Snape's Memories mistakes/questions


1 Just an issue that at least matches with the first movie--McGonagall seemingly calls names at random. Evans was called after Potter.

2 Why was Snape's memory of Lily and James dancing--a picture that Hagrid gave to Harry at the end of the first movie? Was Snape behind the camera?

3 What was the point of showing Trelawney's second prophecy--the one that only Harry heard--and seeing it in a crystal ball? Did they just not know which one was relevant to the memories?

4 How did Snape get the memories of Lily cooing Harry and Voldy killing her?

5 Why would Snape visit the Potter house after their deaths and leave baby Harry alone in the house with two dead parents?

Bob

reply

[deleted]

I'm stumped 

Actually I don't mind #2 so much. I'm willing to believe Snape saw them dancing even though his memory of it looks suspiciously like the photo.

reply

5 Why would Snape visit the Potter house after their deaths and leave baby Harry alone in the house with two dead parents?

He wouldn't. He couldn't have arrived that quickly after the fact.

4 How did Snape get the memories of Lily cooing Harry and Voldy killing her?

Because Snape and Wormtail were there in Godric's Hollow as the Potters were killed. After the spell rebounded, Wormtail spirited Voldemort's body remains away while Snape remained to cradle his dead love, Lily.

These two had the greatest portion of Voldemort's trust after his resurrection. Thus it makes sense that these two were the ones who were with him when he died.

Because Wormtail and Snape were present, only they knew that Voldemort's remains had been spirited away and would be resurrected. Dumbledore learned this later through Snape which is why Dumbledore also always knew that Voldemort would return one day.

reply

But he remembers her cooing which Voldemort wasn't there for.

Dumbledore learned this later through Snape which is why Dumbledore also always knew that Voldemort would return one day.


Then why is Dumbledore the one to tell Snape this in Snape's memories?

reply

Then why is Dumbledore the one to tell Snape this in Snape's memories?

I think your (and certainly not only your) mistake is in assuming Snape was completely subservient and loyal to Dumbledore.

I think he was a double agent. Never fully honest with either of the sides he appeared to serve.

There was much he didn't tell Dumbledore just as there was much he didn't tell Voldemort. Snape's true master all along was, of course, himself.

reply

You having a different opinion doesn't mean someone else is making a mistake. A mistake is something factually wrong. You just happen to disagree and think something else. That poster didn't make any mistake.

reply

You having a different opinion doesn't mean someone else is making a mistake.

Agreed.

That's why I said "I think" in regard to mistake making. Perhaps you missed that.

reply

Even if (for the sake of argument) I accept that Snape is a double agent it's still inconsistent to say that Dumbledore learned something later through Snape that Dumbledore is shown in Snape's memories to be saying just after Lily dies.

reply

Even if (for the sake of argument) I accept that Snape is a double agent it's still inconsistent to say that Dumbledore learned something later through Snape that Dumbledore is shown in Snape's memories to be saying just after Lily dies.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.

reply

You said:

Because Wormtail and Snape were present, only they knew that Voldemort's remains had been spirited away and would be resurrected. Dumbledore learned this later through Snape which is why Dumbledore also always knew that Voldemort would return one day.


But in Snape's memory it's Dumbledore who tells Snape that Voledmort will be back. Even if Snape were pretending not to know this it doesn't make sense for Dumbledore to say something to Snape he either doesn't know yet or that he learned from Snape in the first place.

reply

But in Snape's memory it's Dumbledore who tells Snape that Voledmort will be back. Even if Snape were pretending not to know this it doesn't make sense for Dumbledore to say something to Snape he either doesn't know yet...


I see.

To me it does make sense. If Snape is "playing dumb" to Dumbledore and not revealing all that he knows then he would enjoy those moments (and there are many) when Dumbledore talks down to Snape and lectures him about something he already knows.

As previously mentioned, I see the same scenario when Dumbledore pops the "great reveal" on Snape that "the boy must die". The response? Nothing. No surprise. Blank face and then a taunt about Harry being raised like a pig for slaughter.

reply

If Snape is "playing dumb" to Dumbledore and not revealing all that he knows then he would enjoy those moments (and there are many) when Dumbledore talks down to Snape and lectures him about something he already knows.


That part I can see but why would he then tell Dumbledore later what Dumbledore has already told him?

reply

That part I can see but why would he then tell Dumbledore later what Dumbledore has already told him?

Apologies again.

If you could clarify what you mean by saying Snape told Dumbledore something later which Dumbledore had previously told Snape.

reply

Maybe I misunderstood your original post. You said:

Because Wormtail and Snape were present, only they knew that Voldemort's remains had been spirited away and would be resurrected. Dumbledore learned this later through Snape which is why Dumbledore also always knew that Voldemort would return one day.


If that is the case (that Dumbledore knew Voldemort would return one day because of information he got from Snape) then either Dumbledore tells Snape, Voldemort will be back, before Snape gives him the information that leads to this conclusion, or Dumbledore thinks there’s a reason for him to tell Snape something he learned from Snape in the first place.

What am I missing?

reply

Because Wormtail and Snape were present, only they knew that Voldemort's remains had been spirited away and would be resurrected. Dumbledore learned this later through Snape which is why Dumbledore also always knew that Voldemort would return one day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is the case (that Dumbledore knew Voldemort would return one day because of information he got from Snape) then either Dumbledore tells Snape, Voldemort will be back, before Snape gives him the information that leads to this conclusion, or Dumbledore thinks there’s a reason for him to tell Snape something he learned from Snape in the first place.

What am I missing?

Thank you. Now I understand your confusion. It was my fault. I didn't not phrase it clearly.

I meant that Dumbledore likely learned, through Snape, only that Voldemort's remains had been spirited away. And from that, Dumbledore deduced that Voldemort would return and felt the need to lecture Snape about that return.

It is also my view that Snape was very learned in the Dark Arts and was not only aware of horcrux magic but also aware that Voldemort had availed himself of it. Most likely he, like Dumbledore, did not know how many TIMES Voldy had horcruxed himself; that was a huge secret known only to one other person who was too embarrassed to admit he knew anything about it.

As previously noted, I don't think Snape was ever fully honest and trustworthy with Dumbledore. Admitting he knew about anything about horcrux magic to Dumbledore was not part of his plan. So whenever Dumbledore would lecture him about something like that which he already knew, Snape would just nod and keeping his cards close to his vest.

reply

I meant that Dumbledore likely learned, through Snape, only that Voldemort's remains had been spirited away. And from that, Dumbledore deduced that Voldemort would return and felt the need to lecture Snape about that return.


Thanks for clarifying. I see what you mean now. So that would mean the order of events is:

-Snape agrees to spy for Dumbledore in exchange for Dumbledore protecting Lily
-Lily is killed and Voldemort’s spell on Harry backfires
-Voldemort’s remains are moved
-Snape tells Dumbledore the remains have been moved.
-Snape blames Dumbledore for not protecting Lily
-Dumbledore wants Snape to help him protect Harry and tells him Voldemort will be back.

It seems unlikely to me that Snape would give Dumbledore an important piece of information regarding Voldemort's remains when Dumbledore has failed to live up to his half of the bargain and when Snape is so upset about Lily’s death. Even if he is playing the double-game you accuse him of I would expect him to hold onto that info until he can decide on the best way of using it.

reply


It seems unlikely to me that Snape would give Dumbledore an important piece of information regarding Voldemort's remains when Dumbledore has failed to live up to his half of the bargain and when Snape is so upset about Lily’s death. Even if he is playing the double-game you accuse him of I would expect him to hold onto that info until he can decide on the best way of using it.


I'm not sure if Dumbledore actually needs Snape to provide that information to suspect Voldemort will be back. I think he has other sources of information he can draw upon. For example, Tom Riddle first researched horcrux magic in Hogwarts. Dumbledore may have ways of becoming aware of that.

But I agree that Snape hates Dumbledore. I think he enjoyed killing him. But Snape would have to share information with Dumbledore leading to the conclusion that Voldemort would return. Otherwise, there is no basis for their alliance.

reply

I think he enjoyed killing him. But Snape would have to share information with Dumbledore leading to the conclusion that Voldemort would return. Otherwise, there is no basis for their alliance.


Agreed but I wouldn't think he would consider himself in alliance with Dumbledore just after Lily dies when Dumbledore hasn't held up his part of the deal. I wouldn't think he would give him new information until after that conversation.

reply

I think he enjoyed killing him....

Agreed but I wouldn't think he would consider himself in alliance with Dumbledore just after Lily dies when Dumbledore hasn't held up his part of the deal


You strongly feel Snape blames Dumbledore for Lily's death. I see the logic but I don't see that portrayed on-screen. But it could be.

Anyway, for me it is the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of alliance. Snape may have been hoping to kill Dumbledore all along, after Voldemort was dead. Then, silver platter, Dumbledore ASKS him to do it.

As for the rest, I'll just say I find it hard to know exactly what information might be shared, given all the double and triple-crossing going on.

reply

"Because Snape and Wormtail were there in Godric's Hollow as the Potters were killed."

So are you saying that either Wormtail or Snape was in the house before Voldy arrived? This was a private moment between Lily and baby Harry. We see her with Harry where it doesn't seem as if anyone else is around. This person, either Wormtail or Snape, then watched as Voldy killed Lily and did nothing. Do you think Snape would have stood by as he watched Voldy killing his beloved Lily?

It couldn't even have been Snape as he couldn't enter the Potter house due to the Fidelus Charm. That leaves Wormtail, who I doubt would have been in the house during that time. He was too cowardly.

Bob

reply

So are you saying that either Wormtail or Snape was in the house before Voldy arrived?

Roughly the same time. I'm not clear on the details. Only that both of Voldy's most loyal servants were there.

Do you think Snape would have stood by as he watched Voldy killing his beloved Lily?

Probably not. Voldy may even have promised Snape he wouldn't hurt Lily. But Snape would have loved to have been there to watch James Potter die. And also to watch James' spawn, little Harry die also. What might Snape have hoped for if Lily lived and James and Harry died? I think we can guess. What might Snape have done for Voldemort if he thought it would put him together with Lily?

Anything. Remember, Voldemort never tried to kill Lily. The shot that killed her was aimed at Harry.

It couldn't even have been Snape as he couldn't enter the Potter house due to the Fidelus Charm.

We see him in the house, cradling Lily's dead body.

reply

Roughly the same time. I'm not clear on the details. Only that both of Voldy's most loyal servants were there.


Wormtail was not ever, and never became, Voldemort's most loyal servant. I have no idea where you'd get that from. Voldemort says himself Wormtail isn't truly loyal to him.

Anything. Remember, Voldemort never tried to kill Lily. The shot that killed her was aimed at Harry.


Now you're literally making this up. Come on. Where is it ever shown or stated he never tried to kill Lily? He did. In the books and the movies. In the books he says himself he purposely kills Lily. He didn't even try and kill Harry until after Lily was dead. And in the movies we see her standing to the side of the crib and the wand is aimed at her. So I'd love to see your evidence he never tried to kill her.

Also, why do you believe Snape knew Wortmail was the secret keeper? From his insane, over the top reaction to capturing Sirius and when he escaped in Prisoner of Azkaban, it seems like he, like everyone else, believed Sirius was the secret keeper and betrayed the Potters to Voldemort, which got Lily killed. Otherwise he's going completely batsh-t crazy over that prank Sirius pulled on him over a decade before.

reply


Wormtail was not ever, and never became, Voldemort's most loyal servant.

Then who was? I think you'll need to back up your statement rather than just presenting an unqualified negative. In your opinion, who WAS his most loyal servant?

In my opinion, the only other Death Eater who could possibly lay claim to that title was Bellatrix. Maybe Lucius Malfoy. But did Voldemort turn to either of them to perform the crucially essential task of resurrecting him? Nope. It was all Wormtail.

Now you're literally making this up. Come on. Where is it ever shown or stated he never tried to kill Lily? He did. In the books and the movies. In the books he says himself he purposely kills Lily. He didn't even try and kill Harry until after Lily was dead.


You are saying Lily didn't throw herself in front of the curse aimed at Harry, thus sacrificing her life for him and thus providing Harry with lifelong maternal protection based on her love and sacrifice? I think you might be missing an important part of the story.

I'd love to see your evidence he never tried to kill her.

Since she threw herself in front of the curse aimed at Harry, we'll never know for sure WHAT Voldemort would have done with Lily if he had succeeded in killing Harry. Lily sacrificing herself isn't really an "evidence" thing to be interpreted one way or the other. It is an essential part of the story.

Also, why do you believe Snape knew Wortmail was the secret keeper? From his insane, over the top reaction to capturing Sirius it seems like he, like everyone else, believed Sirius was the secret keeper and betrayed the Potters to Voldemort, which got Lily killed.

We later learn that Snape WAS secretly acting as a Death Eater during PoA and was thus likely in contact with Wormtail during this time.

However, while in Hogwarts, Snape was playing the role of a loyal Hogwarts professor. He could not reveal that he knew anything about Peter Pettigrew's true nature and whereabouts. And of course he had every reason to truly hate Sirius Black, him being his primary tormentor during their teen years. That hatred wasn't faked.

Otherwise he's going completely batsh-t crazy over that prank Sirius pulled on him over a decade before.

Snape's memories make it clear he forgets nothing and refuses to let go of anything. Hate for Sirius and James. Love for Lily. It is all there, just as strong at Snape's death as it was during his teen years.








reply

"But did Voldemort turn to either of them to perform the crucially essential task of resurrecting him? Nope. It was all Wormtail."

Wormtail served Voldemort out of fear. not loyalty.
from Goblet of Fire pg 649
"You returned to me, not out of layalty, but out of fear of your old friends."

Wormtail helped resurrect Voldemort because he was available when no one else was.

"You are saying Lily didn't throw herself in front of the curse aimed at Harry"

you make it sound like Lily was standing one place and then at the last second jumped in front of Harry to take the blast. but that is not the way it happened. the crib was behind her when he entered the room. she put Harry into the crib and stood in front of it and would not move. she didn't throw herself in front of the curse. she stood in front of the crib.

from Deathly Hallows pg 344

"she dropped her son into the crib behind her and threw her arms wide."

"Stand aside, you silly girl...stand aside, now."

"Stand aside. Stand aside, girl."

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

reply

Wormtail served Voldemort out of fear. not loyalty.

So says Voldemort.

But I disagree. He just says stuff like that, even to his most loyal followers to make them feel small and ineffectual.

Wormtail helped resurrect Voldemort because he was available when no one else was.

Which says "loyalty" to me. If Wormtail was just afraid of Voldemort, why would he do anything to bring him back? Why not leave him in spirit form or fetal form? Why go through extreme effort (including cutting off one's own hand) to bring back a person you feared?

I mentioned Lucious Malfoy as another quite loyal Voldemort follower. And he was. But Malfoy was loathe to provide his wand to Voldemort when asked. Wormtail cut off his own hand for the guy. That says loyalty to me.

you make it sound like Lily was standing one place and then at the last second jumped in front of Harry to take the blast. but that is not the way it happened. the crib was behind her when he entered the room. she put Harry into the crib and stood in front of it and would not move. she didn't throw herself in front of the curse. she stood in front of the crib.

Why would she stand in front of the crib if not to take the spell meant for Harry?


"Stand aside, you silly girl...stand aside, now."

"Stand aside. Stand aside, girl."

If Voldemort was 100% intending to kill Lily, why would he advise her to "stand aside". Your quote supports my assertion that Voldemort's goal was to kill Harry Potter and perhaps to NOT kill Lilly.

And if he was planning to spare Lily, WHO would he most likely be doing that for? Snape, of course.

reply

Which says "loyalty" to me. If Wormtail was just afraid of Voldemort, why would he do anything to bring him back? Why not leave him in spirit form or fetal form? Why go through extreme effort (including cutting off one's own hand) to bring back a person you feared?


Because Sirius and Lupin have discovered his identity and he wants Voldemort's protection. Otherwise what took him so long to go to him?

reply


Because Sirius and Lupin have discovered his identity and he wants Voldemort's protection. Otherwise what took him so long to go to him?

It's a theory. I guess it could work, though it doesn't fully work for me.

As I see it, Wormtail couldn't restore Voldemort earlier because he spent 14 (or however many years) living as a rat in the Weasley home. Also because Harry had always been too protected, previously. They needed Harry exposed, via the Tri-Wizard tournament and the port key, to get him alone long enough to perform the ceremony to bring back Voldemort.

