sunnyskywalker: Young Beru Lars from Attack of the Clones; text "Sunnyskywalker" (Default)
[personal profile] sunnyskywalker
I was just looking back through PS/SS Chapter 1, thanks to all this fantastic discussion and the beginning of the new read-through for the book, and lo and behold, Secrecy pops right up:

"A fine thing it would be if, on the very day You-Know-Who seems to have disappeared at last, the Muggles found out about us all."


As I suspect most of us did, I had always read that as an "out of the frying pan, into the fire" comment. Wouldn't it be terrible to trade one problem for another?

But perhaps she was implying a connection. More like, "Wouldn't it be terrible if the guy who had been trying to destroy Secrecy finally disappeared, and then we managed to destroy it ourselves by celebrating his vanquishment? Oh, the irony!"

Book 1, chapter 1. The possibility was right there from the beginning.
[identity profile] terri-testing.livejournal.com
This was inspired by oryx_leucoryx’s reply to condwiramurs’s post “I would sell out the nation”; oryx was trying and not succeeding very well in fitting this new hypothesis, that the intrinsic crime of the Death Eaters was their stated intention to overturn Secrecy, with Albus and Tom’s conversation when Tom dropped by Hogwarts to ask for a job.

So I reread “Lord Voldemort’s Request” in HBP, and indeed, the objections Albus articulated to Tom there had to do with Tom’s magical research, not his political agenda.  In fact Albus gives no sign of realizing that Tom and his (apparently newly so-called) Death Eaters had a political agenda.  If indeed they did at that time; we don’t know whether Tom took over and extended the old organization of the Knights, or whether he’d formed a group separately and eventually merged it with the older group.  In which case the merger may have taken place only after Tom and his followers adopted the Knights’ goals, which might have been quite some time after Tom first formed his group of friends.

It really does seem that what Albus objected to was Tom’s experiments in the Dark Arts.  Which seems to contradict our argument that his Death Eaters’ primary offense had been to plot treason/heresy.

Because why should there be any correlation, in either direction, between an interest in studying or practicing the Dark Arts, and affiliation with a political group interested (treasonously) in undoing Secrecy?


Read more... )
[identity profile] terri-testing.livejournal.com
I just re-read what Rita wrote after reproducing Albus’s charming letter to his lover.  And it’s instructive, as Rita always is.  Here she is, in all her audience-wooing. muckraking glory:

“Astonished and appalled though his many admirers will be, this letter constitutes proof that Albus Dumbledore once dreamed of overthrowing the Statute of Secrecy and establishing Wizard rule over Muggles. What a blow for those who have always portrayed Dumbledore as the Muggle-borns’ greatest champion!  How hollow those speeches promoting Muggle rights in the light of this damning new evidence!  How despicable does Albus Dumbledore appear, busy plotting his rise to power when he should have been mourning his mother and caring for his sister!”

Rita Skeeter, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore, quoted in DH 18.

And there we have it.  What strikes US (or, at least me; I shouldn’t jump in and speak for other Muggles) as unthinkably shocking and horrifying about Albus and Gellert’s youthful fancies is that they quite seriously plotted to set themselves up as total dictators, whatever violence—to body or mind—was required for them to “seize control” and maintain it afterwards.

What Rita expected to astonish and appall her magical readers, conversely, was that Albus “once dreamed of overthrowing the Statute of Secrecy.”


Um.  So. Plot mass murder and absolute, inescapable repression?  Dream of enslaving, both body and mind, all the survivors of your original coup?  MILLIONS of victims?  (Most of them Muggle, by definition.)

And then force your slaves to recite, in unison, that it had all been for their own greater good.  Really.

(In real life, some Western slave-owners actually DID make this argument.  Had they not mercifully caused African natives to be kidnapped and worked [or tortured] to death, said natives might well have gone through their whole lives without ever, perhaps, having received the benefit of learning about Christianity!)

The response of Rita’s Daily Prophet readers to such a program? 

Neh.  Boys will be boys, and it’s good to have ambitions.

But.  Plot to overturn the Statute of Secrecy? 

How despicable does Albus seem!
[identity profile] condwiramurs.livejournal.com
Indestructible Intermezzo II – Etymological Excursus

While preparing the next post with our other set of miscellaneous cards and thinking further about Severus, I started playing around with an etymological dictionary to see what hidden meanings I might uncover for the terms of our discussion. To see what sort of a resonant background layer I could piece together, if you will.

