sistermagpie: Classic magpie (Cousins)
sistermagpie ([personal profile] sistermagpie) wrote2006-05-13 09:16 pm
Entry tags:

The Good Death Eater

It seems that there's a storyline that interests JKR enough that she's done it 3 times--the young man who joins the DEs and at some point finds himself possibly unable to continue. It's the man who gets in over his head. She did it with Snape, with Regulus, with Draco. What's frustrating is honestly it seems like whichever one you like best somehow is supposed to only do the second part--like he had a change of heart without doing wrong first. I was frustrated recently in a conversation about Regulus, though I also hear it about Snape and I know Draco too gets this kind of defense.

They're Death Eaters. Get over it.

In Draco's case, whether or not he's marked or is officially a DE, he's acting as one in book VI. Now, obviously I love his story in Book VI and I do think it's really significant that he doesn't kill Dumbledore. I do think that it's only during the year that he comes to understand the reality of being a DE and for the first time is able to think about what is actually right and wrong, how he feels about hurting other people. Killing for glory turns out to not be a good enough reason, so a threat to his family must be added, though even that doesn't change what he's being asked to be: a murderer. I don't think it's cowardice that keeps him from killing DD--there's no part of the story where I have an easy judgment, like he's just trying to save his own skin or he just doesn't have the guts or he just wants glory.

But I do think that the story begins with Draco as an enthusiastic DE recruit who thinks he's going to kill Dumbledore and that it's going to be great. I don't think when he hears his assignment he thinks, "Oh my, but killing is wrong!" I think he was probably scared, but absolutely thought it was do-able and should be just a case of doing it right, like catching a Snitch. I don't think the moral aspect bothered him at all. After all he was doing something right, he was doing Voldemort's wishes and killing an enemy of the Purebloods etc. So yes, there is a definite element of naiveté there. Draco doesn't really understand what he's agreeing to do. He only finds that out during the year. But he does still agree to murder. It's not a truly informed consent but it is informed.

Most defenses that go too far for Draco, in my experience, are ones that want to put too much emphasis on the threat from Voldemort. I mean, I do think that the threat could have been at least implied from the beginning. Even if Voldemort didn't come right out and say he'd kill Draco and his family if he failed until later under no circumstances was it probably not scary to imagine failing Voldemort. It's just clearly canon that Draco thought killing Dumbledore was something that should have been a good thing that would make him a cool, kind of heroic person, to do. So there is canon that early on Draco wanted to do this task well for himself, not just because he was being threatened.

Now, I do think people often go too far on the other extreme with Draco and basically judge his story as bad right away and never go beyond that. People usually get stuck on "He was BRAGGING on the train!" as if this is some total deal breaker. In a way these two reactions are kind of tied to each other: both of them seem to feel that becoming a "real Death Eater" on some level means you can no longer be redeemed. Draco needs to show some sign that he really always had the same mindset as a good guy all along. I don't think that's the way the story works. To me it's more about someone who genuinely starts down the evil path, which is partially what makes it so scary. And while I don't think Draco's background, upbringing and experiences replace his own decision to join a genocidal terrorist group, it makes him interesting to me and a character I'm willing to root for to make the right choice.

Lately, though, it's the similar defenses of Snape and Regulus that tend to frustrate me. It sometimes seems like okay, we see that JKR is doing variations on a theme with all three young men joining the DEs and eventually having some conflict with them, but all the real ugly bits of the theme are represented by Draco. Snape and Regulus, by contrast, were somehow Death Eaters while never really doing anything we consider bad about Death Eaters. It's like their eventual change of heart must mean they were good guys all along.

In Snape's case the defense often centers on his never really believing the Pureblood ideology. He just wanted a chance to study Potions or something. Do his Dark Arts. Get back at the Marauders. Even in the scene where he calls Lily a Mudblood he's not really being a bigot because he's only calling her that because he's angry at her, he's not angry at her because she's a Muggleborn (which goes for Draco and Hermione too, actually, but the thing is, it's choosing to express the anger through the word Mudblood that makes them bigots). He never killed anybody, of course. And now that we know he's a Half-Blood it's even better--clearly he doesn't really like the Slytherins or the Malfoys or Draco or the Death Eaters, because as a Half-Blood he's immune to Blood Prejudice. Because it would illogical to hate Muggles or Muggleborns when your own hated father was one--especially if you called yourself the Half-Blood Prince. That must be proof he was proud of his heritage (hmm..funny how he's identifying himself with his mother's name there...).