And, as I see it, if Wormtail really just wanted to be safe from Remus and Sirius, he need only have gone back to living life as a rat for a while longer, gotten himself far away, perhaps to another nation, then lived his life as he chose.

I think he was pissed off at how he was treated by Remus and Sirius. Exposed, embarrassed and humiliated. By bringing Voldemort back he not only got "protection" but now he can have hope for revenge on the Order and Harry and the whole Hogwarts cabal of goody-goodies.

reply

As I see it, Wormtail couldn't restore Voldemort earlier because he spent 14 (or however many years) living as a rat in the Weasley home.

It’s not like the Weasley’s had him in a hamster cage. He could have gone looking for (or returned to) Voldemort any time.

hey needed Harry exposed, via the Tri-Wizard tournament and the port key, to get him alone long enough to perform the ceremony to bring back Voldemort.

That was a plan Voldemort formed after Wormtail returned to him. Wormtail wouldn’t have known that was what was to happen so it wouldn’t have been a reason for him not to return sooner.

I think he was pissed off at how he was treated by Remus and Sirius. Exposed, embarrassed and humiliated. By bringing Voldemort back he not only got "protection" but now he can have hope for revenge on the Order and Harry and the whole Hogwarts cabal of goody-goodies.

That I can see.

reply

It’s not like the Weasley’s had him in a hamster cage. He could have gone looking for (or returned to) Voldemort any time.

My guess is that Rowling hadn't mentally written the whole "Wormtail resuurects Voldemort" plot when she first wrote of Scabbers.

I suppose you could make your argument in retrofitting it all. But then the same argument applies to all the other Death Eaters and they weren't hiding in rat guise.

The question at hand is whether Wormtail was Voldemort's most loyal follower and I still think he was. If someone else was more loyal, THEY would have resurrected him, cut off their own hand, etc. They didn't. Only Wormtail did. And naturally Voldemort treated him with contempt for his loyalty, because that's what Voldemort does.

They needed Harry exposed, via the Tri-Wizard tournament and the port key, to get him alone long enough to perform the ceremony to bring back Voldemort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a plan Voldemort formed after Wormtail returned to him. Wormtail wouldn’t have known that was what was to happen so it wouldn’t have been a reason for him not to return sooner.

You don't seem to understand. I thought your question was why (retrofitted) Voldemort was not fully resurrected before the end of Goblet of Fire. My answer was that they needed Harry's blood and couldn't get it without the year-long scheme we saw in Goblet Of Fire.

I think he was pissed off at how he was treated by Remus and Sirius. Exposed, embarrassed and humiliated. By bringing Voldemort back he not only got "protection" but now he can have hope for revenge on the Order and Harry and the whole Hogwarts cabal of goody-goodies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That I can see.


Cool. As I see it, Wormtail was portrayed as a weaselly little guy but underneath that, he had more ego than most of the other Death Eaters and was willing to do anything to seem more important. Thus his loyalty to Voldemort.

reply

I suppose you could make your argument in retrofitting it all. But then the same argument applies to all the other Death Eaters and they weren't hiding in rat guise.


But you haven’t claimed that the others are his most loyal followers and know that he can be brought back by use of his remains. Malfoy for example didn’t seem to think Voldemort was coming back so it makes sense he wouldn't be trying to find him.

I thought your question was why (retrofitted) Voldemort was not fully resurrected before the end of Goblet of Fire.


No, my question was if Wormtail was so loyal “what took him so long to go to [Voldemort]?” After he is exposed as a rat he goes looking for Voldemort in order to rejoin him, if he were so loyal I would expect him to do that right away.

I would consider Barty Junior and the LeStranges the most loyal because when Voldemort first disappeared they were still trying to get information to help him and were only prevented from rejoining him by being imprisoned.

I wouldn't consider the Maloy's loyal since they claimed they were Imperiused to follow Voldemort.

reply

But you haven’t claimed that the others are his most loyal followers and know that he can be brought back by use of his remains. Malfoy for example didn’t seem to think Voldemort was coming back so it makes sense he wouldn't be trying to find him.

Right. So Malfoy, being a loyal follower, tried the only thing he could think of, which was to bring him back using the Diary. (I have to assume Malfoy did not really understand horcrux magic; but then neither did J.K. Rowling at that point in her writing, in my opinion).

No, my question was if Wormtail was so loyal “what took him so long to go to [Voldemort]?” After he is exposed as a rat he goes looking for Voldemort in order to rejoin him, if he were so loyal I would expect him to do that right away.

There are various levels that question can be answered from. It could be argued that Wormtail simply couldn't have done that earlier because Rowling wasn't ready for Voldemort to be resurrected any earlier.

You could invent a bunch of excuses involving the life of a rat for why he didn't do it earlier. Or maybe that Voldemort's remains were secretly brewing in some Romanian cauldron for 13 years, the time required for them to be turned into the fetal-like thing. Or a hundred other manufactured reasons. I don't see the point of that.

I am saying Wormtail was Voldemort's most loyal follower and I have mentioned the multiple Wormtail actions which I think justify that claim.

If you want to contradict me and/or change my mind about that, I need you to point to the actions of hundreds of other, far more loyal Voldemort followers and list all that they did to prove their loyalty far more than Wormtail.

Without that I will remain of the opinion that Voldemort criticizes his most loyal servants to keep them humble with the most hurtful thing he can say to them (which is that they disloyal).

I would consider Barty Junior and the LeStranges the most loyal because when Voldemort first disappeared they were still trying to get information to help him and were only prevented from rejoining him by being imprisoned.


Collecting information and going to jail? I don't consider that stuff to be anywhere near as self-sacrificial as what Wormtail went through. I personally would choose ten years of jail over ten years of life as a rat and cutting my own hand off.

But even if we accepted your contention that prison was worse, that still means Wormtail was in the top five. And for that he gets lambasted as not good enough?

For me the better explanation still remains that Voldemort treats his most loyal servants cruelly, to keep them humble and subservient.

I wouldn't consider the Maloy's loyal since they claimed they were Imperiused to follow Voldemort.

A lifelong Imperius curse? A curse that made them Imperius their own son when he was born? The Malfoys were open-minded Muggle-lovers before Voldemort Imperiused them?

Apologies, but none of that makes any sense to me. My impression is that the Malfoys were meant to be accountable for their own behavior and loyalties, from the first book onward.




reply

Right. So Malfoy, being a loyal follower, tried the only thing he could think of, which was to bring him back using the Diary.

As I said, I don’t agree he was trying to bring Voldemort back with the Diary.

I am saying Wormtail was Voldemort's most loyal follower and I have mentioned the multiple Wormtail actions which I think justify that claim.

Yes but one of the actions you use to justify the claim is Wormtail moving the remains which is only your theory. If were convinced he moved the remains I could see it but without that all we have is his betrayal of the Potters and his actions 13 years later. I disagree that any of this proves him the most loyal. IMO Wormtail went to Voldemort only because he wanted protection (and/or revenge) not knowing what would be required of him. Once he returned to Voldemort he was manipulated into doing what Voldemort wanted. Beatrix would have been thrilled to have been given the “honor” of being the one to give Voldemort her hand and would probably have begged to give an arm and a leg as well.

Collecting information and going to jail? I don't consider that stuff to be anywhere near as self-sacrificial as what Wormtail went through.

I said they were more loyal than Malfoy not more loyal then Wormtail. But my point is that (unlike Malfoy) they never renounced Voldemort even when it was to their own benefit to do so and were only prevented from doing more by their imprisonment.


A lifelong Imperius curse? A curse that made them Imperius their own son when he was born? The Malfoys were open-minded Muggle-lovers before Voldemort Imperiused them?

It’s not as if the world is divided into muggle-lovers and death eaters. When Voldemort disappeared the Malfoys claimed they had been serving him under the influence of an Imperius curse. Draco would have been too young at the time for them to need to say anything about him. I don’t remember for sure if that was said in the movies as well as the books but the fact that Malfoy is free and influential imply that he convinced everyone he wasn’t loyal to Voldemort and he talks about the double life he’s been leading. He worked to protect himself first. Malfoy puts his own interests and the interests of his family ahead of Voldemort’s, we see this again during the war when the Malfoy’s only concern is finding Draco.He's not as loyal as those who always put Voldemort first no matter what.

Apologies, but none of that makes any sense to me. My impression is that the Malfoys were meant to be accountable for their own behavior and loyalties, from the first book onward.

Weather it makes sense to you or not the book clearly states that the Malfoy’s claimed to be under the influence of the curse when they served Voldemort. They were meant to be responsible for their own behaviors the claim was a lie.

reply

Beneath the petty details there is a basic principle at play here upon which we disagree. The principle in question is the virtue of honesty. My impression is that for you, the valuation of honesty is found equally among the heroes and villains of this story.

I disagree. In some (more morally complex) fiction, we are meant to have a healthy dose of respect and admiration for the villains or bad guys. The author gives us a sense that there is "honor among thieves" so to speak. I do not believe this is the case for Harry Potter. I do not think we are meant to sympathize at all with Voldemort and his followers (Snape excluded; maybe Narcissa also, just a little at the end). They are meant to be unrealistically, inhumanly evil and unlikable.

My impression is that when Voldemort lambasts his followers for their loyalty, you think that he is basically an honest fellow who is sincerely expressing his personally painful emotions and hurt feelings. I disagree. I feel we are meant to question the truth and motivation behind each and every word he speaks. One of Voldemort's essential qualities is being a liar. In all the earliest scenes featuring Tom Riddle, in the orphanage, with Professor Slughorn and with Hagrid, we see the pattern of "lie and manipulate to get your way" as an established, lifelong Voldemort pattern.

Thus, your contention that Death Eaters who lied about their Voldemort loyalties to the authorities were being disloyal seems all wrong to me. Given Voldemort's personal leadership and established culture of lying and deceit, I think lying to the enemy is completely the expected behavior that Voldemort's reign established. Voldemort might SAY he despises Malfoy for denouncing him to the authorities to cow and shame him. But is he REALLY mad at Lucius for lying and finding a way to stay out of prison? I think not. How could he be? As an essential liar, such deceit is exactly what Voldemort himself would have done in the same situation.

reply

My impression is that for you, the valuation of honesty is found equally among the heroes and villains of this story.


That is not the case.

you think that he is basically an honest fellow who is sincerely expressing his personally painful emotions and hurt feelings.


No I don't.

Given Voldemort's personal leadership and established culture of lying and deceit, I think lying to the enemy is completely the expected behavior that Voldemort's reign established.


That would work if their lies were used to serve him instead of only to save their own skin.

reply

My impression is that for you, the valuation of honesty is found equally among the heroes and villains of this story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is not the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you think that he is basically an honest fellow who is sincerely expressing his personally painful emotions and hurt feelings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I don't.


Okay, then we are in agreement.

Given Voldemort's personal leadership and established culture of lying and deceit, I think lying to the enemy is completely the expected behavior that Voldemort's reign established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That would work if their lies were used to serve him instead of only to save their own skin.

If I understand you correctly, then we are in disagreement on this.

1. You seem to think that Voldemort really cares if his followers renounced loyalty to him or upheld their loyalty. I don't think he cares in the slightest. He only cares about achieving his own future goals, not the long-ago feelings of others. Such bits of personal history are simply cudgels to smack his followers into abject, fearful submission.

Did they end up in prison? They get lambasted for it. Did they avoid prison? They get lambasted for it. Whatever their weakness happens to be, yea or nay, Voldemort will use and exploit it to his own advantage.

2. You seem to be suggesting that it would be possible for one of Voldemort's followers to act so perfectly correctly loyal, as to receive nothing but praise from Voldemort. All carrots, no sticks. I disagree.

As we saw with Wormtail I think with Voldemort you always get a healthy dose of the stick first. Always. Only then maybe a small carrot. If your merciful Lord feels like giving it to you.

The closest I saw a character go without receiving a sharp reprimand from Voldemort was, of course, Snape (whose character I don't like but I credit him for being a brilliant double-agent; wrongly trusted by both Dumbledore and Voldemort, staying truly true to one person only).

And of course despite his near perfect-appearance of loyalty to Voldemort, Snape did not escape all criticism and of course was tossed aside like a candy-wrapper when Voldemort felt like it.

reply

He only cares about achieving his own future goals,


OK that I agree with. The way I look it those like Malfoy failed him because they didn’t try to find him (a failure in loyalty). Where those who are in Askaban failed by getting caught before they could do any good (a failure of competence). I agree that either way they get lambasted for failing but only in one case is it for loyalty.

When I talk of him using a carrot I don’t actually mean they ever get it – I mean that it’s dangled in front of them. In the book he actually uses a carrot first with Bellatrix. First he says to her, “That means a lot coming from you.” Then when her eyes fill with tears of delight he brings up her neice marrying a were-wolf allowing the other death-eaters to jeer (and her probably thinking if not for that I would have had the carrot), then he tells her she must “prune” her family tree the first chance she gets and her eyes are “swimming with gratitude”. By now she’s grateful that she will be given the opportunity to kill her niece, something he would have wanted done anyway is being used as if it’s a reward.

To me this is the difference. Wormtail is degraded and then finally given a new hand as a reward. Bellatrix could have been rewarded with the privilege of cutting off her hand.

Now that I think about it I think I had it backwards in my other post. I think he would follow this same pattern with the death-eaters that were in Azkaban. First holding them up as an example of loyalty and then whisking the carrot away and hitting them with the criticism for their incompetence.

reply

"If Wormtail was just afraid of Voldemort, why would he do anything to bring him back? Why not leave him in spirit form or fetal form? Why go through extreme effort (including cutting off one's own hand) to bring back a person you feared?"

Wormtail was a coward. he was also hunted by his former friends. Voldemort offered protection against them. he needed a whole living Voldemort.

"Why would she stand in front of the crib if not to take the spell meant for Harry?"

she stood there to protect Harry. but she didn't as you suggest jump in front at the last minute. she staked out her position and did not leave it.

"If Voldemort was 100% intending to kill Lily, why would he advise her to "stand aside". Your quote supports my assertion that Voldemort's goal was to kill Harry Potter and perhaps to NOT kill Lilly."

Voldemort did not go to the house intending to kill Lily. he offered her a chance to live for Snape. but she would not stand aside. so he decided then to kill her. the blast that killed her was meant for her, not Harry.


Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

reply

Wormtail was a coward.

He was brave enough to cut off his own hand for his master when he didn't have to. L. Malfoy could barely bring himself to give Voldemort his wand. Wormtail is definitely braver than Lucius and pretty much all the other Death Eaters in my opinion.

he was also hunted by his former friends.

He had spent many years hiding in rat form. He could have done that again. He wanted his Dark Lord back far more than he was afraid of him.

To argue that Wormtail was a coward but far more afraid of Remus and Lupin than he was afraid of Voldemort doesn't make sense. Would Remus and Lupin have cut off his hand if they caught him?

Wormtail was loyal to Voldemort first and foremost. The only reason Voldemort questioned his loyalty was to keep him cowed and humble. The last thing Voldemort wanted was a follower who was proud of himself. Even if the follower deserved praise, Voldemort would insult him to keep him in his place.

See a similar event when Voldemort is unconscious on the ground in the Forest after killing Harry and Bellatrix tries to help him up. Does he say "thanks!". Of course not. He pushes her away and knocks her to the ground saying "I don't need your help". Thus does he treat all his closest followers- with brutality. Apparently that's what they want. Some people are weird like that. I call them "ladder people". Explanation for that term to be provided if someone wants it.

she stood there to protect Harry. but she didn't as you suggest jump in front at the last minute. she staked out her position and did not leave it.


Actually, I did not use the words "jump in front at the last minute". "Someone" else deliberately misquoted me that way, in an attempt to win a silly, online argument. But does it really matter?

It seems you are not the only one who has lost the point of this discussion which was to explain why Voldemort might entertain the appearance of not planning to kill Lily Potter.

Voldemort did not go to the house intending to kill Lily. he offered her a chance to live for Snape.

Yes. That is the point of this discussion. At least from my perspective.


reply

Then why he didn't ever question Bellatrix's loyalty? Or any any other Death Eater like he constantly did Wormtail? Voldemort rewarded success. Despite Wormtail helping him regain his body, he still treated him worse than any other Death Eater.

reply

Then why he didn't ever question Bellatrix's loyalty?

He did.

Or any any other Death Eater...

He did. His first act, after being resurrected and summoning the Death Eaters was to lash out at the entire circle of masked followers; a group who were obviously among his most loyal followers. His first statement to them is- "I confess myself....disappointed" as can be seen in the clip below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEE2QOlGoB4

...like he constantly did Wormtail?

This has already been explained simply and clearly several times.

He was hardest on Wormtail BECAUSE Wormtail was his most loyal servant. He doesn't want his followers being all big-headed and proud of themselves. He'd prefer they remain in fear and feel constant pressure to prove their loyalty even further.

Who was Voldemort second-most hard on? Clearly Lucius Malfoy. Why? Because Lucius was his second-most loyal follower. Notice in the scene above how he unmasks and names each Death Eater, finally with "Even you, Lucius!"

Why does he say "even you" to him? Obviously this means he has higher expectations of Lucius than the others (which were met). But is he going to hug and kiss him for his loyalty? Just the opposite. He is the kind of guy who puts his foot on the throat of his most loyal followers and presses harder the more loyal they are.

How did he treat the Death Eater he eventually trusted the most, Severus Snape? Killed him. There is a clear pattern with regard to loyalty to Voldemort. The more loyal you are the worse he treats you. It isn't hard to see.

reply

And what did he do after the graveyard scene? He got over it. He made it clear he was pissed they assumed him dead, and then moved on. Something he never ever did with Wormtail. He was the only one he consistently treated like vermin. Because that's all Wormtail was.

Lucius was trusted with leading a hugely important mission after the graveyard scene. What did Wormtail get after? Oh right, forced to become a servant for Snape and then manage the prisoners at Malfoy Manor. He wasn't even allowed to sit at the table for the meeting. Wormtail was the only one that was treated like crap no matter what good he did for Voldemort.

How did he treat the Death Eater he eventually trusted the most, Severus Snape? Killed him. There is a clear pattern with regard to loyalty to Voldemort. The more loyal you are the worse he treats you. It isn't hard to see.


LOL yeah, he sure treated Snape bad by trusting his information more than anyone else's, by naming him headmaster of Hogwarts, by letting him do pretty much whatever he wanted.

He ONLY killed Snape because he believed Snape was the master of the Elder Wand. If he doesn't think that, Snape doesn't die. If he had thought anyone else was the master, Snape lives and continues to be his favorite Death Eater.

reply

Something he never ever did with Wormtail. He was the only one he consistently treated like vermin. Because that's all Wormtail was.

Sounds like you are saying that you, walker125, as a loyal follower of Voldemort, believe everything he says verbatim.

That is sort of sad. Most people think of Voldemort as a villain whose every word should be mistrusted.

Lucius was trusted with leading a hugely important mission after the graveyard scene. What did Wormtail get after? Oh right, forced to become a servant for Snape and then manage the prisoners at Malfoy Manor. He wasn't even allowed to sit at the table for the meeting. Wormtail was the only one that was treated like crap no matter what good he did for Voldemort.

This is becoming really surprising.

You really do identify strongly with Voldemort and have the same values that he has. "Hugely important mission"? Sheesh.

Anyway, at least Voldemort didn't steal Wormtail's wand. Voldy also killed another Death Eater just for speaking at the wrong time. Voldemort treated Wormtail exactly the way he thought would get the best result from Wormtail. Same for Malfoy, Snape, Bellatrix and all his other followers. He was a manipulator. And weirdly, he seems to have reached out from the pages/movie screen and manipulated you and turned you into his adoring servant.

I'm sorry but I can no longer have a discussion with such an evil person as yourself. Begone! Before somebody drops a house on you!

LOL yeah, he sure treated Snape bad by trusting his information more than anyone else's, by naming him headmaster of Hogwarts, by letting him do pretty much whatever he wanted.

Um...You seem to be forgetting that Voldemort killed Snape's true love, set the Carrows up to run Hogwarts and then killed Snape with a snake over some false wand logic. You really do seem to adore Voldemort and think he can do no wrong.

He ONLY killed Snape because he believed Snape was the master of the Elder Wand. If he doesn't think that, Snape doesn't die. If he had thought anyone else was the master, Snape lives and continues to be his favorite Death Eater

Again and again you are an apologist for Voldemort's worst behavior. Is your real world name Goyle, by chance?

Dude, if Voldemort REALLY cared about Snape he would have used Ollivander or found some other way to determine the real master of the Elder Wand. He didn't care about Snape. He killed him on a whim and had no regrets later when the Elder Wand still didn't respond to him.

reply

And now this has gotten pathetic. You are incapable of having a discussion and need to resort to insults and assumptions.

So is fair for me to assume to identify with Wormtail? Are you sniveling coward who will betray his best friends and set them up to be killed? How disgusting. You'd personally let your best friends he murdered just to save your own skin. Oh, and then never feel guilty about it. I mean you'd even let an innocent baby get murdered. You keep defending and praising Wormtail, so it's clear you'd do the exact same as he would.

Or let's use your characterization of Wormtail. You'd STILL betray your best friends and let them be killed, only now you're completely loyal to the killer. You're happy they're dead, and you're a racist who believes anyone different than you should be erased from existence. You're clearly someone who would support Hitler. I mean you support and praise and identify with Wormtail, so that makes it a fact. Do you also believe African Americans are inferior and deserve to be treated like they're animals? Clearly your family comes from a hate filled line of racists and sexists.

What also is truly is hilarious is that you claim I identify with Voldemort, right? And you clearly identify with Wormtail by your own admission. And also by your own admission, Wormtail was the most loyal death eater of all. So, again by YOUR words, going by just what you've said, you're fanatically and desperately loyal towards me? Is that really how you feel?

Therapy is an option, son. Please use it.

"Hugely important mission"? Sheesh.


I'm genuinely curious, what would you call a mission that was the entire focus for an entire year?

Again and again you are an apologist for Voldemort's worst behavior. Is your real world name Goyle, by chance?

Dude, if Voldemort REALLY cared about Snape he would have used Ollivander or found some other way to determine the real master of the Elder Wand. He didn't care about Snape. He killed him on a whim and had no regrets later when the Elder Wand still didn't respond to him.


Please point where I said Voldemort cared about Snape. Go ahead and point it out. I'll be waiting, laughing my ass off at the sight of someone needing to resort to such pathetic, worthless posts to try and get his point across because he's losing an argument. I do thank you for proving me right. It was extremely easy, but it's also funny when the person you're talking to does the work for you. You're good for a laugh, take pride in that.

reply

Then who was? I think you'll need to back up your statement rather than just presenting an unqualified negative. In your opinion, who WAS his most loyal servant?

In my opinion, the only other Death Eater who could possibly lay claim to that title was Bellatrix. Maybe Lucius Malfoy. But did Voldemort turn to either of them to perform the crucially essential task of resurrecting him? Nope. It was all Wormtail.


In Voldemort's own words, it was Barry Crouch Jr. and Bellatrix. He says that about Harty Crouch multiple times during Goblet of Fire and also says the same about Bellatrix. Then in Deathly Hallows it becomes Snape, or so he thinks. But it absolutely was not Wormtail. Wormtail only returned to Voldemort out of fear. Once again, Voldemort explains this several times. Wormtail was only loyal to what he saw was the winning side. He only joined Voldemort to begin with out of fear, and returned to him out of fear. Voldemort used Wormtail to help him rise again because he had no other choice.

You are saying Lily didn't throw herself in front of the curse aimed at Harry, thus sacrificing her life for him and thus providing Harry with lifelong maternal protection based on her love and sacrifice? I think you might be missing an important part of the story.


I think you might be missing actual facts. Voldemort says, "He could have forced her aside, but it seemed more prudent to finish them all". And then he killed her. Nowhere does she dive in front of a curse. What invoked the magic was Voldemort giving her a chance to live but Lily refusing and begging to be killed instead. She could have taken his offer to stand aside, but refused and offered her life instead.

reply

In Voldemort's own words, it was Barry Crouch Jr. and Bellatrix. He says that about Harty Crouch multiple times during Goblet of Fire and also says the same about Bellatrix.

Only a fool takes the words of a mentally ill, megalo-maniac seriously. As mentioned in another post, Voldemort isn't exactly generous with his praise. He is so critical of Wormtail as a method of keeping him down and humble. Last thing you need is a big-headed right-hand man (pun intended).

By which I mean neither Bellatrix nor Bertie Crouch cut off their hand for Voldemort. Wormtail was by far the most devoted and sacrificing of all Voldemort's followers. There really isn't any debate, unless someone else cut off their own body part that I wasn't aware of.

I think you might be missing actual facts. Voldemort says, "He could have forced her aside, but it seemed more prudent to finish them all". And then he killed her. Nowhere does she dive in front of a curse. What invoked the magic was Voldemort giving her a chance to live but Lily refusing and begging to be killed instead.

Rather than "missing actual facts" you are presenting them for me.

As noted in another post, if Voldemort was definitely planning to kill Lily, why would he give her a chance to live? He wouldn't.

Now ask, why WOULD Voldemort give Lily a chance to live? Which Voldemort follower would want that to happen? I think you can understand Snape's role more clearly with that "fact" in mind.

reply

Only a fool takes the words of a mentally ill, megalo-maniac seriously. As mentioned in another post, Voldemort isn't exactly generous with his praise. He is so critical of Wormtail as a method of keeping him down and humble. Last thing you need is a big-headed right-hand man (pun intended).

By which I mean neither Bellatrix nor Bertie Crouch cut off their hand for Voldemort. Wormtail was by far the most devoted and sacrificing of all Voldemort's followers. There really isn't any debate, unless someone else cut off their own body part that I wasn't aware of.


Because he knows Wormtail is only loyal out of fear. That's it. He never shows signs of pure-blood mania. He even originally fought for the Order. He only switched to the Death Eaters out of FEAR. He was a wimp who liked being protected. That's why he was friends with James and Sirius, two of the best and most popular students. And that's why he joined Voldemort, because he saw Voldemort was winning and wanted to be on the right side. He was only loyal to himself.

And you really don't think Bellatrix would cut off her hand for Voldemort if he told her to? She'd do it with a big smile on her face.

Rather than "missing actual facts" you are presenting them for me.

As noted in another post, if Voldemort was definitely planning to kill Lily, why would he give her a chance to live? He wouldn't.

Now ask, why WOULD Voldemort give Lily a chance to live? Which Voldemort follower would want that to happen? I think you can understand Snape's role more clearly with that "fact" in mind.


Now you're not making sense, which is why I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about your claim that Voldemort didn't try to kill Lily, and he was aiming at Harry and she dove in front and took the curse. That is wrong. What do you not understand about that?

Voldemort offered her a chance to live because Snape, who just told him about the prophecy to begin with, asked him to. He decided to give her a chance, she refused to stand aside, and he killed her. She DID NOT dive in front of a curse aimed at Harry. That is 100% something you're making up. It never happened.

reply

Because he knows Wormtail is only loyal out of fear. That's it.

You say that as though it is a bad thing.

Do you really think Voldemort is upset when his followers fear him? Seems to me that's exactly what he wants. He doesn't want his followers to LIKE him, does he? Give him a big hug and a smoochie woochie?

If you are going to understand what "loyalty" means to Voldemort, you have to understand this principle, I think. He WANTS fear. Thus his most loyal followers fear him the most.

reply

But every other follow also shares his beliefs 100%. They followed him to begin with because of his views on muggles and muggle-borns and what he planned to do with them. Blood purity mattered to Voldemort, and it mattered to them. If Voldemort was fighting a war to defend muggle-borns and muggles, none of them would have joined him.

Wormtail is only loyal to what he sees as the winning side. He even says this to Lupin and Sirius. "He was taking over everywhere! What was to be gained from refusing him!?". Wormtail was only really loyal to himself. He only joined because Voldemort was winning.

reply

But every other follow also shares his beliefs 100%. They followed him to begin with because of his views on muggles and muggle-borns and what he planned to do with them. Blood purity mattered to Voldemort, and it mattered to them. If Voldemort was fighting a war to defend muggle-borns and muggles, none of them would have joined him.

Wormtail is only loyal to what he sees as the winning side. He even says this to Lupin and Sirius. "He was taking over everywhere! What was to be gained from refusing him!?". Wormtail was only really loyal to himself. He only joined because Voldemort was winning.

But there is a flaw in your argument.

Who is more devoted to the cause of "purebloodedness" than Lucius Malfoy? So shouldn't that mean he was completely loyal to Voldemort? And shouldn't that mean that Voldemort should praise Lucius Malfoy for his loyalty and treat him well?

Bottom line is that doesn't happen. Voldemort treats Lucius Malfoy the worst of any of his close group of followers. Voldemort lambasts Malfoy for his lack of loyalty, even though he probably made the most effort to support Voldemort (i.e. the Diary) while he was gone (not counting Wormtail).

I don't understand how anyone could watch Voldemort speak to his followers and believe he really feels what he is saying. Voldemort is honest and truthful? Please. Isn't he THE villain of the series?

The guy grew up in an orphanage. Everything about him is based on manipulation and deception. The guy is a liar. He isn't interested in "truth". He only speaks to dominate other people and if that means pretending a loyal follower is disloyal, that's exactly what he will do (and does).

reply

He did treat Lucius well until the failure at the Ministry. After that, he completely lost respect for him. But before that, Lucius was one of his top Death Eaters and Voldemort treated him fine. Definitely nothing like he treated Wormtail. He only treats him line sh-t in Deathly Hallows. So that's actually a flaw in your argument.

Voldemort only treats every other Death Eater like crap if they fail at something. Wormtail almost single handedly helped Voldemort rise again, but still treated him like sh-t. Because he knew Wormtail was a coward who only sided with him to help himself.

reply

He did treat Lucius well until the failure at the Ministry. After that, he completely lost respect for him.

You have totally forgotten the scene when Voldemort is first resurrected. I already posted it for you, but I'll post it again here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEE2QOlGoB4

The scene clearly shows Voldemort being contemptuous toward Lucius from the beginning.

Voldemort only treats every other Death Eater like crap if they fail at something.

You are simply wrong. Notice how he treats Bellatrix when she tries to help him recover from the shock of having another horcrux destroyed. He pushes her to the ground and says "I don't need your help". His response to Wormtail for successfully resurrecting him is contempt. His response to the other Death Eaters for showing up within seconds after his resurrection is contempt.

All this has already been explained to you. It seems you are deliberately ignoring it. Why? Apparently you like to argue and have developed a blind eye for any answers to questions you pose in support of yourself.

reply

Nope, I remembered the scene. And I remembered something you didn't, which is thay he immediately gets over it. He makes it clear he's pissed, but then moves on. He doesn't treat Lucius like crap again until after his failure at the Ministry. Funny how the point you bring up only hurts your argument.

You are simply wrong. Notice how he treats Bellatrix when she tries to help him recover from the shock of having another horcrux destroyed. He pushes her to the ground and says "I don't need your help". His response to Wormtail for successfully resurrecting him is contempt. His response to the other Death Eaters for showing up within seconds after his resurrection is contempt.

All this has already been explained to you. It seems you are deliberately ignoring it. Why? Apparently you like to argue and have developed a blind eye for any answers to questions you pose in support of yourself.




So you're telling me telling Bellatrix he doesn't need help is the EXACT same as how he treats Wormtail? Hilarious. Truly hilarious. Thats the same as constantly mocking Wormtail, forcing him to be a servant, and treating him less than any other Death Eater? Okay.

So did Bellatrix not get entrusted with a Horcrux? Did Bellatrix not get entrusted with the Sword of Gryffendor? Funny, I don't recall Wormtail being trusted with those. But sure, one quote of Voldemort saying he doesn't need her help, oh and after she FAILED him TWICE, means everything. Thank you for the laughs.

reply


You have totally forgotten the scene when Voldemort is first resurrected. I already posted it for you, but I'll post it again here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEE2QOlGoB4

The scene clearly shows Voldemort being contemptuous toward Lucius from the beginning.


Malfoy had failed him by not doing anything toward finding him for the last 13 years.

reply

Malfoy had failed him by not doing anything toward finding him for the last 13 years

I'm just not into understanding fiction at face value and letting it go at that.

Yes, Voldemort SAYS that to Malfoy within minutes of being brought back to life. But I feel the need to question WHY he says that.

If you feel that Voldemort is a simple character who says what he means and means what he says, then that is fine, if it works for you. But it doesn't work for me.

I see him as a complex character whose every word is meant to manipulate and deceive those he is addressing. I see his words as weapons he uses to attack, not an honest assessment of how he feels

I see Lucius Malfoy as a guy who truly believed in the principles of Voldemortism. He lived his life in a way fully consistent with Voldemort worship. He even raised his son in a way which primed him to continue the Death Eater way of life, despite the fact that Voldemort was gone. Despite the fact that the magical community as a whole rejected Voldemortism.