I found some interesting things.

Read more... )
[identity profile] danajsparks.livejournal.com
In hir essay "Inconveivable," condwiramurs discusses the implications of magical-muggle marriages when Secrecy is at the very foundation of the wizarding world. Condwiramurs writes, "As the direct, MAGICAL offspring of a mixed witch-muggle marriage, Severus Snape was practically a walking violation of the Statute of Secrecy itself. Standing inherently and unchangeably right astride the most fundamental line in the wizarding world."

In response, I decided to do an analysis of known literal half-bloods. Unless stated otherwise, all of my information comes from Pottermore. Most of the notes from Pottermore can be found on tumblr; just google "[character name] pottermore tumblr" I realize that there are varying opinions on the canonicity of sources beyond the published books, so that will make this post more or less relevant to the discussion.

Wizards/Witches with a Muggle parent include:

--Celestina Warbeck
--Tom Marvolo Riddle
--Minerva McGonagall
--Dolores Umbridge
--Sybill Trelawney
--Severus Snape
--Remus Lupin
--Gilderoy Lockhart
--Seamus Finnigan
--Dean Thomas

ETA 1: I've added more discussion about Minerva McGonagall.

ETA 2: Hwyla speculated that House affiliation might affect how half-bloods fare, so I've added that information. Celestina, Minerva, Remus, Seamus, and Dean are Gryffindors; Tom, Delores, and Severus are Slytherins; and Sybill and Gilderoy are Ravenclaws.
Read more... )
[identity profile] condwiramurs.livejournal.com
I started replying to a comment posted to "I Would Sell Out the Nation," but it developed into a rather long post thinking my way through some things. And talking more about Snape, of course. I’m just thinking out loud here though.

In particular, thinking through how a number of canonical incidents and patterns might have looked from the inside, once we make the realization that – since valuing ‘purity’ of wizarding ancestry is a concept that really only makes sense as arising from and existing within a formally Secret and so strictly isolated wizarding world – when the issue of blood status is on the table, it’s virtually always at one level a coded way of talking about the ever-present but culturally traumatically-frightening threat of historical violent muggle-on-wizard persecution. And is not necessarily the only form of such coded talk. It has developed, over three centuries, a life of its own and has picked up and integrated itself with a lot of other cultural and psychological stuff, like any bigotry, but the root of it and the most unnameable but central aspect of it is the specter of the reverse of wizarding supremacy: muggle domination or eliminationist violence.

A threat that the ongoing, legally-required and violently-maintained muggle ignorance of magic both looks back to historically, and implicitly promises to allow – indeed to spark – again if it is ever discovered.

Not that most adult witches and wizards even want to THINK about that, thank you very much. Secrecy is the most unquestioned need and principle, and its collary – wizarding ignorance of the muggle world – practically a point of pride; but beyond the political and social acceptability and indeed near-indispensibility of expressing at least minimally-coded anti-muggle sentiment, wizards just don’t want to think about it. Keep muggles in their place by whatever means necessary, and then leave it and them alone. Don’t remind anyone of the muggles. Think about wizarding things. Proper things. Safe things.

Show proper wizarding pride.

Read more... )
[identity profile] condwiramurs.livejournal.com
I promise I'm still chipping away at Indestructible.

But after I responded to mary's comment on my latest essay, discussing Severus' motivation for joining the DEs, I had another small revelation that snapped some massive realizations about the WW and the HP books into focus for me.* Enough strands for another essay series if I try to follow them all out. I may do that later; I have notes. But I want to finish Indestructible first.

So for now I'll just sketch out the inital revelation I had, because it relates directly to Severus, and to a question terri tackled here a little while ago: why did Dumbledore speak of "Snape's rejoining our side" when he turned his coat?

Now, terri did a masterful job outlining a convincing expansion of the manipulative!Dumbledore theory to explain that wording. And it works - it still works an additional gloss over top of what I'm going to propose here, if you want to keep it. I just don't think it's strictly necessary in order to explain Dumbledore's wording.

I think the most likely explanation is actually quite simple. Indeed, it's one of those things that is so simple and obvious it easily goes unspoken, and so gets competely overlooked. But it goes to the heart of a number of puzzling questions and apparent inconsistencies about the Death Eaters, their goals, and their - narrative and WW-political - treatment, some of which terri herself noted long ago in her look at the DEs in the 70s.