With Regulus I've seen almost the flipside of Snape. As Snape is okay because he didn't really ever believe the Pureblood stuff the way Draco does, in Regulus' case he was better because he did believe the Pureblood stuff where Draco, has personal revenge issues. Draco was making an informed consent to torturing and killing because his father being a DE somehow transfers that understanding to him, even if we see Lucius keeping him out of it. Regulus believed in "Pureblood Rights" but was naturally allergic to murder, torture or Unforgivable curses. He and his family had no idea Voldemort would commit evil acts like that. They just wanted to, in Sirius' words, purify the wizard race and get rid of the Muggleborns and put Purebloods in charge. Err...in other words he was just signing up for the genocide and in no way condoned actual killing.

In a way it makes it seem like that's what makes Draco so damn difficult to get around. He's right there saying hateful things, using slurs, fanboy-ing Voldemort. There's really nothing cool about what he's doing, and we'd rather think of Snape and Regulus as being cool. I just don't think they were. It's not that I think all three of them were alike-- I think one can do really different, equally fascinating characterizations for all three junior DEs, and I think all those characterizations can have sympathetic elements. Certainly Regulus and possibly Snape did have a change of heart and became truly heroic. You just have to also face the fact that your boy is enthusiastically joining the DEs at some point. His change of heart or cold feet is dramatic because it's a real change of heart. The doubts were probably very humiliating for all three, which is why it took some guts for Snape and Regulus to take action. (And will take some guts for Draco if he does that.) But joining the DE is an act with certain meaning. Unless we get canon that shows otherwise, it means some very bad things about the character.

Basically, as far as we know, they all were equally clueless and all equally knew what they were getting into. Oh, and they were all fairly equally proactive. If you like Snape, it's not that Snape was forced into the DEs through peer pressure or didn't know what the tattoo was for while Regulus Petrified Sirius for trying to stop him and walked over him out the door, and Draco woke Voldemort up in the middle of the night and forced the Cabinet plot on him, with Voldemort tacking on the killing Dumbledore part on the way out (the task is to kill DD, and the Cabinet is the means Draco comes up with).

I guess in a way it's a challenge. These characters all have fans-for good reason. So it sort of becomes a challenge of whether you're going to fully accept all the bad things about them, or polish them up. Come to think of it, all the characters in HP offer that challenge. It's just as annoying to have the good characters made the innocent victim in everything as the bad guys. It's just maybe more noticeable when it's a DE that's not so bad.
ext_22: Pretty girl with a gele on (Default)

[identity profile] quivo.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 01:52 am (UTC)(link)
I wholeheartedly concur on this issue. All the lame excuses some authors tend to make for their favourite characters in general wear so thin after a while, especially if one is being realistic and looking at the bald facts. Bald facts in hand, Draco, Snape and Regulus all look like distinctly shady, dishonest people, if not simply because of who they joined up with to fulfil their own desires for supremacy. The mark of a good author, I think, is fully acknowledging that and still getting readers on the good side of the character despite all they've done. Sometimes, if you're writing a crackfic or PWP and don't feel like dealing with reality, it can seem superfluous. But if you want a real challenge, like you said, the best way is usually to try to tell the truth and acknowledge the characters' faults.

[identity profile] lilacsigil.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 01:55 am (UTC)(link)
Exactly! What's the point of a redemption plot if you didn't do anything to be redeemed from in the first place. In my view, it makes Draco/Regulus/probably Snape a greater character to have deliberately gone down the wrong path and then have the strength to say "This is enough." Harry, for example, hasn't stopped throwing Crucio at people yet. He has not looked into himself and found the moral strength to not lash out at people he hates. Draco has, finally, done this.

[identity profile] ptyx.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 02:06 am (UTC)(link)
I'm sorry, I would like to agree with you and Pie, because it's such a cool opinion, but maybe because I'm a silly fangirl, I can't see Snape as a mean person. I really can't see it. He's snarky, he killed Dumbledore, he indirectly caused James's and Lily's deaths, but he's not evil. I don't believe he has killed anyone besides Dumbledore (which he did on Dumbledore's request, of course ;-), and since James's and Lily's deaths he regretted having joined the DEs. That's how I see it. Of course I might be wrong, because, frankly, we don't know much about Snape, and even less about Regulus. That's why it's easier to find excuses for them and not for Draco - because we know a lot more about Draco's story and behaviour.

[identity profile] ex-leianora730.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 02:13 am (UTC)(link)
Exactly!

I mean, clearly JKR wants us to think that Harry has changed, but what actually ended up happening was she hit a reset button on him, didn't let him grieve the death of Sirius, and then just made him Dumbledore's man again. Ug!!
ext_22: Pretty girl with a gele on (Default)

[identity profile] quivo.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 02:16 am (UTC)(link)
Oh, no biggie. *shrugs* I've never been able to see Snape as good at heart, myself -- he's so ambiguous, and so alert somehow, that one can't help wondering if he's on any side but his own. I don't mean that he's evil or whatnot. All I think is that people need to really sit down and think about the fact that him and Regulus both joined the DE's for a reason. Regret only covers it after leaving, imho -- the way I see it is, what were they doing as DE's in the first place? The only really logical, feasible reasons aren't good, and that's why I just take the time to shade down their characters a bit. 'Not Evil' covers a multitude of sins, imho (good lord, lots of my humble opinions in this, eh), from practically saintly old Molly Weasley to Fudge or even Scrimegour. Severus falls within that arc somewhere -- where is debatable, I guess.

And you're right -- the more we've seen of Draco, the less excusable his beliefs and behaviour has seemed. But I also think that points to something important about Reg and Sev, because if a complete arse like Draco can still definitely not want to make the leap to murder, it stands to reason that Regulus and Severus might've been complete arses as well -- just arses that knew that killing random people wasn't their scene, and tried (and succeeded in) getting out.

And yeah, I'm definitely banking on the offing of Dumbles having been part of Snape's orders (however much he might've relished/not relished doing the deed at that point in time), but still. There's only so much we know about the man -- we can do is really conjecture in some places and believe he's in the right somehow...
ext_6866: (Maybe I'm wrong.)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 02:17 am (UTC)(link)
But I don't think the idea that Snape never killed anyone, for instance, goes against what I'm saying. I actually think that might very well be true, that neither Snape nor Regulus ever killed anyone (except Dumbledore). But I think that's different than explaining away the things that we do know about him. I don't want to assign any crimes to Snape that we don't know about--we've got no canon for him killing anyone besides Dumbledore. He can't be blamed for any specific DE crimes except being the eavesdropper, which appears to have led to him doing something to make that right. To regret joining the DEs, he has to have joined the DEs for some reason.

[identity profile] teratologist.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 02:34 am (UTC)(link)
I guess the reason this has never given me a lot of trouble is that I don't really believe that there's a single person on the face of the earth - not me, not my mother, not my former boss the Quaker - who couldn't be induced to kill someone or do a similarly evil action under the right circumstances. The question with Draco isn't is he some kind of Columbine kid - does he think it would be cool to kill someone, period - because he not only doesn't go for the soft targets, he seems upset right from the get-go when his actions almost kill the wrong person. He might think it's punk rock to talk about killing but he clearly isn't into it in his heart. He thinks it would specifically be cool to kill Dumbledore - who he's been brought up to regard as the enemy, who he sees as implicated in hurting his family. Who wouldn't be tempted to kill someone who hurt their family? Harry would. I would.

I have to assume that Regulus was under similar raising, and Snape - Snape has his own bonaza of issues to work through. But honestly, I find their ethical choices troubling but completely logical. (Hell, to do the Bad Thing - I find people who join white supremicist groups IRL troubling but completely logical, given how they've been raised.)
ext_6866: (Default)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 02:54 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, I was going to say that really, I think I view killing the same way Draco does in the beginning, and the way Snape and Regulus probably both did. I would think of it just as a planning issue, something I just had to do X,Y and Z and it would be done. I can't even honestly say I'd be upset the way Draco is after the murder attempts that go awry, or that I'd have done what Regulus or Snape would have done. So I can't really feel too superior to any of them, even if I haven't ever been tempted to be a white supremist!

ext_6866: (Onibaba)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 02:56 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, I mean, I don't have to make them Eeeevil or anything. We don't know that they killed, tortured and raped people personally. It's just that for some reason they really did join this group, which is saying something.

