldemort before his downfall, meaning that Voldemort must already be gone by that time, and Trelawney's prophecy came before his fall.
If we look at the differences between the two timelines, we see that there are two blocks that change places: the court block (Karkaroff, Bagman and LCU) and the "emotional" block (Bertha, Snape's worst memory and Trelawney), called thus because they're surrounded by strong emotions, coming from the characters whose memory has just been evoked. (I'll get back to that)
Perspective
This is a very important question regarding the Pensieve: whose reality is it that we really see? In most discussions around "Snape's Worst Memory" that I've read (very few, actually), it's emphasised that JKR repeats the fact that we're inside Snape's memory, and that this should indicate that what we see (and what Harry sees) is Snape's version of what happened that day. The theory thus becomes, "what Harry sees in the Pensieve is the subjective memory of somebody else (Dumbledore or Snape)"
This seems a bit unlikely to me for four reasons:
1. According to Dumbledore, the Pensieve is a tool that allows you to get another perspective on your memories and to understand them better (seeing patterns and so forth). If they only showed the events exactly as remembered (i.e., subjectively), there would be no real purpose with it.
2. The person in the Pensieve can look at other things than what the person, whose memory it is, is looking at, and thus see things that that person couldn't have seen at the time (e.g., how could Snape have seen that James, many desks away, was drawing a Snitch on a piece of parchment at the end of the exam when he himself was absorbed in his paper, writing frantically?). Were it a person's subjective memory, it should be seen through that person's eyes only.
3. When Harry's inside the Pensieve, we only get to know what his feelings are, and what he thinks the other characters are feeling. For example, in Snape's memory, we never know what Snape's really feeling but can only guess, just like Harry. Were it subjective, Snape's feelings would be in focus, not Harry's. (Same thing goes for the court scenes)
4. The way people are described. In Snape's memory for example, Sirius is described several times as extremely handsome. Usually, when you hate somebody, that person appears ugly to you, even if that person is generally thought of as being good-looking. You tend to focus on the flaws, the same way your best friend could never really look ugly to you, because he/she's just too likable. If Snape's worst memory is a subjective scene, this would mean that Snape either secretly admires Sirius and/or that he's secretly in love with him. Neither is very probable, as in GoF and OotP they obviously hate each other (and please, please, please do not take this for a reason to start a "Snape might be gay" theory; there are really no grounds for it).
The characters don't seem to be described the way Snape saw them back then, but the way Harry sees them, influenced by his feelings: Sirius is extremely handsome and very confident (Harry really likes Sirius and sees him "like a mix of a father and a brother"), James looks exactly like Harry except for a couple of things (eyes, scar - Harry has only heard James described in relation to himself, looks and qualities alike), Wormtail is shifty, is compared to a mouse and seems generally ugly, cowardly and mean (which is pretty much Harry's picture of him after PoA and GoF), Snape is greasy and ugly (the way Harry and Ron always talk about him) and Lily only has red hair and Harry's eyes (the two characteristics which have always been the dominant ones when she's described). I think that Lily's description is the most interesting one; she's barely described at all. There's only her hair and her eyes, nothing about her being beautiful or not beautiful - it's neutral, just like Harry's relationship to her. He thinks a lot more about his father; Lily is just that vague motherly figure who sacrificed herself for him when he was a baby.
Okay, the point I want to make with all this is that if what you see in the Pensieve depends on how the person whose memory it is (from now on "memory-person") sees it, Sirius and James would probably not be so good-looking in Snape's memory, and (other example) the Dementors wouldn't be described as so very scary in Dumbledore's.
It seems to me that the Pensieve offers a kind of objective view of the scene in question, like if you'd take a video camera and film something. What is seen in the Pensieve scenes (and thus conveyed in the text) is the point of view of the person being inside it, and that person is able to notice things that the memory-person didn't when the scene happened. (e.g., if you look at a video of your sister's graduation, you'll probably see things differently than she did that day, and you'll focus on different things). In Snape's worst memory, for example, JKR repeats twice that it's Snape's memory (underlining that fact), but reminds us that Snape's "absorbed in his exam paper" (or the like) no less than five times, which is a lot more. In the four scenes when Harry is inside the Pensive, it is therefore his version we readers get, his interpretation. And, as we all know, the way Harry interprets things is not necessarily the correct way to interpret them...