By which I mean: what crime do we know, with absolute certainty, that Severus actually did commit as a Death Eater before his conversion? Leaving aside the moral questions for a moment to focus on the judicial. What legal transgression or transgressions was Severus guilty of, that we're certain both Dumbledore and the Ministry knew of at that point, that established him as having definitively been on 'the other side' previously?

Before he handed over that prophecy. Whatever the exact legal issues at play there were, and whatever the Ministry officially knew about that matter at the time of his hearing, it was a one-time chance occurrence -- he was already Death Eater before the incident.

Right. He was a Death Eater. Voluntarily oathed and branded as one; he had formally committed himself to their cause. He was by definition on the ‘other side.’ And thus inherently a criminal, whatever other illegal acts he might or might not have committed or been alleged to have committed then. (And we don't hear of much, do we?)

Being a Death Eater alone was illegal.

And not only illegal, but itself a crime so severe that, barring any plea deals, it could earn one life in Azkaban; and so inherently frightening that, even before we have evidence of any overt violence by Death Eaters themselves (leaving aside Voldemort himself), a canny man with Ministerial ambitions could and did authorize, to broad public support, the extra-judicial torture or execution of anyone merely suspected of this crime. Terrible enough more than a decade later that a convicted Death Eater who escaped could be given the Kiss -- before Voldemort himself returned.

To be known as a voluntary Death Eater was to establish oneself as the most dangerous and untrustworthy sort of person. Potentially capable of any atrocity. Merely because of the nature of the cause one was willing to commit one’s life to. A cause less acceptable to the public, note, than allowing demons to consume people’s souls or slowly torture them into insanity as punishment for crimes against wizarding political-legal institutions. Naturally the reason for the Death Eaters’ illegality was this avowed cause.

It was…what again? Remind me.

The Death Eater organization was outlawed why? What, specifically, was the most horrific crime inherent to their stated program?

What appalling crime do we know that Severus therefore must unavoidably have advocated for and conspired to commit the moment he vowed himself one of them?

Read more... )


*(And I do mean massive: everything from the fundamental political structure of the European WW; to why Dark Lords have been a repeated problem for it from the beginning and will continue to be so; to just how fully the metaphor of being conquered by Death by trying to outrun it is embedded in the structure of the Potterverse; to how the combination of JKR's bad Christ and Nazi parodies produce an appallingly deep structural anti-semitism to the Potterverse narrative. -- I'll just note: it's all to do with secrecy. Every strange beam that we keep bumping our heads against and weird gap we keep putting our feet through ultimately relates back to the single most essential fact shaping the European Wizarding World: the imposition of the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy by the International Confederation of Wizards.)
[identity profile] terri-testing.livejournal.com
By “matter,” of course, I mean earth.  Land.  Which is to say, geography.

You thought I meant something else?
Read more... )
[identity profile] terri-testing.livejournal.com
Oryx, your comments inspired me to further thinking. But it got long again….

The Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underaged Sorcery was passed in 1876.
”By" )
[identity profile] terri-testing.livejournal.com
In a comment on sunnyskywalker’s post about Horcruxes, marionros wrote:
Off topic, but this I would think this attitude ("look how good I am at self-control, I'm so awesome! It proves that I'm the right person to own the Deadly Hallows/direct the coming war/do whatever I please") a far better reason for why Dumbledore didn't have sex his entire life than the 'he had fallen in love with Grindlewald who made him flirt with racial dominance and so he knew he couldn't be trusted with love' crap Rowlings peddles.

I answered:
Also, of course, most practitioners of chosen-celibacy tend to think that their choice, doesn't just show, but makes them morally and spiritually superior to the rest of us.

If you read my newest fic "training," though, you'll see I agree, marianros, with the sentiment that Albus couldn't be trusted with love. What was it Aberforth said? "Funny thing, how many of the people my brother cared about very much ended up in a worse state than if he'd left 'em well alone."

And then it occurred to me: might that also be true of Gellert?

Who corrupted whom?


”First” )

Profile

deathtocapslock: (Default)
death to capslock

September 2025

S M T W T F S
 1 23456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 29th, 2026 05:49 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios