Dark Twins in Devotion: Severus and Bellatrix

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Trying to finish this Indestructible project has set my mind going in so many different directions, I can’t even tell you. Have another tangent to chew on while I write up occlumency and the tower and cave.

One of the features of the HP books that becomes very noticeable once you start looking at them symbolically and examining the relationships between characters closely is how much the books are built on various kinds of pairings and reflections. It’s like Alice’s Looking-Glass in there: everything has a twin, an opposite, an echo, a (distorted) mirror-image. Sometimes things are absurdly literal, sometimes completely the opposite of what they seem. Or both at once.

Severus, of course, as the heart of the books and probably the single most complex character in them, has multiple pairings and twins of different sorts.

And it strikes me that Bellatrix is one of his most interesting reflections.


On the obvious level, of course, we have the opposition of the true supporter and the faithless traitor, the outspoken zealot and the double-talking opportunist. The Azkaban vet and Dumbledore’s pet.

Also the opposition of female and male, pureblood and halfblood. Etc.

On another level, however, they are less opposites than twins. They share – indeed, they both exemplify – a linked set of qualities that are at the heart of the books and their personal story arcs: bravery and devotion.

The key difference between them is the register in which they display these attributes, both of which can be fundamental to having a moral character but are not themselves pure virtues. Bravery can be had in the name of an evil cause, after all, just as one can be selflessly devoted to people and ideals that are not worthy of it or are harmful.

In Bellatrix, of course, we see morally-empty but overtly fearless bravery. Whereas in Severus we see moral courage driving one on in spite of open fear. Bravery on a higher level.

So also with their devotion. And here is one place where Severus’ own insistence on his driving love being kept secret shows itself as vital to his moral character.

No matter how true Bellatrix’s devotion to Tom is in itself, we readers, and those characters around Bellatrix, must always have a question in the back of our minds about the driving motivation behind it.

Because Bellatrix keeps insisting upon it, stridently. Upon, not only being devoted, but being seen as devoted, too. Sincere in her devotion itself, as far as we can tell, for she does suffer and sacrifice for it – suffer Azkaban, sacrifice her nephew and her life. But insistent upon having her devotion recognized.

Quite the opposite of Severus, no?

Bellatrix is in love with her own devotion. Severus is simply devoted. Out of love.

Also note a vital difference in the depth of their devotion, what it leads them to, quite separate even from their choice of object for their devotion.

Bellatrix is willing to die for her lord. To sacrifice any hypothetical sons she might ever have to him. She even, as she reminds us over and over, went to Azkaban and suffered the dementors for her lord’s sake:

"He'd have me!" said Bellatrix passionately. "I, who spent many years in Azkaban for him!"

"Yes, indeed, most admirable," said Snape in a bored voice. "Of course, you weren't a lot of use to him in prison, but the gesture was undoubtedly fine -"

"Gesture!" she shrieked; in her fury she looked slightly mad. "While I endured the dementors, you remained at Hogwarts, comfortably playing Dumbledore's pet!"

Profound devotion, indeed. Willing to see, not only the end of her own life, but of her line, her sanity, and her soul. For the sake of someone incapable of returning a fraction of her love.

Bellatrix is willing to destroy herself, physically and spiritually, in the name of her devotion. Utterly, and without apparent fear.

Severus?

Severus is willing to die for his love, of course. To endure any torment, to sacrifice any ambition, to face any fear. Without even glory as a reward.

He’s also willing to do something that is, for him, much harder than dying.

He's willing to live. To embrace a life that, at the moment he’s offered the clear choice, he has no desire whatsoever to keep enduring.

Indeed, to do more than live. To grow. To improve himself, not for his own sake but for others. To build himself up, spiritually, despite his fear and pain and self-hatred. For the sake of his devotion to another.

“I wish…I wish I were dead…”

“And what use would that be to anyone?” said Dumbledore coldly. “If you loved Lily Evans, if you truly loved her, then your way forward is clear.”

Snape seemed to peer through a haze of pain…

In the end, Bellatrix truly was devoted unto death.

As devoted as Severus was unto life.

---

I'm editing this to add something that just struck me. It turns out that, even after writing this essay, I keep misremembering Dumbledore's line here. I always remember it as him saying, "And what good would that do for anyone?"

But that's not what he says, is it?

What use would Severus' death be to anyone, is what he actually asks. Implicitly contrasting: his life might have use to someone. To Dumbledore, we know, of course. And, well, that was true enough for Dumbledore to have been sincere there. In what he actually said.

But judging by his course and actions thereafter, Severus seems to have misheard the headmaster as badly as I did.

To his own credit, and to his own ultimate good fortune, according to what came to matter most to him.

In the end it was a mishearing that was, one might say, for his own good.

As well as for Harry's and everyone else's.