Purpose and intent
Why Harry sees what he sees in the Pensieve seems important also, and this can be analysed at two levels just like the time. First, there's JKR purpose with each scene, the part they play in the construction of her story. Then there's the intent of the memory-person: why does he show Harry this precise memory?
Let's start with intent: three memories are shown by Dumbledore to Harry, and Dumbledore is thus in control of what he's showing: Snape's face, Bertha Jorkins and Sybill Trelawney. Three memories are shown without Dumbledore being in control (the court scenes), and it seems like Harry stumbles over these specific scenes accidentally (though it's logical that they follow each other, dealing with the same kind of situation). Finally, there's Snape's worst memory, which Snape placed deliberately in the Pensieve so that Harry wouldn't be able to see it. Also, when it comes to Trelawney, Dumbledore took the thought out of his head and put it in the Pensieve for that specific occasion, the exact opposite of what Snape did.
The scenes where Dumbledore's in control should thus be analysed on both levels (as well as Snape's worst memory, where there's an inversed idea of control), whereas the court scenes can be analysed from the aspect of writer-purpose only.
Intent question: "Why does Dumbledore show this precise scene to Harry?/Why does Snape want to hide this precise scene from Harry?"
Purpose question: "Why does JKR show us this precise scene in this precise manner?" (Why the Pensieve? She could use many other techniques, like having a person tell Harry about it.)
It seems to me that, when the Pensieve is present, part of the purpose is to withhold information from the reader by letting Harry analyse things (and let's face it, Harry's usually wrong when it comes to the important questions like, "Who's the evil guy in this book?") instead of leaving it to a more informed character, like Dumbledore. JKR wants to show us something very significant without making it too easy to spot, because we'll follow the events through Harry's eyes, being fooled right along with him and focusing on the wrong things. I think that the Pensieve really shows an objective view of things, but we access it in a subjective way, through Harry.
|
02-08-2004 06:57 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
Lawless
All About Brad!
offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 07:06 PM
Location: Freezing in Colorado
Posts: 27143
|
Okay, now let's move on to the more in-depth analysis.
I) Harry looking into the Pensieve (GoF, p. 519)
This is the formal introduction of the Pensieve, where we learn what it is and how it works (at least partly), which should clarify the previous scenes when Harry's inside it. It's a mystical basin filled with thoughts, mainly Dumbledore's, although Snape uses it later in Book 5.
In this scene, Dumbledore shows Harry how the Pensieve works, meaning that he's in control of what Harry sees in there. Harry sees two things: his own face and Snape's face. Harry's face is silent, and then melts into Snape's, which speaks. Snape tells of the gradual return of the Dark Mark, without mentioning it by name ("it"). So why is Dumbledore showing Harry this precise memory? It might be to help him put two and two together: Harry saw Karkaroff and Snape together (p. 450), Karkaroff showing Snape something on his arm that had "never been this clear, not since..." Harry then told Sirius about the incident (p. 461), who probably reported it back to Dumbledore (if Snape hadn't already done it, which is quite probable). We have seen Dumbledore give Harry this kind of "help" before, like in PS/SS, where he provides him with the Invisibility Cloak and tells him how the Mirror of Erised works, or in PoA, when he makes the cryptic remark about "what we need now, is time" to Hermione. He could just tell Harry about the Dark Mark, but he wants him (and the reader, if you look at Dumbledore as a tool for storytelling) to figure it out on his own. Note that he doesn't tell Harry more than the absolute minimum; the contents of the Pensieve are his thoughts and you work it by probing it with a wand or swirling it between your hands; you can choose what memory you want to see. There is nothing about what version you actually see, whether it be the subjective memory of the person it belongs to or an objective "recording" of a precise moment in that person's past, an omission which will prove very important when we get to the occurrences where Harry finds himself inside the Pensieve.
Then there is the other part: Harry's face melting into Snape's. In the courtroom scenes (which we'll get to eventually :-)), there's a moment of darkness between each scene instead of them melting into each other. One can therefore not claim that Harry morphs into Snape just because "that's how the Pensieve works;" and if it's not purely functional, it should be significant. My theory is that it wants to underline the similarities between Harry and Snape, an introduction to what is to come in a future Pensieve scene, commonly known as "Snape's worst memory." I'll get back to that.
So, quick summary of this scene:
1. It is Dumbledore's memory.
2. Dumbledore's in control of what he's showing to Harry and his choice of that precise scene ought to be relevant.
3. Harry is only watching the scene, not taking part in it.
4. The person in the Pensive speaks with an echoing voice (underlining the distance between the memory and the person who watches it).
5. Functions of the scene: to formally introduce the Pensive and explain to some extent how it works (without giving too much information); to give another piece of the puzzle as to the whole Snape-Karkaroff-Dark Mark mystery; to point out the similarities between Harry and Snape.
6. It's a scene that seems to explain a mystical object, but which in fact leaves the reader in the dark about some of the most important information concerning it.
II) Figure coming out of the Pensieve (GoF, p. 520; OotP p.741)
Text 2: Bertha Jorkins (GoF, p. 520)
Text 3: Sybill Trelawney (OotP, p. 741)
Here we have two scenes where a girl (or a woman, if you prefer) is formed out of the mystical white stuff and comes out of the Pensieve, revolving slowly with her feet still inside the basin. This gives a more real and a more unreal experience at the same time: real because the person is three-dimensional; unreal because she is independent of the viewer, revolves on the spot (like a ballerina in a jewellery box) and speaks with an echoing voice (just like in Snape's face), marking the distance between her and her audience. It's the memories entering into reality, which should make them more real, but which has the opposite effect. (I personally envision a ghostly figure, semi-transparent and smoky, but that's just me; there's nothing in the text to support it.)
There are two main differences between Bertha and Sybill (or so it seems): 1) The memory of Bertha is already in the Pensieve, being kept there, whereas the one of Sybill is kept inside Dumbledore's head and taken out for the occasion of showing it to Harry. 2) Sybill's prophecy is easily acknowledged as extremely important and gives the answer to many questions, while what Bertha says seems like total gibberish.
Number one suggests that the memory of Bertha isn't as important as that of Trelawney and that her message isn't a vital one - the importance of the scene is elsewhere - whereas the memory of Trelawney's first prophecy is top-secret information (to say the least, it's the hidden treasure of Book 5). Number two regards the message in itself. I've already analysed Trelawney's prophecy in "Chosen" and "Neville and Harry," so I won't do it all over again. Let's just keep in mind that the prophecy is ambiguous and open for interpretation. So are Bertha's words, to say the least: "He put a hex on me, Professor Dumbledore, and I was only teasing him, sir, I only said I'd seen him kissing Florence behind the greenhouses last Thursday..." First of all, who are "he" and "Florence"? I haven't seen the name Florence in the series so far (has anyone else?), and it tells me absolutely nothing. As for "he," it could refer to any male person (probably student) who was at Hogwarts at the same time as Bertha (which we only know was sometime between the time when Dumbledore became headmaster and a couple of years before Harry's birth. "He" can therefore not refer to Tom Riddle, as his headmaster was Armando Dippet. It could refer to one of the Marauders, Lucius Malfoy, Snape, or anyone else around that age.
To me, what Dumbledore says seems more important than what Bertha says, though. Her line is preceded by "Curiosity is not a sin', he said. 'But we should exercise caution with our curiosity… yes indeed…" and followed by "But why Bertha,' said Dumbledore sadly, looking up at the now silently revolving girl, 'why did you have to follow him in the first place?" Dumbledore's second line is ambiguous. It's not a Dumbledore-in-the-Pensieve who speaks it, but the present-day one. It can be applied to the memory (Bertha following "he" and being hexed) or to the present situation (Bertha following Wormtail and getting killed). Probably, Dumbledore said the exact same thing to Bertha that time, and repeats it now, sad she didn't follow his advice. I'm pretty sure that Dumbledore already knows that she's dead (which the reader has known from the first chapter), or at least he suspects it, and that he's using Bertha as an example to warn Harry (who's a bit too curious for his own good).