Lucius Malfoy used the diary to try to bring back Voldemort in the best way he could think of. He was there within minutes of Voldemort's resurrection in a show of continued faith and obeisance, despite over a decade of absence. Of the thousands of Voldemort followers, how many did more than Lucius Malfoy to honor Voldemort? Essentially none of them. He was among the most loyal and devoted followers Voldemort had.

Why can I see all this and Voldemort not see it?

The answer has already been given. Voldemort DID see it. Which is exactly why he came up with all the criticism of Malfoy, Goyle, Wormtail etc. The MOST important thing to Voldemort was to instill fear and insecurity in his most devoted followers. Don't allow them the slightest chance of feeling high and mighty. Get them down and keep them down.

But again, if you prefer to agree with Voldemort's words and see Voldemort's closest, most loyal followers as truly disloyal and worthless then that's cool. I'm not trying to tell you that you are wrong. I'm only saying how I see it, which is that nothing Voldemort says can be trusted and believed at face value.

reply

I see him as a complex character whose every word is meant to manipulate and deceive those he is addressing.

I agree he’s manipulative but I still think there were other characters more loyal than Malfoy.

Lucius Malfoy used the diary to try to bring back Voldemort in the best way he could think of.

IMO he wasn’t expecting that to “bring back” Voldemort.

Of the thousands of Voldemort followers, how many did more than Lucius Malfoy to honor Voldemort? Essentially none of them. He was among the most loyal and devoted followers Voldemort had.

Most of “the thousands” we don’t know enough about to know how loyal they are but I would assume the small group we read about that he has around him were the most loyal. I would say those who went to Azkaban instead of pretending they’d been Imperiused were more loyal than Malfoy, at the very least the Lestranges and Barty Jr. who were actually trying to find Voldemort.

reply

I agree he’s manipulative but I still think there were other characters more loyal than Malfoy.

Which makes him a disloyal failure? I simply don't get that. Why is being among the most loyal a valid reason for derision and being labeled disloyal?


IMO he wasn’t expecting that to “bring back” Voldemort.

What do you think was his goal?

Something disloyal to Voldemort? I still don't get it.

Most of “the thousands” we don’t know enough about to know how loyal they are but I would assume the small group we read about that he has around him were the most loyal. I would say those who went to Azkaban instead of pretending they’d been Imperiused were more loyal than Malfoy, at the very least the Lestranges and Barty Jr. who were actually trying to find Voldemort.

I'm trying but I still don't see how that makes Lucius Malfoy a pathetic, disloyal failure as a Voldemortian.

In my view, lying to the enemy and remaining free to promote Voldemortism for 13 years is more loyal than allowing yourself to be imprisoned, which sends a message to the rest of society that Voldemortism doesn't pay.

I simply don't get it. You think Voldemort has legitimate complaints.

I feel you are saying that if you had been imprisoned for a long time and then got out that you would start yelling at all the people who gathered together for your release and have a legitimate complaint that they hadn't done enough for you while you were locked up.

To me that is a completely foreign way to approach the world and other people. Entirely villainous. I don't get that sort of thinking and never will.

reply

Which makes him a disloyal failure?

NO!! That is not what I said! I said there are others more loyal. Not that he is a disloyal failure.

What do you think was his goal?

I think he just knew that the diary contained a memory that could open the chamber. I don’t think he realized Voldemort could have actually been brought back that way or he would have been more careful with it.

In my view, lying to the enemy and remaining free to promote Voldemortism for 13 years is more loyal than allowing yourself to be imprisoned, which sends a message to the rest of society that Voldemortism doesn't pay.

He never claimed that he only remained free in order to promote Voldemortism. You’d think if that was his goal he would have mentioned it when Voldemort questioned him.

You think Voldemort has legitimate complaints.

No I’m only saying that by definition others were more loyal. If you are going to twist my words and tell me what I think there's no reason to continue the conversation.

reply

"I think he just knew that the diary contained a memory that could open the chamber."

That is exactly what Lucius had planned with the diary. Dobby tried to stop Harry from going back to Hogwarts twice because he knew of the plans to open the Chamber of Secrets. Whatever his plans originally were, they were thrown into uncertainty when the raids started up. This is why Lucius was at Borgin and Burkes selling some things that would get him in trouble.

He then decided to try to get Arthur Weasley in trouble by sneaking the diary into Ginny's cauldron, hoping that finding a dark artifact at his own house would embarrass him enough to get rid of the legislation that Arthur helped to pass. This didn't work but Ginny still somehow unintentionally continued with the plan originally hatched by Lucius.

Nobody at the time knew it was a horcrux nor did anyone living at the time know Voldy had horcruxes.

Bob

reply

Thanks, I wasn't thinking about the raids interfering with his plans. It all makes a lot more sense that way.

reply

No I’m only saying that by definition others were more loyal.

If that is all you are saying, why is there any debate?

I don't find it meaningful to debate whether Lucius Malfoy was number 1 or number 3 or number 5 in rankings of loyalty to Voldemort. Why would that matter?

From the beginning my only real contention is that Lucius Malfoy was among Voldemort's most loyal followers. Yet Voldemort treats him as though he were a complete failure and one of his least devoted followers. I offer an explanation for WHY Voldemort would be so dishonest in his criticism of Malfoy (and Wormtail).

My assumption is that Voldemort had similar rants off-screen against the loyalty and faith of Bellatrix and Crouch etc. "Why did you allow yourself to be imprisoned? Why didn't you escape? You could have done so much more in my service if you'd been free. A miserable worm like Sirius Black was able to escape and you couldn't? Pathetic!" Etc. etc. Not that Voldemort really believed all that. Just a way to keep them in line and humble.

I see no purpose in ignoring my basic premise and steering the debate toward the pointless trivia of an exact, sequential ranking of the top ten Voldemort followers. I was never interested in doing anything like that.

reply

From the beginning my only real contention is that Lucius Malfoy was among Voldemort's most loyal followers.


And that's what I'm disagreeing with. IMO he's neither "among the most loyal" or a pathetic failure. It speaks to your basic premise because you were using his treatment of Malfoy to support the idea that Wormtail is one of his "most loyal".


My assumption is that Voldemort had similar rants off-screen against the loyalty and faith of Bellatrix and Crouch etc.


I disagree. He does keep his followers in line and humble but my assumption is that he also must do enough to make them think it's possible to win his approval to make them both want to please him and afraid to fail him. We know from his years at Hogwarts that he can be charming and charismatic when it suites him. He would yell at those in Azkaban for getting caught but IMO he would do it in front of his other followers and say something along the lines of "At least you still believed in me -let that be an example to the rest of you." This way they would feel proud of their loyalty and be all the more sorry to have failed him and try that much harder to serve him well.

reply

And that's what I'm disagreeing with. IMO he's neither "among the most loyal" or a pathetic failure.

I must disagree back. If Malfoy was nothing special to Voldemort then why was he among the first to appear at Voldemort's resurrection? Why was he the leader of the Death Eaters in the OoP battle at the Ministry of Magic? Why was he always at the table when Voldemort had a council of his closest supporters? Why was Lucius still there after Harry miraculously resurrected himself and so many other Death Eaters fled the scene? Why was Malfoy Manor entrusted as a prison for Voldemort's enemies? The leader of the Snatchers is a pretty high ranking guy. But Malfoy is clearly far, far above him. Etc. etc.

We saw thousands and thousands of Voldemort supporters at Hogwarts. If Malfoy was nothing special, why wasn't one of those guys given the place of honor near Voldemort that Lucius Malfoy continually received? I just don't think there is a good answer to these questions. But perhaps you know something I don't.

My assumption is that Voldemort had similar rants off-screen against the loyalty and faith of Bellatrix and Crouch etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree.

But in your following paragraph it sounds like you actually do agree.

He does keep his followers in line and humble but my assumption is that he also must do enough to make them think it's possible to win his approval to make them both want to please him and afraid to fail him. We know from his years at Hogwarts that he can be charming and charismatic when it suites him. He would yell at those in Azkaban for getting caught but IMO he would do it in front of his other followers and say something along the lines of "At least you still believed in me -let that be an example to the rest of you." This way they would feel proud of their loyalty and be all the more sorry to have failed him and try that much harder to serve him well.

I agree 100% with all this. In the bolded section, you say the same thing I said.

reply

How Voldemort uses him and what he thinks of him are not the same things as how loyal he is.

Why was he the leader of the Death Eaters in the OoP battle at the Ministry of Magic? Why was he always at the table when Voldemort had a council of his closest supporters?


If that proves his loyalty than by the same argument Wormtail is not the most loyal because he is not given any authority or allowed at the table.

Why was Malfoy Manor entrusted as a prison for Voldemort's enemies?


Malfoy was on the outs when Voldemort used his house for his headquarters & prison.

In the bolded section, you say the same thing I said.

I didn't realize you took the rest of my sentence as a given.

I guess we do agree as to how he treats his followers - I just don't see this as relative to weather or not Wormtail is one of his most loyal.

reply

How Voldemort uses him and what he thinks of him are not the same things as how loyal he is.

If that proves his loyalty than by the same argument Wormtail is not the most loyal because he is not given any authority or allowed at the table.


I guess the bottom line is that we differ in complexity of thinking in regard to this issue. You have a rather complicated formula for calculating loyalty.

For me it is very simple. Loyalty is measured simply by showing up. The more you keep coming back the more loyal I think you are.

This is true in my personal life as well, with family and friends. When it comes to spending time together (or remaining in communication- long distance), I don't constantly question why someone keeps showing up to parties and celebrations or sending emails and Christmas cards etc.; wondering what their ulterior motives might actually be.

If someone keeps showing up in my life, event after event, year after year, that's good enough for me. I know it is simplistic but that's how I am.

reply

Loyalty is measured simply by showing up.


That works when you are dealing with people who are basically trustworthy. Your example of family and friends is a totally different dynamic than Voldemort has with this followers.

reply

Loyalty is measured simply by showing up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That works when you are dealing with people who are basically trustworthy. Your example of family and friends is a totally different dynamic than Voldemort has with this followers.

Well, you know...I have a friend who is in real estate and he has no hesitation in trying to drum up business for himself at friendly gatherings. But we all just accept that as part of his personality and laugh it off, because...year after year he keeps showing up. For better or worse, he is our friend.

But I just made a point to Dark Knight. When I say Wormtail (and Malfoy) are among the most loyal to Voldemort, I don't mean by Dumbledorean standards. Harry is loyal to Dumbledore because he loves him.

Voldemort's followers are all loyal to him because they are nasty and greedy and hungry for power. It is only among that inherently nasty group with such low standards that such a nasty character as Wormtail ends up being the most loyal.

reply

because...year after year he keeps showing up. For better or worse, he is our friend.


It sounds like selling real estate isn't his primary motive for showing up and he's probably not afraid you are going to punish him if he doesn't show up - that's the difference. With Voldemort he has all the power. The point is what motivates his followers to show up. With some it's loyalty, with some it's because they want to get something out of it, with some it's fear.

Harry is loyal to Dumbledore because he loves him.

And Bellatrix loves Voldemort.

reply

And Bellatrix loves Voldemort.

So does Wormtail. The adulation and ecstacy he feels as he resurrects Voldemort seems quite clear to me. I see little to no fear there. In return, Voldemort treats them both cruelly, as his controlling nature dictates. And they both love him all the more for it.

In my opinion, the idea that Wormtail is only motivated by fear comes entirely from Voldemort's false accusation, not from Wormtail's behavior. Personally, I question the veracity of everything Voldemort says.

If others prefer to believe him and find him to be an honest, accurate source of information, that's none of my business. That's purely between that person and Voldemort and other manipulative characters they may encounter in life.

reply

So does Wormtail.


I disagree.


In my opinion, the idea that Wormtail is only motivated by fear comes entirely from Voldemort's false accusation, not from Wormtail's behavior.


No it comes from his pattern of behavior starting in POA and his only going to Voldemort once he is discovered.


If others prefer to believe him and find him to be an honest, accurate source of information, that's none of my business.


You make it sound like a manipulative Voldemort is synonymous with a loyal Wormtail. It isn't.

reply

Malfoy had failed him by not doing anything toward finding him for the last 13 years

Sigh, once again, this is only what Voldemort SAYS.

In actuality, Malfoy had tried the Diary tactic and did indeed live his life and raised his son in a way which reflected the "Old Ways" of Voldemort. How many other former Voldemort followers were as openly embracing of Voldemortian principles within a society that completely hated them? A minority, for sure. Perhaps roughly "Slytherin"?

Think "neo-Nazis". It is like Hitler came back from the dead and collected all the neo-Nazis of the world and then started yelling at them for not being loyal enough to Nazi principles after his death. It isn't "true". It is just a tactic.

It is very strange for me to find so many people who actually sympathize with Voldemort and agree with him that his followers were all pathetic, disloyal failures.

I do not sympathize with Voldemort and I find his followers to be amazingly devoted and self-sacrificial to the guy years after his death. I just don't get the sense you are asking what level of loyalty Voldemort WOULD have found sufficient to heap praise and affection on one of his followers.

I don't remember seeing Voldemort with Bertie Crouch Jr. but I don't remember him being particularly adoring of Bellatrix. From what I can see he (pretends to) hate them all and (pretends to) find them all sub-standard and worthy of derision.

reply

Get off your damn high horse. Nobody sympathizes with him. Is your life really so pathetic you need to be a troll?

And hey smart ass, Malfoy didn't use the diary to bring him back. He didn't even know it could him bring back. So you can stop spewing that bullsh-t. It's funny how most of the crap you say is so easily proven to be wrong.

reply

It is very strange for me to find so many people who actually sympathize with Voldemort and agree with him that his followers were all pathetic, disloyal failures.

No one is sympathizing with Voldemort.

Think "neo-Nazis". It is like Hitler came back from the dead and collected all the neo-Nazis of the world and then started yelling at them for not being loyal enough to Nazi principles after his death.

Ah but there’s the difference. Voldemort is not yelling at them for not being loyal to his principles. He’s mad they weren’t loyal enough to try to find him.

I don't remember seeing Voldemort with Bertie Crouch Jr. but I don't remember him being particularly adoring of Bellatrix. From what I can see he (pretends to) hate them all and (pretends to) find them all sub-standard and worthy of derision.

IMO it isn’t a matter of measuring how loyal they are according to how he treats them. They are all death eaters so that automatically makes them more loyal than everyone else. But if we were to try to line them up according to who is most loyal I would put Bellatrix ahead of Malfoy because she would do or give almost anything for Voldemort and Malfoy has a more normal instinct for self preservation.

reply

Ah but there’s the difference. Voldemort is not yelling at them for not being loyal to his principles. He’s mad they weren’t loyal enough to try to find him.

My point is that he would yell at those who were not loyal to his principles and he would yell at those who didn't try hard enough to find him for that. No matter who it is, he would find some reason to yell at them. It is just a tactic.

Voldemort himself is not loyal. He uses his followers like pawns and is perfectly willing to sacrifice even the most loyal of them at a moment's notice if it suits his whim. Of course he WANTS blind, fearful loyalty from his followers. But he certainly doesn't respect such loyalty emotions or behavior, since he, himself, does not feel or display it.

reply

Voldemort himself is not loyal. He uses his followers like pawns and is perfectly willing to sacrifice even the most loyal of them at a moment's notice if it suits his whim.


Yes, I agree with that, I rather took it as a given. I just don't agree that someone who's only tactic is derision would inspire the kind of following he does. He followers need some kind of a carrot as well.

reply

Yes, I agree with that, I rather took it as a given. I just don't agree that someone who's only tactic is derision would inspire the kind of following he does. He followers need some kind of a carrot as well.

Agreed. I definitely never said nor thought Voldemort used ONLY the fear tactic.

That "carrot" is something I took as a given. We see it clearly with Wormtail, whom he grants another hand.

But does he just give the guy his well-deserved hand? Hell no. The abuse and derision always comes first.

Wormtail has to wait and worry and wait and worry some more that he won't get another hand. So when he finally gets what he obviously deserves, he isn't thinking it is obvious anymore. He has become even more pathetically, grovelingly humble and grateful for the crumb tossed to him by his "merciful Lord".

reply

"I don't remember seeing Voldemort with Bertie Crouch Jr."

The first part of GoF was Barty Jr with Voldy. He didn't treat Barty cruelly but entrusted him as the linchpin in the plan.

As for Bella, she was Voldy's second in command. She was the most loyal to Voldy. Lucius was more fearful than loyal. Voldy even called Lucius in the movie "my slippery friend." Voldy chastised Lucius for not seeking him despite the clues that he was still around. Simply escaping punishment does not make one loyal.