[identity profile] autumnised.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 03:12 am (UTC)(link)
Its interesting that Rowling has explored this theme from the opposite point of view as well, with Percy Weasley and Quirrel and Peter Pettigrew - young men who start out, more or less, on the right side, but allow themselves to be taken over by their own ambition or intellectual arrogance or cowardice. I can't think of any female characters in the books who display this sort of turncoat behaviour, though. Hermione has moments of ruthlessness, I guess, but I can't seriously imagine her turning to the dark side, as it were.

One of the things I've always liked about Rowling is her refusal to paint her characters in black and white - everyone is a little morally ambivalent, and even Dumbledore admits his mistakes are 'correspondingly huger' than anyone elses'. There's no doubt that Draco would have died from Harry's Sectumsempra, if Snape hadn't (conveniently) been close by, and for all we know, Draco might have been in the process of making up his mind to walk away from it all, when he was so rudely interrupted.

Either way, I think its important for the credibility of the story that Rowling shows that (relatively) intelligent people are also attracted to the DE movement, not just crackpot weirdos like Bellatrix; otherwise Voldemort wouldn't present half as much of a threat.

[identity profile] lilacsigil.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 03:39 am (UTC)(link)
I think this is something that Harry is going to have to learn in Book 7. If even Sirius, who is not known for his wisdom, can say that the world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters, Harry is going to have to learn about grey areas. I think he is more mature than CAPLOCK HARRY of book 5, but he's not there yet. His unrelenting hatred of Snape and Draco has done only harm.

[identity profile] static-pixie.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 03:43 am (UTC)(link)
These characters all have fans-for good reason. So it sort of becomes a challenge of whether you're going to fully accept all the bad things about them, or polish them up.

Actually, randomly, the character I see this done the most with tends to be Sirius. And it's very annoying, actually, because I really like Sirius - because he was an arrogant, insane jackass, but one with a good heart despite it all. Except, because of that good heart, people tend to either ignore or completely overlook the bad things about him, like the fact that he nearly got another student killed on a whim, and then never even felt sorry for it later.

But anyway, I admit, I'm guilty of that sin sometimes. I think partially because, in fandom especially, there's already so much hatred for Draco that admitting he could possibly ever have really been the tiniest bit bad at heart is pretty much tantamount to giving up and admitting he's Jack the Ripper; people like to get bogged down in that fact because they just don't want to like him. So I think his fans tend to skip over it and get to the part where he really has a good heart because it makes defending him a lot easier. Which is sad, because I think you're absolutely right. In fact, I'm betting that Voldemort didn't add that bit in about his entire family dying until it became apparent that Draco was struggling, and I think that Draco's been protected for long enough that he maybe wouldn't even understand how much shit failing the Dark Lord could get him in. Which explains the bragging in the train car.

Although, I think there's a pretty complicated distinction to be made between having had a good heart all along and having had the good mindset. You can have one but not the other, and I think that that's true in Draco's case at least (he's always had the heart, just not the right intentions). Regulus strikes me the same way. I think that Snape's heart and intentions may not always have been good but that that doesn't necessarily mean they were bad just self-serving, which means they could be good if their being so helped him. And so, I think what's hard to bring across is the idea that the characters don't so much need a change of heart as a change of motive and intention, just because they actually have had the heart all along. Problem with most Slytherins, actually. ^^

[identity profile] violaswamp.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 09:20 am (UTC)(link)
I don't really believe that there's a single person on the face of the earth - not me, not my mother, not my former boss the Quaker - who couldn't be induced to kill someone or do a similarly evil action under the right circumstances.

This is very true, and this is why I also don't have a problem with thinking "Draco can redeem himself" and "Draco's done some pretty god-awful things" at the same time. I don't see that his actions put him in a class separate from the rest of humanity. I think Harry would probably do similar or worse things, given the right situation. It doesn't make it any less wrong, but it doesn't nullify any potential for good Draco might have.
ext_2023: (house of black)

[identity profile] etrangere.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 09:42 am (UTC)(link)
Definitly agreed ! People need to get over the fact that sometimes their favourite characters are horrible person, murderers, mean, racist, whathaveyou ! So what ? They're fictionnal characters, it's OKAY to love a fictionnal character even if they have big moral flaws. Think of it as unconditionnal love ^^

The interesting thing in Severus, Regulus and Draco is the gray area. If you appologize them all, you're only left with a shade of the character. No fun.