Both occurrences are associated with death (Bertha's presumed death and Sirius's death) and both evoke great sadness on Dumbledore's part. He's "lost in thought," "looks old" and is sad. The memory of Bertha is painful because (I think) she was one he couldn't save and there is a parallel between her and Harry because they're both very curious and not very cautious (indeed, the cautious part of Harry is basically called Hermione; she's the one that stands for most rational thinking). In the Trelawney-scene I think he's weighed down partly by Sirius's death, but mostly by the burden he puts on Harry by letting him hear the prophecy. The two scenes focus on Dumbledore and Harry (and their relationship) more than on the figures coming out of the Pensieve. Dumbledore lets Harry see what he thinks is necessary (his destiny and where his curiosity might lead him) and lets him see a more vulnerable side of himself. With this, JKR seems to be alluding to the fact that Dumbledore isn't God Almighty, that he won't live forever and that Harry has to deal with the information he gets and grow. (This might suggest that Dumbledore will get killed, but it's a pretty vague suggestion and could just as well not indicate that at all. I'm still really torn in the question about whether Dumbledore will get to live through Book 7.)
Again, I think we should focus on the fact that we see the scenes through Harry's eyes. Dumbledore doesn't explain anything further about Bertha Jorkins, and Harry doesn't seem to grasp the fact that Dumbledore seems to know that she's been captured by Voldemort (he couldn't remember her name from his dream). As for the prophecy, Dumbledore explains it to Harry, but here we get Dumbledore's subjective interpretation of it as well as the prophecy in itself. This seems like a waste of space. If Dumbledore is speaking for JKR (as he sometimes is), there would be no need to draw forth Trelawney from the Pensieve. None at all; Dumbledore could simply relate their encounter and tell Harry that there was a prophecy that said that he was chosen and had to kill Voldemort or be killed in the end. This is not the case; we have both versions: Dumbledore's interpretation and the text in itself, which seems highly significant. Pursuing my theory that one of the Pensieve's functions is to hide information from the reader (or at least confuse him/her), I'd say that there is a slight difference between how Dumbledore interprets the prophecy and how JKR meant for it to be interpreted (i.e., the true meaning of it). I put this theory about what the difference is in "Chosen," so if you don't remember, you can always go back and look. :-) (In short: I don't think that either Harry or Tom will have to die, just their personas: the Dark Lord and the One.)
Okay, I think I've gone on for quite some time, so I'll leave the rest [the scenes where Harry finds himself inside the Pensieve (Karkaroff, Bagman, LCU and Snape's worst memory)] for next week. I'd also really like to get in contact with Dora and Gally (McGonagall's chess game), whose addresses I so clumsily lost, because I'd like to use their theory in my next article. So, if you could e-mail me please...
Other than that, take care. See you!
Maline
02/05/04
|
02-08-2004 06:58 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
Lawless
All About Brad!
offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 07:06 PM
Location: Freezing in Colorado
Posts: 27143
|
Hi, everybody! Well, it's time to tackle the second part of the analysis on the Pensieve. This week we're getting into what I think are the most interesting occurrences: those of Harry inside the Pensieve.
I got a lot of e-mails this past week (thanks!) and many pointed out a couple of things that I'd missed:
1) Bertha is a couple of years older than the Marauders (Sirius, GoF)
2) The two men on trial with Bellatrix and Crouch Jr., are Bellatrix's husband Rodolphus and his brother Rabastan (OotP, p. 106), but I'm going to keep the old label "LCU's trial" anyway in order to spare Nancy more work. :-)
3) Also, people have pointed out the fact that Florence is the same name as Firenze (only Firenze is the Italian version) and that might give a clue to the mystery of "he" and "Florence" in the Bertha Jorkins scene. I highly doubt that "Florence" is the Centaur Firenze, though, since Florence is usually a girl's name and it's "I'd seen him kissing Florence behind the greenhouses... " so if you want to put Florence = Firenze, then we have a gay inter-species relationship in the series... ;-)... (which would be very interesting I admit, but I really don't think so... ) My guess would be that "he" is Sirius because a) he describes Bertha as nosy and stu | |
|
|