Bob

reply

Simply escaping punishment does not make one loyal.

Neither does simply accepting punishment make one loyal. If you actually listen to and believe Voldemort (which you shouldn't) there is no way to permanently prove your loyalty to him. Even if you really were loyal, he would find a way to twist it around and make you feel unworthy.

As noted to teatat, the basic principle you are missing is that Voldemort himself is not loyal. He would kill any of his most devoted followers at the drop of a hat if it suited his purpose. He has no grounds for demanding loyalty from any of them, but of course he still does. Keeps them pliable and servile.

reply

"If you actually listen to and believe Voldemort (which you shouldn't) there is no way to permanently prove your loyalty to him"

He treated the DEs with a mixture of fear and rewards. Many did prove their loyalty to Voldy and he rewarded them accordingly. Of course no one can permanently prove their loyalty to him. No one can do that with anyone who is not gullible. The issue is how Voldy treated his followers when they failed, which differed from disloyalty.

With Lucius, that failure rate added up pretty quickly after Voldy came back. First was when he realized Lucius lost his diary and it had been destroyed. After some likely groveling on Lucius' part, he was given a chance to redeem himself with the Ministry break in to retrieve the prophecy. When that failed (and landed him in Azkaban for about a year in the books), Voldy punished the Malfoy family threefold. First he forced Draco into being a DE and gave him a suicide mission. Then he set up HQ at the Malfoy Manor in order to keep a bigger eye on them (similarly to how he didn't leave Quirrell in the first book after he failed to obtain the Stone). Finally, he "borrowed" Lucius' wand to fight Harry during the chase. He, of course, had no intention to give it back.

As for others, he treated Pettigrew the way that Pettigrew himself acted--as a coward. No one else did he treat the same way. With Crouch Jr, he did escape from Azkaban and found Voldy, the first loyal follower to find him. This was why he was rewarded with such an important task and no other DEs were summoned to help Voldy.

Bella and a number of others were likely treated for reasons why they were sent there.

Bob

reply

Many did prove their loyalty to Voldy and he rewarded them accordingly

"Accordingly" implies Voldemort was fair, honest and operated with integrity. I don't think he possessed any of those qualities. His treatment of Snape only one of many illustrative examples.

With Lucius, that failure rate added up pretty quickly... First was when he realized Lucius lost his diary and it had been destroyed...etc.

Well, that's a lot of failure!

Voldy punished the Malfoy family threefold...

But he never killed them nor banished them from his sight. In Voldemort's final hour, there are the Malfoys, right by his side. It sounds like you agree that Voldemort is a kind, fair, forgiving, merciful Lord and the horrible Malfoys were lucky to have such a Master.

As for others, he treated Pettigrew the way that Pettigrew himself acted--as a coward. No one else did he treat the same way.

Yet, despite his cowardliness and weakness, Pettigrew was entrusted with the most important and intimate task of resurrecting Voldemort. How could that be? Why wasn't someone braver, stronger and more loyal chosen for the task? Perhaps Voldemort sees qualities in Wormtail which you are unable to see.

This was why he was rewarded with such an important task and no other DEs were summoned to help Voldy.

Bella and a number of others were likely treated for reasons why they were sent there.

I do not understand the meaning or syntax of these two sentences.


reply

Yet, despite his cowardliness and weakness, Pettigrew was entrusted with the most important and intimate task of resurrecting Voldemort. How could that be? Why wasn't someone braver, stronger and more loyal chosen for the task? Perhaps Voldemort sees qualities in Wormtail which you are unable to see.


He wasn't entrusted with it. He was just the only one who found him. Barry Crouch Jr was busy with the more complicated plan of kidnapping Harry disguised as Moody, and Wormtail was the only other option.

reply


He wasn't entrusted with it. He was just the only one who found him. Barry Crouch Jr was busy with the more complicated plan of kidnapping Harry disguised as Moody, and Wormtail was the only other option.


Well, we will have to disagree. First, I think there were more than two unimprisoned Death Eaters in existence. Voldemort was just a fetal-thing but he still had the authority to order any of them to do any task that needed to be done. I think he would pick the best person for the job.

Second, if Barty Crouch really was the most intelligent, trusted and brave Death Eater, I surely would have picked him to resurrect me and safeguard my weak, fetal body, not a cowardly, disloyal, untrustworthy loser.

I think Rowling laid a bit of a trap for her readers. Wormtail's name and his guise as a rat, his role as a traitor and his physical appearance all make it easy to believe Voldemort's accusations that he was a cowardly, disloyal loser.

I think that beneath the rat disguise, behind the unpleasant nickname, beneath the rodent-like chubby, ugly exterior, beneath the fawning, obsequious personality, Peter Pettigrew was one of the most evil, cunning and effective wizards within the Harry Potter story. I think Rowling meant appearances to be deceiving when it came to "Scabbers".

reply

Well, we will have to disagree. First, I think there were more than two unimprisoned Death Eaters in existence. Voldemort was just a fetal-thing but he still had the authority to order any of them to do any task that needed to be done. I think he would pick the best person for the job.


Well yes, we know Lucius and McNair and Avery and other Death Eaters were free, but they didn't look for him. Some believed he was dead, and some tried to fit in back into society. If one of them had found him, they'd have done the same thing Wormtail did. It was just a matter of who did end up finding him. Wormtail did, so he was the only option.

Second, if Barty Crouch really was the most intelligent, trusted and brave Death Eater, I surely would have picked him to resurrect me and safeguard my weak, fetal body, not a cowardly, disloyal, untrustworthy loser.


But taking care of Voldemort was the easier job of the two. Crouch's job was much more complicated, difficult, and dangerous of the two that would require the most smarts and cunning. Wormtail had to feed Voldemort and milk Nagini. Crouch had to pretend to be someone else for an entire year. And not just anyone, but one of Dumbledore's best friends. That job required the person to pretend to be Moody perfectly so even the smartest and most powerful wizard alive would be fooled, would need to watch out for Harry to ensure he made it through the tournament, would have to trick the Goblet which is no easy task, and would have to remember to take a potion every single hour. To me, that is the more difficult job. Would Wormtail have been able to fool Dumbledore? Would he have remembered to take the potion for an entire year? Would he have been able to get Harry where he needed to be? He couldn't even keep watch over a weak and impurised Barty Crouch Sr.

reply

We shall just have to disagree.

I think there were a lot of Death Eaters around to choose from, not just Wormtail. We see them all sitting around a table at the beginning of GoF. Why would Wormtail be chosen for such an important job with so many others around?

Personally I think it was a good choice by Voldemort. Some of the Death Eaters seemed pretty power-hungry. Some might have been tempted to kill the fetus-thing and try to take all the power for themselves. Not Wormtail. He could be trusted.

reply

I think you mean the scene in Deathly Hallows. But again, Wormtail was the only one who found him, and Crouch was the only one who was known to be willing to help. None of the other death eaters tried to find him, or he could have used any of them to help. Yes he had many of them at the meeting, but that was AFTER he was powerful and pressed the dark mark to let them know he was back.

You make a good point about him possibly fearing that other death eaters might have killed him while he was so worthless and helpless. But I don't think that helps show Wormtail's trustworthiness. Because he only went to find Voldemort after his disguise as Scabbers was revealed. He was stuck between two sides. Dumbledore and the order members were after him now, but he still feared the death eaters could hold him responsible for Voldemort's downfall. So he chose the option that could protect him from both sides, which was finding Voldemort himself.

reply

""Accordingly" implies Voldemort was fair, honest and operated with integrity."

No, you infer that. I didn't imply it. Voldy did punish those who failed him and rewarded those who pleased him. My use of the term accordingly meant that Voldy rewarded his followers in relation to their successes. Likewise, he punished them accordingly to their failures.

"But he never killed them nor banished them from his sight."

Voldy killed his enemies and those who outlived their usefulness. The Malfoys were neither. He also chose not to send his failed followers out of sight but rather kept them closer and taught them lessons so they, and others who watched, would not forget how he treats failure. He had already emasculated Lucius right before the Seven Potters chase. The movie makes it obvious when he snaps the handle off. After that, Lucius was a wizard without a wand. Of course he brought Lucius with him. He needed to humiliate him more.

"despite his cowardliness and weakness, Pettigrew was entrusted with the most important and intimate task of resurrecting Voldemort."

Due to his cowardliness, Pettigrew was fearfully able to do what Voldy forced him to do. I don't think Voldy knew who else he could trust. This was discussed at some point regarding why Voldy didn't seek Snape's help in the first book. He didn't know if he could trust Snape. Similarly, Voldy likely didn't know who else he could trust other than those who sought him out. He had two people to help--Pettigrew and Crouch Jr. Pettigrew was only worthy of being kept close to Voldy so that Voldy was sure he wouldn't fail. Crouch he allowed to go as Voldy trusted him to be able to work without his constant attention.

"Wormtail's name and his guise as a rat, his role as a traitor and his physical appearance all make it easy to believe Voldemort's accusations that he was a cowardly, disloyal loser."

Wormtail's name of Wormtail was a reminder that he was a rat in his animagus form. His name of Pettigrew is a take on the fact that he was a pet and grew. His role as a traitor was evident. Note that Voldy gave him back his hand with the admonition that he not fail him, something he did with the Potters. He was cowardly. He spent thirteen years as a rat rather than face the music for what he did. So these descriptors of being a cowardly, disloyal loser were seen by the audience.

That said, Pettigrew was an overlooked character whose powers were much stronger than most people realized. First, learning how to be an animagus as a teenager was impressive. His abilities in faking his own death as well as finding Voldy and and creating the two important potions that helped bring him back to life. However, Pettigrew did nothing with assurance. He didn't stand up for himself. Neville was the Pettigrew of Harry's years who ultimately started to stand up for himself and get confidence. Pettigrew never had that same revelation and turned bad in searching for a way to survive.

Bob


reply

But again, Wormtail was the only one who found him, and Crouch was the only one who was known to be willing to help. None of the other death eaters tried to find him, or he could have used any of them to help.

Well this is the point of the discussion. If Wormtail took the trouble to find Voldemort and others didn't it says something about his loyalty. Of course Voldemort isn't going to heap praise on him and let him get big-headed. But he was the one who found him and cut off his own hand for him. Would any other Death Eater happily cut off his own hand for Voldemort? Would Barty? Would Bellatrix? Would Fenrir? I think not. Lucius didn't even want to give up his wand to Voldy.

You make a good point about him possibly fearing that other death eaters might have killed him while he was so worthless and helpless. But I don't think that helps show Wormtail's trustworthiness. Because he only went to find Voldemort after his disguise as Scabbers was revealed. He was stuck between two sides. Dumbledore and the order members were after him now, but he still feared the death eaters could hold him responsible for Voldemort's downfall. So he chose the option that could protect him from both sides, which was finding Voldemort himself

What I think many are missing in this discussion is that it is all relative. I am not saying Wormtail was loyal and trustworthy by Dumbledore standards. Harry and others were loyal to Dumbledore because they loved the guy.

I am only saying Wormtail was among the most loyal and trustworthy among Death Eaters, a group who are, by nature, shifty and untrustworthy. They were all loyal to Voldemort only because they thought it would advance their own selfish goals.

reply

Well this is the point of the discussion. If Wormtail took the trouble to find Voldemort and others didn't it says something about his loyalty. Of course Voldemort isn't going to heap praise on him and let him get big-headed. But he was the one who found him and cut off his own hand for him. Would any other Death Eater happily cut off his own hand for Voldemort? Would Barty? Would Bellatrix? Would Fenrir? I think not. Lucius didn't even want to give up his wand to Voldy.


But he still didn't search for him for 13 years, after having spent all that time living as a pet. He only searched after his disguise was ruined and he was out of other options.

I do think Bellatrix would cut off her hand to bring Voldemort back, yeah. She was so obsessed with him I don't think there's anything she wouldn't have done.

reply

But he still didn't search for him for 13 years, after having spent all that time living as a pet

It doesn't seem as simple as that to me. I think Wormtail knew of Voldemort's remains/spirit from the time of his death. He just didn't know what to do about it. As Scabbers, Wormtail was privy to many secrets such as Voldemort on the back of Professor Quirrell's head and Tom Riddle's diary. "Scabbers" was a very clever, far-sighted and effective disguise. Far more useful to Voldemort than hiding in Wisconsin or being locked up in Azkaban.

I do think Bellatrix would cut off her hand to bring Voldemort back, yeah. She was so obsessed with him I don't think there's anything she wouldn't have done

She appeared to be devoted. But then Voldemort didn't ask her to cut off her hand or her hair or even to give up her wand. I'd need to see her in those situations before making a judgment.

reply

She appeared to be devoted. But then Voldemort didn't ask her to cut off her hand or her hair or even to give up her wand. I'd need to see her in those situations before making a judgment.


Yes, he didn't ask her, because he couldn't. She was locked in Azkaban for trying to find him. She and the group who was with her are the only ones who immediately tried to find him.

I don't think Wormtail needed to be in Azkaban to show his loyalty, but again the difference is he chose to live as a rat while ones in Azkaban didn't choose to be there. Wormtail could have at any time tried to find Voldemort in those 13 years, especially if he knew for a fact he was live like you theorize, but didn't until he could no longer pretend to be a child's pet.

reply

Voldy did punish those who failed him and rewarded those who pleased him. My use of the term accordingly meant that Voldy rewarded his followers in relation to their successes. Likewise, he punished them accordingly to their failures.

In other words, you think Voldemort was fair and honest with his followers. I disagree. I think he was unfair and dishonest and his praise and criticism did not match his follower's level of success.

I think if one of Voldemort's followers did something extremely well, Voldemort would find an excuse to criticize him/her to keep them off-balance and not get too big-headed and comfortable.

His role as a traitor was evident.

He was a traitor to his Hogwarts friends of course. He didn't betray Voldemort, for whatever reason.

He was cowardly. He spent thirteen years as a rat rather than face the music for what he did.

"Face the music". HAH that's a funny phrase!

Anyway, I don't see how spending time in prison shows more bravery than living life at a rat. They both kinda suck. Bottom line is that Wormtail was brave enough to cut off his own hand with no guarantee he'd get it back. What other Death Eater was willing to do that? Bellatrix? Barty? Fenrir? I think not. Lucius was loathe to even give up his wand to Voldemort.

So these descriptors of being a cowardly, disloyal loser were seen by the audience.

Yes, the audience of the superficial. The point is that this portion of the audience, by nature, cannot see anything deeper. Nor can they be expected to. It is their nature to not see anything but the obvious.

Pettigrew was an overlooked character whose powers were much stronger than most people realized. First, learning how to be an animagus as a teenager was impressive. His abilities in faking his own death as well as finding Voldy and and creating the two important potions that helped bring him back to life. However, Pettigrew did nothing with assurance. He didn't stand up for himself. Neville was the Pettigrew of Harry's years who ultimately started to stand up for himself and get confidence. Pettigrew never had that same revelation and turned bad in searching for a way to survive.

Exactly. Only an audience member with an eye for more than superficial detail could have come up with this analysis. Excellent.

Neville and Wormtail form a very apt comparison. Applause for that.


reply

Anyway, I don't see how spending time in prison shows more bravery than living life at a rat. They both kinda suck. Bottom line is that Wormtail was brave enough to cut off his own hand with no guarantee he'd get it back. What other Death Eater was willing to do that? Bellatrix? Barty? Fenrir? I think not. Lucius was loathe to even give up his wand to Voldemort.


The difference is in prison you're trapped there unwillingly and pretending to be a rat is by choice. Bellatrix had no choice but to be in prison. Wormtail had the choice of being a rat for 13 years. If he's so loyal why didn't he try and find Voldemort sooner?

reply


If he's so loyal why didn't he try and find Voldemort sooner?

Explained in the other post. I think Wormtail, like Snape, was there in Godric's Hollow when Voldemort was killed. He took and hid Voldemort's remains but didn't know what to do with them until 13 years later when Voldemort's spirit was returned substantially enough to tell him.

reply

The difference is in prison you're trapped there unwillingly and pretending to be a rat is by choice. Bellatrix had no choice but to be in prison. Wormtail had the choice of being a rat for 13 years.


I agree and would also add that Bellatrix was in prison in the first place because she was still trying to find information about what happened to Voldemort.

reply

"In other words, you think Voldemort was fair and honest with his followers."