Comments

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

"Bellatrix is willing to destroy herself, physically and spiritually, in the name of her devotion. Utterly, and without apparent fear."

I find this extremely interesting because it reminds me of a Ferretbrain essay I read awhile back about what "sacrifice" actually means in a fictional context, and how the biggest question that one needs to be asking of a Hero is not what they would do to accomplish their goals but what they wouldn't do. The idea was that anyone (in fiction, anyway) can sacrifice their life or their own for some cause larger than themselves, whereas a True Hero would have some sort of moral line that they would be unwilling to cross, even if it meant giving up their ultimate goal. The way they put it was, "dying for [your goal] is a small step, giving it up is what takes real moral courage."

So I guess one question that follows from this is, does Severus ever display willingness to give up his ultimate goal, out of any sort of moral compunction?

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I think you're talking about Hemmens' Acts of Sacrifice, right? It's an interesting article that I keep going back to and asking what I think about it. I never have a solid answer. Possibly because of the WAY he frames the question - I have to think about it more.

As to your question: well, I think yes?

Or rather, as terri points out in one of her latest essays, Severus is asked over and over again to sacrifice what he has worked toward in the name of a larger moral good, rather than preserving his original goal. It's just that the way Severus' choices are structured is such that he more and more has to actively CHOOSE that moral goal and work TOWARD it specifically, instead of simply risking or GIVING UP what he had been working for in favor of not crossing a line. Active moral compunction and choice, not simply reaching a line and staying on one side of it.

First of course he has to sacrifice his own desires and ambitions, to save Lily even if she'll never be his. And he does.

But then he has to be willing to sacrifice her life in favor of her own moral agency, her choice to save her son. He could have acted to protect her by force, or by telling Voldemort not to let her sacrifice herself, if he thought of it (see Greater Love), but he put HER desires above his own.

And then he wants to die out of guilt, but gives up his own selfish death in favor of (he thinks) the larger moral good of preserving her son.

Then he has to sacrifice her son too, sacrifice the goal of protecting Harry. Not in favor of what ALBUS sees as winning the war, the same strategic choice that Albus himself made for another external goal, but in favor of GIVING HARRY A MORAL CHOICE to make himself, allowing him to be a moral agent just as he'd allowed Lily to be one. Which is a higher moral good than merely preserving another's physical life.

It's the difference between overpowering Harry and delivering him to Voldemort to die or just killing him, or Albus' suicide stone trap, and telling Harry what the situation is knowing that he'll likely choose to die but letting HIM be the one to make a FREE choice. Same outcome physically, but morally a world of difference.

And what we see Severus do is in fact just that: neither preserve Harry against his own moral agency, nor force/trick him to the needed outcome of winning the war against Tom, but telling him the TRUTH and letting him CHOOSE. Even though it means the boy that Severus would die for will, instead, himself die just as surely as if Severus bound him and delivered him to Tom by force.

Because at that point Severus' ultimate goal had been to preserve Harry's life, and then it seems to move to winning the war. Which is ALBUS'S stated goal, certainly.

But Severus is willing to risk both (either) of those external goals in favor of letting Harry make a choice himself. And I think if he had gotten to go find Harry and talk to him, he would have done the same thing as he did with his memories: neither persuade nor compel Harry either to die or live, but offer him enough information and the freedom to choose. Even knowing what his choice will likely be anyway.

So yes, Severus is ultimately willing to sacrifice his 'goal' in favor of not crossing a moral line, if you want to put it that way. The other way of putting it, the way I'm approaching it in my Indestructible series, is that Severus comes to have the ultimate goal of MORAL ACTION itself. Of, not making a specific outcome happen, but of acting rightly to his best ability under whatever circumstances are there. And that includes allowing other people to be independent moral agents, who might sacrifice themselves of their own choice. Something Albus NEVER grasped.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

To make what I mean a little clearer: I'm currently writing a fanfic I mean to post soon, a rewrite of the Shack scene in which Severus breaks under the pressure and DOESN'T manage to hang onto that goal of moral choice itself, but chooses one of his external goals (preserving Harry's life) instead.

For the best of reasons, out of love for the boy and the sheer strain of Albus' betrayal. But it's still a moral failure, isn't it? No matter the motivation, no matter the hope of exiling Tom again and waiting Harry's life out that he might use an excuse to himself, say. To preserve Harry's life by force, knowing that the boy would likely want to choose different, taking the choice away from him. No matter how much he loves the boy himself.

That would be an example of Severus failing Hemmens' test, yes? Just as Severus taking the opposite tack, ALBUS's, and tricking or forcing the boy to die for the Greater Good. Even if he himself is willing to die, taking the choice away from Harry would be crossing the moral line.

Because it's not the external outcome that matters. It's never the outward cause itself that is the highest good. It's the honoring of INDEPENDENT MORAL CHOICE ITSELF, and other people's moral agency.