I very much doubt Severus never killed anyone but Dumbledore. I even doubt it for Regulus, because he'd have needed time after taking his decision to investigate Voldemort's properly to know even about one horcrux.

[identity profile] ptyx.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 10:31 am (UTC)(link)
Then I misinterpreted you. I thought you were kind of mocking people who said Snape hadn't killed anyone. I saw irony when there wasn't any!

[identity profile] ptyx.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 10:36 am (UTC)(link)
Then I agree with you. But I find difficult to assign reasons for Snape having joined the DEs, because, well, we don't have many clues in the text. The way I read the series so far, it looks like he joined the DEs because he was being bullied by James and his friends. I find difficult to say he hated the Mudbloods because I do believe his "conversion" has something to do with Lily (not that I like the idea; that's just where I'm guessing the story goes), and if he and Lily were, let's say, friends, it's hard to imagine he was prejudiced against Mudbloods.

As for Draco, I don't think he's a complete arse. Just half an arse... ;-)

[identity profile] arclevel.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 11:55 am (UTC)(link)
What's the point of a redemption plot if you didn't do anything to be redeemed from in the first place.

My thoughts exactly. People claim to like redemption stories, but then they don't allow them to actually happen. What they really want is "good man who was steered wrong, and forced into a situation he couldn't control" stories. Those really can be great stories (and I really wish that we saw some of them, either in canon or good fic, because there is canon justification for it), but it doesn't seem to be the story being told about any of these three.

Harry, for example, hasn't stopped throwing Crucio at people yet.

But he also hasn't truly succeeded yet. Apparently he managed to for a second or two, but not enough to really see what he's doing. I'd almost like to see him succeed, get far enough to watch someone screaming in agony under his own wand, and then have it hit him just what the hell he's doing and massively freak him out. What Harry's done to this point (in that regards) could use some redemption, but he's not as far down that path as Draco was. And much as I love Harry, the boy just isn't a thinker, at least not about moral issues, which means I really have a hard time seeing him realizing what he's doing, much less stopping, without really seeing it. Of course, he *should* have seen this with Sectumsempra, but I think the circumstances -- that he didn't technically know what the spell did and that he immediately went into a panic about the book -- kept him from looking at it as clearly as he should have. We'll have to see if it has more effect on him later.

[identity profile] lilacsigil.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 12:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes, circumstances (and the immediate emotional overload of beloved people dying) have prevented Harry from examining his own actions to the degree that Draco was forced to do. Draco was doing some bad stuff, but he didn't stop to really think until he had done something really bad (let Fenrir Greyback into Hogwarts) and was about to do worse.

Harry may not have to perform an evil deed in order to be able to understand redemption. He's not far down Draco's path at all, but he does, like Luke Skywalker, choose the path of anger far too quickly. I think if Harry could understand that someone can do bad things and then still choose good, he would understand.

Harry is going to have to shake up his black vs white worldview in order to succeed in his quest. If RAB is Regulus - or, indeed, any Death Eater - that should be a warning to him that he needs to think about his snap(e!) judgements.
ext_6866: (Default)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 02:49 pm (UTC)(link)
Not your fault--in reading it I thought the fact that I included that with the "of course" made it seem like I thought that was silly in itself when I don't think it is.:-)

[identity profile] slinkhard.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 03:42 pm (UTC)(link)
I think what's hard to bring across is the idea that the characters don't so much need a change of heart as a change of motive and intention, just because they actually have had the heart all along. Problem with most Slytherins, actually. ^^

Ooh, sharp observation!
And to expand on it, I think you could say that perhaps the problem with the Gryffindors is a mirror of this: they have the right intentions, but they sometimes forget the heart in their efforts to see good/justice done.

[identity profile] strangemuses.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 04:18 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't believe in erasing the unattractive bits of a character's personality so that you can turn your favorite 'bad boy' into a fluffy, innocent little dewdrop who is secretly the best of all who just 'temporarily' went wrong because he was victimized or tricked or... whatever. Feh. I truly hate that as much as I do the way that many fans blind themselves to the flaws in their favorite 'good' characters *coughWeasleyTwinscough*

I agree with you that Draco, Regulus and Snape were equally clueless and knowledgeable about what being a DE really meant; still, something in Tom Riddle/Voldemort's murderous, elitist message appealed to each of them. I am far more interested in knowing what it was and why it appealed to them than I am in trying to come up with 'feel good' excuses that absolve the characters of any responsibility for their choices.