He was fair in the sense that he punished those who failed him and rewarded those who succeeded. His treatment wasn't random. Honest? For what to expect from him if they failed, he was very honest. Voldy was a very predictable boss that no one wanted to fail or cross.

"I think if one of Voldemort's followers did something extremely well, Voldemort would find an excuse to criticize him/her to keep them off-balance and not get too big-headed and comfortable."

Apart from Pettigrew, who as I described, acted as a coward and was thus treated as such, who else was treated the way you described? Snape killed Dumbledore and then given his position by Voldy as well as being allowed to sit right next to him on his right during the first meeting at the beginning of DH. HAd Crouch Jr survived, he would have been feted by Voldy in a similar way.

"He was a traitor to his Hogwarts friends of course. He didn't betray Voldemort, for whatever reason."

True, but Voldy knew he was a traitor and that meant that he was capable of that kind of duplicity. I doubt Voldy could ever truly trust Pettigerw due to that.

"I don't see how spending time in prison shows more bravery than living life at a rat."

Going to prison means someone was caught by the authorities. Pettigrew was hiding in animal form, living with a wizarding family for even more protection. He couldn't face the world as a traitor or fess up to his crimes. Bella, Rodolpho, and Crouch Jr did and proudly stood up and admitted who they were.

"Wormtail was brave enough to cut off his own hand with no guarantee he'd get it back. What other Death Eater was willing to do that? Bellatrix? Barty? Fenrir? I think not."

I think Bella would have done it. Possibly Crouch Jr as well. Wormtail didn't do it because of bravery, but of fear. Apparently, he was in no danger of dying. Look at the movie and you will see that he wasn't bleeding.

Now you see I am looking at Pettigrew with far more than a superficial eye and still understand him to be a cowardly, disloyal loser whose life was about surrounding himself with others who would protect him. He did nothing with bravery, but instead with cowardice.

He hung around the Marauders because they could protect him despite the fact that they treated him more as a tagalong. He turned traitor on them because he felt Voldy was more powerful and could protect him better. He became a rat for over a decade after Voldy's defeat and hid with a wizarding family because he didn't want to face others who would see him a as traitor, but still wanted to hear any news about Voldy. He was finally forced to search for Voldy after he was exposed and was about to be taken to jail--or worse. He did what he did with Voldy because he feared what Voldy would do to him otherwise.

Bob

reply

"In other words, you think Voldemort was fair and honest with his followers."

He was fair in the sense that he punished those who failed him and rewarded those who succeeded.

I disagree. I think Voldemort punished those of his followers who were in danger of becoming too big-headed and comfortable. And I think he rewarded those of his followers who had become too debilitated by fear of punishment.

Why would Voldemort care about accurately and fairly rewarding and punishing his followers like a normal leader would? Treating his followers fairly and rewarding them for success and punishing them for failure would have ruined Voldemort's carefully built-up network of fear and evil.

who else was treated the way you described?

Lucius Malfoy was relentlessly mistreated by Voldemort after doing the most to destroy Harry Potter in Voldemort's absence. And Bellatrix was rewarded for helping Voldemort get up off the ground by being pushed to the ground herself. We don't see a lot of other interaction between Voldemort and his most loyal followers.

"Wormtail was brave enough to cut off his own hand with no guarantee he'd get it back. What other Death Eater was willing to do that? Bellatrix? Barty? Fenrir? I think not."

I think Bella would have done it. Possibly Crouch Jr as well. Pettigrew, who as I described, acted as a coward

Your opinion is as valid as mine. But I don't think they would have cut off their own hands. Except out of fear, perhaps. Definitely not as "willingly" as Pettigrew did. If Wormtail hadn't been "willing", the spell wouldn't have worked.

Now you see I am looking at Pettigrew with far more than a superficial eye and still understand him to be a cowardly, disloyal loser whose life was about surrounding himself with others who would protect him. He did nothing with bravery, but instead with cowardice

I disagree. You start with the premise of him being cowardly and seek evidence to support that premise. You reject any evidence to the contrary and never consider that Voldmort might be lying about Pettigrew's cowardice.

It doesn't take a particularly "deep eye" to notice that Pettigrew had to be "willing" to cut off his own hand for the spell to work. Fear implies duress which is the opposite of "willingly".

He did what he did with Voldy because he feared what Voldy would do to him otherwise.

If Wormtail had REALLY feared Voldemort, he wouldn't have brought him back. He would have dumped those sorry-looking fetal bones in a trash can and walked away. What could Voldemort have done about that? Moaned and rattled his bones together a little? Voldemort was only fear-inspiring AFTER his resurrection, not before.

Watch Wormtail's face as he cuts off his own hand. He WANTS to do it. He ACHES to do it to please his beloved master and bring him back. There is no fear to be seen. That's just something Voldemort says later to make the dude feel bad and keep him in his place. It's all quite clear to be seen, starting at 2:00 in the clip below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS368iXcUvk










reply

Neville was the Pettigrew of Harry's years who ultimately started to stand up for himself and get confidence. Pettigrew never had that same revelation and turned bad in searching for a way to survive.


Interesting observation. One thing that strikes me is that while the marauders might have protected Pettigrew, Harry and his friends empower Neville. Even the first year (in the book) Harry tells Neville he’s worth ten of Malfoy and then Neville stands up to Malfoy and says “I’m worth 10 of you”. But even though Neville lacks confidence I think he’s ahead of Pettigrew to begin with. While he would clearly like to have friends he doesn’t tag after the others in the same way Pettigrew did and of course he stands up to his friends at the end of the first year. I can’t see Pettigrew ever doing that.

reply

Lucius Malfoy was relentlessly mistreated by Voldemort after doing the most to destroy Harry Potter in Voldemort's absence. And Bellatrix was rewarded for helping Voldemort get up off the ground by being pushed to the ground herself. We don't see a lot of other interaction between Voldemort and his most loyal followers.


Yes, but they were on his sh-t list during all of Deathly Hallows. Lucius was the leader of the Ministry invasion to get the prophecy, which resulted in the capture of a dozen Death Eaters, the prophecy being destroyed, and Voldemort's return being public by the Ministry. Plus he had foolishly used the diary which got destroyed. And then he and Bellatrix failed him by calling him back from Grindelwald only to have to tell him they had Harry, but let him escape.

It's like the saying, "The bigger they are the harder they fall". Lucius and Bellatrix were two of his top Death Eaters, so when they fail in pretty big ways, they're going to be punished and treated like dirt for a long time.

reply

Lucius was the leader of the Ministry invasion to get the prophecy, which resulted in the capture of a dozen Death Eaters, the prophecy being destroyed, and Voldemort's return being public by the Ministry. Plus he had foolishly used the diary which got destroyed. And then he and Bellatrix failed him by calling him back from Grindelwald only to have to tell him they had Harry, but let him escape.

Yes, yes, I get how some of you see things. It just feels like I've been put into a loony bin where crazy thinking is thought to be normal.

I was just watching Back To The Future and a good analogy came to mind. Some here are saying that Biff was justified in being mean to George McFly. George screwed up by not doing Biff's homework on time. How was Biff supposed to have time to recopy the homework in his own handwriting? "Think McFly. Think!"

McFly, Malfoy and Wormtail all deserved to be bullied because they didn't do things right for the villainous leader. Loony toons.

It's like the saying, "The bigger they are the harder they fall". Lucius and Bellatrix were two of his top Death Eaters, so when they fail in pretty big ways, they're going to be punished and treated like dirt for a long time.

I can see why Voldemort would say that. What baffles me is why YOU would say that. I simply don't identify with the guy and his morals. Every time you say "Voldemort was right because..." then you've lost me.

Despite all this strange talk, Bellatrix, Lucius Malfoy and Wormtail continue to seem to be among Voldemort's most loyal followers to me. If they had really "fallen", they wouldn't have continued to be there by Voldemort's side, doing his most intimate dirty work, all the way to the end. The premise that they were all disloyal makes no sense to me.

reply

Are you seriously incapable of having a discussion without insulting people who disagree with you? Is that really so difficult? Nobody identifies with Voldemort. Nobody said we think Lucius deserved to be treated like that. Grow up.

Is it fair to say you identify with Wormtail? You identify with a murderer who betrays his best friends and would be more than willing to help kill an innocent baby?

What's clear is you've been backed into a corner and have no facts to back up your claims, just theories with no proof, and you need to resort to insults. Be an adult and admit when you were wrong.

reply

"I think Voldemort punished those of his followers who were in danger of becoming too big-headed and comfortable. And I think he rewarded those of his followers who had become too debilitated by fear of punishment."

You are talking about getting too egotistical or despondent. Are you implying that Voldy cared about his followers? Did he have a heart after all?

"Why would Voldemort care about accurately and fairly rewarding and punishing his followers like a normal leader would?"

This is how successful organizations stay successful. I would say, though, that Voldy's punishments could be disproportional to how bad the DE performed. Voldy had Draco torture Rowle after he informed Voldy that Harry had escaped from the diner. He put Draco on a suicide mission after Lucius failed to obtain the prophecy. However, Snape, as I mentioned, killed Dumbledore and was made a very trusted and close lieutenant as well as making him the Hogwarts Headmaster.

"Lucius Malfoy was relentlessly mistreated by Voldemort after doing the most to destroy Harry Potter in Voldemort's absence."

Lucius did nothing to destroy Harry other than nearly using the AK curse on Harry, only to be stopped by Dobby, something he would never had told anyone else about. The plot to open the Chamber of Secrets was to kill Muggle-borns, humiliate Arthur Weasley, and get rid of Dumbledore as Headmaster.

"Bellatrix was rewarded for helping Voldemort get up off the ground by being pushed to the ground herself."

That wasn't about Bella, it was about Voldy hating being in a vulnerable position much less letting others see him that way. He was embarrassed about being on the ground, not punishing someone for helping him.

"I don't think they would have cut off their own hands. Except out of fear, perhaps. Definitely not as "willingly" as Pettigrew did."

Did you see how much Bella was crazy for Voldy? She would have done anything and was crazy enough to do so. As for Peter, willingly simply means of one's own volition. At this point, Pettigrew wanted to have Voldy rise as he felt Voldy was more powerful than Sirius and Lupin, the two from whom he was trying to hide.

"You start with the premise of him being cowardly and seek evidence to support that premise."

Wrong. All evidence pointed to him being cowardly. He simply didn't do anything out of bravery.

"Voldemort was only fear-inspiring AFTER his resurrection, not before."

Actually, he always inspired fear as no one dared to say his name. Also, the first two years at Hogwarts for Ron, Pettigrew would likely have heard about Voldy nearly coming back--the first time when he was actually possessing the body of a professor.

Why didn't Pettigrew go to him then? Because he was still safe. It was only after being outed by Sirius and Lupin did he try to find Voldy because his former friends wanted to kill him or turn him over to the authorities, who likely would have either imprisoned him or basically killed him. At that time, Pettigrew feared his former friends more than Voldy.

Bob

reply

Are you seriously incapable of having a discussion without insulting people who disagree with you? Is that really so difficult?

I have not insulted anyone. Apologies if anyone feels I have.

Nobody identifies with Voldemort.

You can only speak for yourself on that. Some people do identify with Voldemort just as some people identify with every fictional villain. One person even dressed up as The Joker and went into a theater and shot a bunch of people.

Nobody said we think Lucius deserved to be treated like that.

Yes, they have. Several people have. Again, please speak only for yourself.

Grow up.

This is a very immature admonition which many teens use among themselves.

Is it fair to say you identify with Wormtail?

Not personally. I just recognize that his loyal behavior toward Voldemort was repaid with derision, and dismissal. This had its desired effect. Instead of expecting his hand to be replaced, Wormtail became humbly thankful his merciful Lord decided to give him one.

You identify with a murderer who betrays his best friends and would be more than willing to help kill an innocent baby?

Not personally, but I know there are some people in the world who have a similar attitude toward Hitler. They would gladly go back in time and kill innocent baby Adolph if they could.

To Death Eaters, Harry Potter represented the same thing as Hitler did to jews: an enemy who wanted to destroy them and their way of life.

What's clear is you've been backed into a corner and have no facts to back up your claims, just theories with no proof, and you need to resort to insults. Be an adult and admit when you were wrong.

I have not expressed a "theory" I've expressed the opinion that I think Wormtail is among Voldemort's most loyal followers. I have good reasons for my opnion. You have a different opinion, which is fine and I'm sure you have good reasons for your opinion also.

But if you were truly an adult, you would be able to recognize that there are different opinions in the world and there isn't always a right or wrong answer to every question. Trying to force someone else to drop their own opinion and adopt your opinion is not an example of the mature behavior you seem to expect from others.




reply

I have no problem with you disagreeing, this was actually a good discussion. Until you decided you had to accuse everyone if identifying with Voldemort just because we disagree with you. Yes, that is insulting. Yes, that is immature and childlike behavior. We disagree, so we identify with him? You're just being pathetic.

If you had kept up the discussion instead of throwing insults, I'd have no problem. Once you did, then it makes you look like you've been proven wrong but don't want to admit it.

So can you refrain from pathetic, insulting accusations, or can you not?

reply

I have no problem with you disagreeing, this was actually a good discussion. Until you decided you had to accuse everyone if identifying with Voldemort just because we disagree with you.

Ah, this is what was upsetting.

Yes, I apologize for this comment and the implications which might go with it.

reply

You are talking about getting too egotistical or despondent. Are you implying that Voldy cared about his followers? Did he have a heart after all?

I don't think so. I think he just observed that he got the best results when his followers were highly fearful of him but not debilitated by fear.

"Why would Voldemort care about accurately and fairly rewarding and punishing his followers like a normal leader would?"

This is how successful organizations stay successful

Exactly. One of the primary reasons Voldemort's "organization" was not successful. Likewise for other real-world despotic, fear-driven organizations. But still, as history carries on, some people still arise and try this tactic, thinking it will work.

"Lucius Malfoy was relentlessly mistreated by Voldemort after doing the most to destroy Harry Potter in Voldemort's absence."

Lucius did nothing to destroy Harry other than nearly using the AK curse on Harry, only to be stopped by Dobby, something he would never had told anyone else about. The plot to open the Chamber of Secrets was to kill Muggle-borns, humiliate Arthur Weasley, and get rid of Dumbledore as Headmaster.

Unnecessary nitpicking. All that Lucius did that you mention was in the positive service of Voldemort.

Your nitpicking seems designed to dodge the real question: Who did MORE than Malfoy? Fenrir Greyback perhaps? Goyle maybe? As far as I can see, only Wormtail rivaled Lucius Malfoy in loyalty to Voldemort during his absence. If there is any worthwhile response I think it needs to be that: Who did more than Malfoy? I'll be waiting for that answer.

"Bellatrix was rewarded for helping Voldemort get up off the ground by being pushed to the ground herself."

That wasn't about Bella, it was about Voldy hating being in a vulnerable position much less letting others see him that way. He was embarrassed about being on the ground, not punishing someone for helping him.

Of course it isn't about Bella. It is about Voldemort. It is ALL about Voldemort and it is all related.

Before Voldemort had humiliated Wormtail, what transpired? Wormtail had bodily carried a nasty, helpless, fetal version of Voldemort and dumped him into a cauldron. How do you think Voldemort felt about being in THAT position? Hence his lashing out and humiliating Wormtail, just as he did a milder version of that on Bellatrix later.

Did you see how much Bella was crazy for Voldy? She would have done anything and was crazy enough to do so.

Yet, she did not. Any assumption that Bellatrix would cut off her own hands for Voldemort is pure speculation with no definitive answer. For me, I think her adoration for Voldemort would have diminished quite a bit if he demanded she cut off her hands. She had a pride and vanity to her which I don't think would have lent itself to such a sacrifice. Only Wormtail was pathetic, humble and groveling enough to do it (not to mention that he already had experience in losing a body part). Just my opinion.


"You start with the premise of him being cowardly and seek evidence to support that premise."

Wrong. All evidence pointed to him being cowardly. He simply didn't do anything out of bravery.

The question isn't one of bravery but of loyalty. As I see it, Wormtail chose his loyalty long before, giving up all his established friendships in the process. That loyalty never flagged, in my opinion. And my opinion can't be "Wrong" any more than your opinion can be wrong. They are just opinions.


Why didn't Pettigrew go to him then? Because he was still safe. It was only after being outed by Sirius and Lupin did he try to find Voldy because his former friends wanted to kill him or turn him over to the authorities, who likely would have either imprisoned him or basically killed him. At that time, Pettigrew feared his former friends more than Voldy.

That's a theory. It's fine. I think there is more to it.






reply

Lucius did nothing to destroy Harry other than nearly using the AK curse on Harry, only to be stopped by Dobby, something he would never had told anyone else about. The plot to open the Chamber of Secrets was to kill Muggle-borns, humiliate Arthur Weasley, and get rid of Dumbledore as Headmaster.

Unnecessary nitpicking. All that Lucius did that you mention was in the positive service of Voldemort.

It’s not nitpicking it speaks to the heart of the issue; whether Lucius was acting in the service of Voldemort or serving his own interests.

Any assumption that Bellatrix would cut off her own hands for Voldemort is pure speculation with no definitive answer.

So is any is speculation that she wouldn’t. You can’t prove Wormtail was the most loyal based on the speculation that another wouldn’t have done the same thing.

reply

"One of the primary reasons Voldemort's "organization" was not successful."

How was it not successful? While Voldy was in charge and around, the DE organizations (both before and after his first "death") were hugely successful. They were immensely feared, particularly Voldy, to the point that the Ministry allowed Unforgiveable Curses to be used on them. The second incarnation took over the Ministry and only ended with Voldy's permanent death.

"All that Lucius did that you mention was in the positive service of Voldemort."

Lucius did nothing in the positive service of Voldy unless he was serving directly under Voldy. The second book was done solely for his own purposes, not in Voldy's service.

"Who did MORE than Malfoy? Fenrir Greyback perhaps? Goyle maybe? As far as I can see, only Wormtail rivaled Lucius Malfoy in loyalty to Voldemort during his absence."

Malfoy avoided Azkaban by denying Voldy. He said he had been imperiused and thus couldn't be held responsible for his actions. That was a weaseley way to get out of responsibility. Lucius did nothing in the ensuing years of absence. I can't see that either Greyback nor Goyle did anything in Voldy's absence either.

According to Voldy in GoF (pp 650-1) while looking upon the DEs who arived standing in their place in the circle: The Lestrnages should stand here" "But they are entombed in Azkaban. They were faithful. They went to Azkaban rather than renounce me...When Azkaban is broken open, the Lestranges will be honored beyond their dreams." He continued on, eventually coming upon a large gap, eventually talking about one more, whom we later learned was Crouch Jr :who remains myu most faithful servant, and one who has already reentered my service."

The difference between the loyalties of Pettigrew and Crouch Jr is that Pettigrew's loyalty came out of his cowardice while Crouch Jr's came from not only agreeing with Voldy but serving him with all his heart. Loyalty based on cowardice is not true loyalty.

"Before Voldemort had humiliated Wormtail, what transpired? Wormtail had bodily carried a nasty, helpless, fetal version of Voldemort and dumped him into a cauldron. How do you think Voldemort felt about being in THAT position?"

He couldn't help that. he was already in a weakened position but had to deal with it. After his return to power, he cared far more about how others treated him.

"I think her adoration for Voldemort would have diminished quite a bit if he demanded she cut off her hands."

And I disagree. She never did it because she was never given a choice.

"And my opinion can't be "Wrong" any more than your opinion can be wrong."

Your opinion isn't what I called wrong. It was your accusation that I started "with the premise of him being cowardly and seek evidence to support that premise." Now, the you could have been the general you, but it was wrong to attribute my perspective to beginning with the premise and only finding evidence to support that.

Bob

reply


It’s not nitpicking it speaks to the heart of the issue; whether Lucius was acting in the service of Voldemort or serving his own interests.

But I noted that, in my opinion, Malfoy's actions WERE in the service of Voldemort. If they were also in service of Malfoy's own interests, I don't see how that makes him disloyal.

To make the counterpoint for me, I would need to see it demonstrated that Malfoy deliberately worked in his own interest and against Voldemort's interest. If that can be demonstrated I could agree that he was disloyal.

Any assumption that Bellatrix would cut off her own hands for Voldemort is pure speculation with no definitive answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So is any is speculation that she wouldn’t. You can’t prove Wormtail was the most loyal based on the speculation that another wouldn’t have done the same thing.

But I am not trying to prove anything. I am just discussing my opinions. Some feel the need to tell me my opinions are wrong and to find evidence to prove my opinions are wrong and that I ought to throw out my opinions and adopt theirs, which they consider to be the only possible correct opinions.

It is their right to do this if they wish, but it is my right to prefer my own opinions to theirs, in most cases. Sometimes good evidence is brought up but most often I consider my own evidence to be more relevant than theirs. It is just a matter of opinion on which bits of the text or screen to pay more attention to.

reply

"One of the primary reasons Voldemort's "organization" was not successful."

How was it not successful? While Voldy was in charge and around, the DE organizations (both before and after his first "death") were hugely successful.

Exactly. Any organization which relies solely on a cult of personality for survival is doomed. Why? Because an individual is fallible, not-omniscient and will eventually die. (see Nazi Germany)

Voldemort tried to get around that issue by making himself immortal via horcruxes. Likely he didn't know that horcrux magic would allow for a 14 year hiatus in his rule as he was reduced to spirit form and required the help of others to recover from that. And of course, in the end, Voldemort proved mortal after all. I deduce from the epilogue that Voldemort's organization no longer exists when Harry Potter is a mature adult. If you disagree, I am interested in why you think so.

Lucius did nothing in the positive service of Voldy unless he was serving directly under Voldy. The second book was done solely for his own purposes, not in Voldy's service

I disagree. I think Lucius was being truthful in his assertion of his devotion to the "old ways", meaning the hey day of Voldemort's reign.


Malfoy avoided Azkaban by denying Voldy. He said he had been imperiused and thus couldn't be held responsible for his actions. That was a weaseley way to get out of responsibility.

You seem to think being "weaseley" (no pun intended, I assume) was something Voldemort didn't want in his followers. I disagree. I think he preferred weaseley, subservient, spineless followers over strong-willed, domineering types who might challenge his authority. Thus did he stomp any sense of pride or self-confidence out of any of his followers who dared show such behavior. Weasels like Wormtail and Malfoy were the gold standard for Voldy followers, hence their continued place of honor at his side.

"Before Voldemort had humiliated Wormtail, what transpired? Wormtail had bodily carried a nasty, helpless, fetal version of Voldemort and dumped him into a cauldron. How do you think Voldemort felt about being in THAT position?"

He couldn't help that. he was already in a weakened position but had to deal with it.

You are SO close! Your statement simply begs the question of HOW Voldemort dealt with being in such a previously fragile state? The answer is that he stomped and belittled the person who brought him out of fragility, to squeeze out any sense of complacency or pride in him.

"I think her adoration for Voldemort would have diminished quite a bit if he demanded she cut off her hands."

And I disagree. She never did it because she was never given a choice

While I think she was never given that choice because she wouldn't have done it. Neither would Lucius who was loathe to even give up his wand to Voldemort. Wormtail was chosen because he was more loyal and would be more willing to make a sacrifice like that.

Your opinion isn't what I called wrong. It was your accusation that I started "with the premise of him being cowardly and seek evidence to support that premise."

Why wouldn't you start with the premise he was cowardly? Voldemort says it, point blank. I started with that premise.



reply

If they were also in service of Malfoy's own interests, I don't see how that makes him disloyal.

Then, given everything you’ve said about Snape, would you say he was loyal to Dumbledor because he served him when their interests coincided?

To make the counterpoint for me, I would need to see it demonstrated that Malfoy deliberately worked in his own interest and against Voldemort's interest.

IMO it takes more that not working against someone to be loyal. During the final battle Malfoy is not even attempting to fight. He’s running through the crowd screaming for his son.


But I am not trying to prove anything. I am just discussing my opinions.

“Prove” was the wrong word, I spoke carelessly. What I should have said is much of what you say in support of your opinion is unproven theory or supposition.

Voldemort tried to get around that issue by making himself immortal via horcruxes.

IMO Voldemort did that because he wanted to live forever and be in power himself – not to get around that issue. I don’t think he cared about his organization beyond his own interests. He wouldn’t have cared about it going on without him.

I think Lucius was being truthful in his assertion of his devotion to the "old ways", meaning the hey day of Voldemort's reign.

Being loyal to Voldemort's ideals is not the same thing as being loyal to Voldemort himself.

The answer is that he stomped and belittled the person who brought him out of fragility, to squeeze out any sense of complacency or pride in him.

It’s easier to stomp on and belittle a person by attaching them at their weakest point than to say something that isn’t true. Wormtail’s weakest point is exactly what Voldemort accuses him of.

Why wouldn't you start with the premise he was cowardly? Voldemort says it, point blank.

Because when we first meet him in POA we know nothing about him, but then we learn he betrayed Harry’s parents to save his own skin and we see him grovel and beg, ect. All this comes before what Voldemort says.

reply

"Any organization which relies solely on a cult of personality for survival is doomed."

Voldy was far more than a cult of personality. He was the leader because he was the strongest and most powerful dark wizard. His followers came to him because they agreed with the ideology he espoused and saw him as a way to establish a regime to put those ideals into practice. It wasn't his personality that brought his followers to him.

"I deduce from the epilogue that Voldemort's organization no longer exists when Harry Potter is a mature adult."

That is because most of the followers who participated were dead or in Azkaban. The Order and DA won while the DEs lost. It is similar to what happened the first time Voldy disappeared. Also an issue is that there was a power vacuukm that no one else could fill. Voldy could easily control his followers but nobody else could.

The Order had a similar issue where they were far less powerful an organization without Dumbledore at the helm. Dumbledore knew everything that needed to be done and usually found the perfect person to do the job. Without him, the Order was slower on the uptake.

" I think Lucius was being truthful in his assertion of his devotion to the "old ways", meaning the hey day of Voldemort's reign."

Yes, he was true to the pureblood ideals, but he did nothing of worth without Voldy's instructions or leadership.

"think he preferred weaseley, subservient, spineless followers over strong-willed, domineering types who might challenge his authority. Thus did he stomp any sense of pride or self-confidence out of any of his followers who dared show such behavior."

That would have been a sure way to lose all battles. No one can run a successful organization, especially one that intended to take over the government, with weaselly subservient, spineless followers. An army of Wormtails and Malfoys would have easily been dispatched.

"The answer is that he stomped and belittled the person who brought him out of fragility, to squeeze out any sense of complacency or pride in him."

Wormtail had no complacency or pride in himself.

"Neither would Lucius who was loathe to even give up his wand to Voldemort."

No one volunteered their wand to Voldy. That makes them disarmed and worthless. Wormtail was chosen to sacrifice his hand because he was not worthy of doing anything else for Voldy and he was the only other person around who could help Voldy. Crouch Jr was given the esteemed role of mole at Hogwarts.

"Why wouldn't you start with the premise he was cowardly? Voldemort says it, point blank. I started with that premise."

What does Voldy have to do with it? I think for myself and saw the way Wormtail was portrayed in the books and movies. He was shown to be cowardly and disloyal.

Bob


reply

Then, given everything you’ve said about Snape, would you say he was loyal to Dumbledor because he served him when their interests coincided?

Yes, except for the times Snape acted in direct conflict with Dumbledore's agenda, like almost getting Harry killed at the wrong time (beginning of DH2).

If not for some electrical wires stopping Voldemort, Harry would have died before ever even hearing of the Deathly Hallows, giving him no chance to acquire the Elder Wand nor the Resurrection Stone and thus no chance for returning from death. Good for Snape, not good for Dumbledore (deceased) and Harry.

I'm not aware of Malfoy doing anything in direct contradiction to Voldemort's interests like that. But if so, then yes, that would be disloyal.

IMO it takes more that not working against someone to be loyal. During the final battle Malfoy is not even attempting to fight. He’s running through the crowd screaming for his son.

More loyal to his son than to Voldemort in the end? I agree. But earlier that was not the case. I don't think the Malfoys were happy about their son being chosen to attempt to kill Dumbledore but they grimly went along with it. I think the writers were trying to show some personal growth there at the end for the whole Malfoy family. Enough, apparently, to give Draco Malfoy a shot at a normal adult life.


“Prove” was the wrong word, I spoke carelessly. What I should have said is much of what you say in support of your opinion is unproven theory or supposition.

Of course. If all we were allowed to talk about was the obvious, bare bones, superficial details of Harry Potter, the conversation would quickly lose interest, at least for me.

A.B.: Harry's glasses were broken at the beginning of the first movie.
Tt: Yes, they were.
D.w.: But Hermione fixed them.

D.k: Yes, she did.

A.B. And the Weasleys had red hair.

Tt: Yes, yes, they did.


IMO Voldemort did that because he wanted to live forever and be in power himself – not to get around that issue. I don’t think he cared about his organization beyond his own interests. He wouldn’t have cared about it going on without him.

IMO if Voldemort had only wanted to live forever, he could have quietly done so and have nobody be the wiser. It was only that he kept trying to control everything and everyone, killing all those who opposed this, which drew the attention of his enemies which (ultimately) led to his downfall.

I think Lucius was being truthful in his assertion of his devotion to the "old ways", meaning the hey day of Voldemort's reign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being loyal to Voldemort's ideals is not the same thing as being loyal to Voldemort himself.

I'm not sure I agree, given that Voldemort wanted to control everything and that he wanted to do it forever. Eventually, if successful, Voldemort and his ideals would have been one and the same; everything to everyone.

Again, if Voldemort had just wanted to quietly live forever and not foist his ideals on everyone else, the story would be quite different.

The answer is that he stomped and belittled the person who brought him out of fragility, to squeeze out any sense of complacency or pride in him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s easier to stomp on and belittle a person by attaching them at their weakest point than to say something that isn’t true. Wormtail’s weakest point is exactly what Voldemort accuses him of.

As a general principle, that might be true. But I'm not so sure it is regarding Voldemort. For him, whatever he felt at the moment WAS true to him and he wanted to make sure it was also true for all his followers, who did not have the right to have their own feelings or beliefs. If Voldemort says you are disloyal, then you are disloyal. Doesn't matter what you actually did.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why wouldn't you start with the premise he was cowardly? Voldemort says it, point blank.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because when we first meet him in POA we know nothing about him, but then we learn he betrayed Harry’s parents to save his own skin and we see him grovel and beg, ect. All this comes before what Voldemort says.

Well, everything about him is rat-like of course. Can't escape that basic truth. A "rat" is a gangster term for someone who is disloyal and I assume Rowling meant the metaphor in that way.

Of course Pettigrew was disloyal to his Hogwarts friends and that is the basic essence of his character. His actions directly set up the Potters' death and Harry's orphaning, and thus the main premise of this whole series.

But I just don't see examples of him being clearly disloyal to Voldemort. If we had a scene where he offered up the body of fetal Voldemort to Dumbledore in exchange for immunity or protection, then yes. But we never get anything like that. And that's what I need. Otherwise I see his "disloyalty" as all in Voldemort's head.







reply

Yes, except for the times Snape acted in direct conflict with Dumbledore's agenda,

Then we have very different definitions of loyalty. I wouldn’t consider someone loyal to me if their interests just happen to coincide with mine.


If all we were allowed to talk about was the obvious, bare bones, superficial details of Harry Potter, the conversation would quickly lose interest, at least for me.

That’s not what I’m saying.

IMO if Voldemort had only wanted to live forever, he could have quietly done so and have nobody be the wiser.

Which is why I said “and be in power himself”

Eventually, if successful, Voldemort and his ideals would have been one and the same; everything to everyone.

Agreed but that’s a different thing than continuing to hate mudbloods but not doing anything toward bringing Voldemort back at the point in time we are talking about.

If Voldemort says you are disloyal, then you are disloyal. Doesn't matter what you actually did.

Taht's not what we see him do. He doesn’t, for example accuse Bellatrix of being cowardly or disloyal. He humiliates her by mocking her about her niece marrying Lupine.

reply

"if Voldemort had only wanted to live forever, he could have quietly done so and have nobody be the wiser."

Nobody would have been the wiser. His first mistake that led to his initial downfall was to misinterpret the prophecy and try to kill baby Harry. After that, Lucius' plan gave Dumbldedore the exact evidence to figure out that Voldy wanted to love forever.

Yes, had he never waged war against the normal way of life of the wizarding world, he would not have risked his life, but he apparently felt that he was immortal and powerful enough to deal with it. It's not that he wanted to control everyone and everything, it's that he wanted his own ideology to reign supreme.

Bob

reply

Voldy was far more than a cult of personality. He was the leader because he was the strongest and most powerful dark wizard. His followers came to him because they agreed with the ideology he espoused and saw him as a way to establish a regime to put those ideals into practice. It wasn't his personality that brought his followers to him.