So far as Draco is concerned, I adored the SL in HBP. I think that Draco truly enjoyed being a 'junior' DE ... for a while. He got to prove how smart he was by using the Vanishing Cabinets and planting 'cool' poisons and curses and whatnot. My, my, so clever. But when it came to actually killing an innocent, helpless victim up close, face to face, he couldn't do it. I dont' think it was cowardice that stayed his hand, I think that Draco only truly understood what it was to kill someone when he had his victim right there in front of him. It was real. It wasn't something 'clever' or flashy. It simply would have been murder, and at least as of HBP, Draco Malfoy isn't a murderer. (Though honestly? If it had been Harry there instead of Dumbledore, I think that Draco could have killed him out of sheer, furious hatred.)

You know, one thing about that entire sequence that delights me is that Dumbledore's last true moral student "lesson" is to Draco, and only secondarily to Harry (who is frozen and can only watch). It just reinforced to me that Draco's choices and his SL is as important as Harry's, and that their fates are closely intertwined.
ext_6866: (I'm listening.)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 04:34 pm (UTC)(link)
People claim to like redemption stories, but then they don't allow them to actually happen. What they really want is "good man who was steered wrong, and forced into a situation he couldn't control" stories. Those really can be great stories (and I really wish that we saw some of them, either in canon or good fic, because there is canon justification for it), but it doesn't seem to be the story being told about any of these three.

I feel like there's a lesson here about writing, really. You have to be able to really go to that place. A lot of fanfic allows you to actually back off this sort of thing--and often do it in an interesting way--but only because the author did the dirty work, you know? But it's probably a really common mistake of beginning writers to want to pretty everyone up.
ext_6866: (Looking more closely)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 04:36 pm (UTC)(link)
That's interesting about the female characters--I hadn't thought of that. Whenever discussions about the female characters come up I think it sort of underlines the problem with any type of minority character in literature. The best thing about being a white male character is that nobody thinks twice about having you do anything at all. You can be a traitor or a villain or a hero without ever representing your entire gender or race.

But yes, it is good to show people crossing over from one side to the other. There's something in the DE mentality that appeals to the human mind and always has.
ext_6866: (I'm listening.)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 04:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Yup, I think a lot of common positions you see in fandom are heavily influenced by the opposition, as it were. It's not uncommon to find out only later in the conversation that you really agree with someone more than you thought because you're used to people arguing from extremes. Draco's a great example--I've often been driven crazy by a sort of false character called "canon Draco" that people talk about. The point of him is basically that he's not the fluffy bunny of fanon Draco, but he's not canon Draco either, because canon Draco has never been all about the evil. It's annoying when people act like a more nuanced understanding of the character means you must be confusing him with the leather pants version, especially when you're the one with the canon backup. Just because it's bad doesn't mean it's right!

You can have one but not the other, and I think that that's true in Draco's case at least (he's always had the heart, just not the right intentions). Regulus strikes me the same way. I think that Snape's heart and intentions may not always have been good but that that doesn't necessarily mean they were bad just self-serving, which means they could be good if their being so helped him. And so, I think what's hard to bring across is the idea that the characters don't so much need a change of heart as a change of motive and intention, just because they actually have had the heart all along. Problem with most Slytherins, actually. ^^

I love this! And agree with Slink's addition below too. It's funny that Harry's big power is supposed to be love when there's never any doubt that Slytherin is the house of emotion.

ext_6866: (Yum!)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2006-05-14 04:41 pm (UTC)(link)
You know, one thing about that entire sequence that delights me is that Dumbledore's last true moral student "lesson" is to Draco, and only secondarily to Harry (who is frozen and can only watch). It just reinforced to me that Draco's choices and his SL is as important as Harry's, and that their fates are closely intertwined.

Could not agree more. I'm always pointing this out-dude, Dumbledore's DEATH SCENE is dedicated to THIS. How could it not be important? The main lesson Harry is even getting there is just how important it is. He's seeing for himself how it works, not just being told to be nice to people morally inferior to you.

Page 1 of 4