Correction: Voldemort was the strongest, most powerful dark wizard THAT WE KNOW OF. There could have been dozens of secluded dark wizards who were much stronger but had no interest in being a well-known celebrity. It was Voldemort's narcissistic personality that demanded hordes of adoring followers and drove the storyline.


That is because most of the followers who participated were dead or in Azkaban. The Order and DA won while the DEs lost. It is similar to what happened the first time Voldy disappeared. Also an issue is that there was a power vacuukm that no one else could fill. Voldy could easily control his followers but nobody else could

Obviously. So in other words, Voldemort's organization was a cult of personality. You seem to think a "cult of personality" is defined ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY by personality and that such a leader cannot possess any other skills or abilities other than personality. This is not the case.

The Order had a similar issue where they were far less powerful an organization without Dumbledore at the helm. Dumbledore knew everything that needed to be done and usually found the perfect person to do the job. Without him, the Order was slower on the uptake.

But still functional. Certainly more functional than the Death Eaters were without Voldemort.

" I think Lucius was being truthful in his assertion of his devotion to the "old ways", meaning the hey day of Voldemort's reign."

Yes, he was true to the pureblood ideals, but he did nothing of worth without Voldy's instructions or leadership.

That sounds like a loyal follower to me.


"The answer is that he stomped and belittled the person who brought him out of fragility, to squeeze out any sense of complacency or pride in him."

Wormtail had no complacency or pride in himself.

He had a little. You can see it in his face when he is in a battle without Voldemort around. But I agree that the vast portion of Wormtail's sense of self-worth is tied up with Voldemort. Thus the basis for his loyalty.

No one can run a successful organization, especially one that intended to take over the government, with weaselly subservient, spineless followers.

It depends on how weaselly, subservient and spineless your opponent is. Consider: How was the Ministry of Magic, its leaders and its workers portrayed? Exactly so.

An army of Wormtails and Malfoys would have easily been dispatched.
And so it was.

Again, you are forgetting the other side of the equation- your opponent. Voldemort did his best to subvert his enemies and remove their sense of worth and effectiveness, in addition to cowing his own followers. Remember Voldemort's words to the remainder of Hogwarts followers in the final battle. His words were designed to sap their will to fight.

What does Voldy have to do with it? I think for myself and saw the way Wormtail was portrayed in the books and movies. He was shown to be cowardly and disloyal.

I see that side. But I see another side also.











reply

"Voldemort was the strongest, most powerful dark wizard THAT WE KNOW OF."

That should have been obvious. However, if you really want to get specific, Voldy was the strongest, most powerful dark wizard that Rowling wrote about and was written as being alive when her series took place.

"So in other words, Voldemort's organization was a cult of personality."

That description that I gave in no way deems the DE organization as a cult of personality. They were a terrorist group that did not match with cult of personality. Voldy may have matched it a little, but not mostly.

"Certainly more functional than the Death Eaters were without Voldemort."

The difference that I mentioned is that the DEs were mostly dead or arrested and had been defeated. No one who was powerful enough or wanted to risk the wrath of the Ministry dared come forward to lead the remnants. The Order without Dumbledore had not been defeated, but were just not as efficient without Dumbledore. They probably could have done better with Mad Eye, but he was killed soon after Dumbledore.

"That sounds like a loyal follower to me."

I never said Malfoy wasn't a loyal follower, just not one of the top two. Without Voldy, he did nothing to publicly further the cause of pure blood supremacy, which was his cause.

"I agree that the vast portion of Wormtail's sense of self-worth is tied up with Voldemort."

Wormtail's sense of self-worth was in whoever showed him they could protect him. His loyalty was not with Voldy, it was with his protector, whoever it may be. Had there been someone else who could have protected Wormtail from Voldy and his former friends, that person would have his loyalty.

"How was the Ministry of Magic, its leaders and its workers portrayed?"

Not as weaselly, subservient, spineless, followers/employees/leaders. The leaders were shown as inept and corrupt. The employees were mainly shown as hard-working, if mostly oblivious to the goings-on in the highest leadership, as most government workers are like.

"Voldemort did his best to subvert his enemies and remove their sense of worth and effectiveness,"

As the Order tried to do with the DEs as well. But that doesn't work too well. It didn't in the final battle. No one considered giving Harry up. But trying to get your own side to be spineless, and subservient would work too good and make you have a worthless army or any kind of organization unless you are a micro-manager, which Voldy was not.

Bob

reply

Then we have very different definitions of loyalty. I wouldn’t consider someone loyal to me if their interests just happen to coincide with mine.

For you, loyalty is proven when you work against your own interests?

Agreed but that’s a different thing than continuing to hate mudbloods but not doing anything toward bringing Voldemort back at the point in time we are talking about.

Unfortunately I've lost the point of what all this is about.

If Voldemort says you are disloyal, then you are disloyal. Doesn't matter what you actually did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taht's not what we see him do. He doesn’t, for example accuse Bellatrix of being cowardly or disloyal. He humiliates her by mocking her about her niece marrying Lupine.

I'll rephrase. I think Voldemort tries to hit his followers where they are weakest and likely to feel shame. He doesn't berate them for things that he, himself, really cares about.

In other words, I don't think Voldemort cares about Bellatrix's niece or would really have wished that Wormtail and Lucius acted any different than they did in his absence. He just wants all of them to feel bad about themselves. It makes getting a compliment from him such a prized nugget they would do anything for him, which is all he really wants.

reply

For you, loyalty is proven when you work against your own interests?

Of course not, like I said in another post, it takes MORE than serving a common interest not the opposite of serving a common interest. To me if someone is loyal it means I can trust them not to turn on me the moment there’s nothing in it for them. At the very least I can trust that they will talk to me when our interests are in conflict and try to work something out. If someone is working with me to destroy a common enemy but plans to turn on me the moment that enemy is destroyed I would call it a temporary alliance – not loyalty.

Unfortunately I've lost the point of what all this is about.

My point is that there is a difference between hating mudbloods and looking out for Voldemort’s best interest specifically at least during the point in time when Voldemort disappeared.


I'll rephrase. I think Voldemort tries to hit his followers where they are weakest and likely to feel shame. He doesn't berate them for things that he, himself, really cares about.

Agreed and IMO they are more likely to feel shame about something that is true.

I don't think Voldemort cares about Bellatrix's niece or would really have wished that Wormtail and Lucius acted any different than they did in his absence.

You don’t think he wouldn’t have wanted them to bring him back sooner?

reply

To me if someone is loyal it means I can trust them not to turn on me the moment there’s nothing in it for them.

By that definition I consider Lucius and Wormtail to be very loyal to Voldemort. They didn't turn on him ever, that I know of, though it might have been the smart thing to do at times. (Notably when Harry Potter resurrected. Poof, poof, poof, goodbye went so many Death Eaters. Not the Malfoys. They waited until the bitter, bitter end to leave Hogwarts.)

My point is that there is a difference between hating mudbloods and looking out for Voldemort’s best interest specifically at least during the point in time when Voldemort disappeared

With Voldemort gone and presumed dead forever, I don't see much difference. Aside from upholding elitist racist standards, what else COULD they do? I see Draco's eternal elitism and disgust for mudbloods to be the height of supporting Voldemort's ethos. And we know where Draco got it from.

I'll rephrase. I think Voldemort tries to hit his followers where they are weakest and likely to feel shame. He doesn't berate them for things that he, himself, really cares about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed and IMO they are more likely to feel shame about something that is true.

When it comes to "loyalty" I don't think there is any such thing as "truth". There are no numbers or scientific instruments which can be used to determine loyalty. It is entirely a matter of opinion. Look at how nebulous and difficult to define the concept has been on this board.

The only "truth" is the area each Voldemort follower happens to feel insecure about. Whatever it may be, I think that's what Voldemort attacks. Not one of them escapes his abuse (that we know of) and that says a lot to me about Voldemort's motivation for doing it.

If you are a Voldemort follower, you are going to be abused. The question isn't "if". The question is "about what"? And the answer is: "Whatever you feel most insecure about".

I don't think Voldemort cares about Bellatrix's niece or would really have wished that Wormtail and Lucius acted any different than they did in his absence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don’t think he wouldn’t have wanted them to bring him back sooner?

We are left in the dark regarding the details of Voldemort's resurrection. I know many seem to think the timing was purely a function of Wormtail's exposure as Scabbers and being scared of Lupin and Black but I don't agree.

My impression is that Voldemort was resurrected as soon as it was magically possible. Otherwise he would have been more specific in his condemnations: "Why didn't you boil eye of newt on Midsummer's Night Eve 12 years ago?" Etc.

My sense is that years of unknown "stuff" had to happen before that fetal thing was ready for resurrection. What "stuff" we simply are not told.


reply

By that definition I consider Lucius and Wormtail to be very loyal to Voldemort. They didn't turn on him ever, that I know of, though it might have been the smart thing to do at times.

But IMO they can’t be trusted not to. Lucius couldn’t even be trusted to keep the diary safe. He stuck it in a first years cauldron, where anything could have happened to it, to further his own ends.

(Notably when Harry Potter resurrected. Poof, poof, poof, goodbye went so many Death Eaters. Not the Malfoys. They waited until the bitter, bitter end to leave Hogwarts.)

They didn’t stay to help Voldemort they were looking for their son. They weren’t even trying to kill any of the defenders.

With Voldemort gone and presumed dead forever, I don't see much difference. Aside from upholding elitist racist standards, what else COULD they do?

But that’s the issue, his most loyal did not presume him dead. You said yourself in another post “What I see is Voldemort co-opting the racist, pure-blood, anti-Muggle sentiment prevalent in magical society as a way of drumming up followers.” Therefore it wouldn’t be of any use to Voldemort if the racisim continues after he is gone.


The only "truth" is the area each Voldemort follower happens to feel insecure about.

If it were not true that Bellatrix had a niece married to Lupin it would be absurd for Voldemort to say she does. Instead of being humiliated she would wonder what he was talking about. You can say that if it hadn’t mattered to her it would have mattered to Voldemort but that doesn’t make it untrue.

And the answer is: "Whatever you feel most insecure about".

Yes, and Voldemort’s most loyal follow is not likely to feel insecure about their own loyalty, a truly brave follower is not likely to feel insecure about their own cowardess. They are insecure about their weakest points the things they were likely hoping he wouldn’t see.

My impression is that Voldemort was resurrected as soon as it was magically possible. Otherwise he would have been more specific in his condemnations: "Why didn't you boil eye of newt on Midsummer's Night Eve 12 years ago?" Etc.

I don’t think it’s likely he would go into that kind of detail. But what could or could not have been done isn't the point. It's who sought him out and tried. Even if it wasn't magically possible to "resurect" how would anyone have known that in advance? Plus Quirll was able to serve him without making him a new body so if other followers had returned to him sooner they could have done the same. If Wormtail had been following Voldemort's orders by staying in hiding until the right time it would be a different thing but that's not what happens.

My sense is that years of unknown "stuff" had to happen before that fetal thing was ready for resurrection.

Do you mean that even the first rudimentary body couldn’t have been made until 13 or so years later?

reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Notably when Harry Potter resurrected. Poof, poof, poof, goodbye went so many Death Eaters. Not the Malfoys. They waited until the bitter, bitter end to leave Hogwarts.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


They didn’t stay to help Voldemort they were looking for their son. They weren’t even trying to kill any of the defenders.


in the film they didn't have wands so they couldn't go "poof" but they ran off as soon as they could. same difference.



Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

reply

Yes, had he never waged war against the normal way of life of the wizarding world, he would not have risked his life, but he apparently felt that he was immortal and powerful enough to deal with it. It's not that he wanted to control everyone and everything, it's that he wanted his own ideology to reign supreme.

I don't see evidence of that.

I see the opposite. What I see is Voldemort co-opting the racist, pure-blood, anti-Muggle sentiment prevalent in magical society as a way of drumming up followers.

Similar to Hitler who used inherent German prejudice toward tall, light-skinned, blue eyed "Aryans" and anti-Jewish/Gypsy sentiment as a way to drum up support for himself and his movement. Hitler couldn't really have espoused these racist rants seriously when he himself was of mixed parentage and likely had some jewish blood in him. Did he hate himself? Probably, but that's a psychology lesson for another day. The point is that Hitler loved power far more than he hated jews. The racial hatred was just a tool he used to get support.

To understand Voldemort in Harry Potter, you have to understand Hitler in the 30's and 40's. The parallel that Rowling created is not accidental.

reply

"Voldemort was the strongest, most powerful dark wizard THAT WE KNOW OF."
That should have been obvious.

Then I shouldn't have had to point it out.


That description that I gave in no way deems the DE organization as a cult of personality.

Of course. You are trying to argue the opposite, so you choose your words accordingly.

"That sounds like a loyal follower to me."
I never said Malfoy wasn't a loyal follower, just not one of the top two.

You won't say where he ranks. Top five? Top ten?

Voldemort has thousands of followers and to berate someone for only being in the top .1% of loyalty is ridiculous. I'm saying he only berates him to make him feel bad, not because he is truly disloyal or truly a disappointment.

If you are arguing that Lucius Malfoy is in the bottom 10% in loyalty, then you (and Voldemort) might have a point. But I think you'll have a difficult time demonstrating that thousands and thousands of Voldemort followers are all more loyal than Lucius Malfoy.

Wormtail's sense of self-worth was in whoever showed him they could protect him. His loyalty was not with Voldy, it was with his protector, whoever it may be. Had there been someone else who could have protected Wormtail from Voldy and his former friends, that person would have his loyalty.

Dumbledore was more powerful and more caring and protective than Voldemort. But Wormtail was not loyal to Dumbledore. Clearly Wormtail cozies up to power and evil more than safety and protection.

"How was the Ministry of Magic, its leaders and its workers portrayed?"

Not as weaselly, subservient, spineless, followers/employees/leaders.

I disagree. Arthur Weasley is a great case in point. He is meant to be likeable but still a weasel. Can't ignore Percy either. Clearly any backbone in the Weasley family comes from Molly.

Likewise Delores Umbridge showed more backbone than any of the actual Minsters of Magic, albeit in the service of evil. There is a fairly obvious pattern to be seen.

"Voldemort did his best to subvert his enemies and remove their sense of worth and effectiveness,"

As the Order tried to do with the DEs as well. But that doesn't work too well.

I think it worked very well. When Harry Potter "came to life", Death Easters started running away and deserting, left and right. I consider Dumbledore to be a member of The Order and it was his mechinations which allowed Harry Potter to resurrect. It was a telling blow to the Voldemort organization, made all the more impressive having come from beyond the grave.

No one considered giving Harry up.

Unlike Voldemort, Dumbledore and The Order didn't demand fearful, quivering subservience and obedience from their followers.

But trying to get your own side to be spineless, and subservient would work too good and make you have a worthless army or any kind of organization

Exactly my point and exactly what we see in Voldmort's organization. When Voldy first died, the organization fell apart, despite thousands of "loyal" followers. Only about ten, that we know of, remained loyal and dedicated in his absence.

14 years later, Voldemort comes back and bam! Only a couple years and he has thousands of followers again. But what happens when Harry Potter resurrects and Voldemort is proved fallible and ineffectual? Poof, poof, poof. Off they go again. Did Draco get his Death Eater tattoo surgically removed after Voldemort's (final) death? It seems likely.

It was a cult of personality which rose and fell almost entirely on the vicissitudes of Voldemort himself. Voldemort didn't build his organization with any options or strategies allowing someone to replace him in his leadership role. He planned to live forever. Therefore any leadership qualities in his followers had to be stamped out.

reply

"in the film they didn't have wands so they couldn't go "poof" but they ran off as soon as they could. same difference."

Narcissa had a wand. You can see it when Draco comes over to her.

Bob

reply

They didn't turn on him ever, that I know of, though it might have been the smart thing to do at times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But IMO they can’t be trusted not to

I don't see the basis other than Voldemort's accusations. If they HAD turned against Voldemort (as many did) you might have a point. It's almost like you think Snape was more loyal to Voldemort than these two. But I do understand and accept that it is IYO. I'm not insisting you change.

Lucius couldn’t even be trusted to keep the diary safe. He stuck it in a first years cauldron, where anything could have happened to it, to further his own ends.

I simply don't see it. It might have been a blunder, given Voldemort's spirit still survived. But with the assumption Voldemort was gone forever, I don't see the problem. Lucius was just striking a blow for the evil which Voldemort had stood for.

They didn’t stay to help Voldemort they were looking for their son. They weren’t even trying to kill any of the defenders.

Voldemort didn't want them to kill the defenders. He made it clear he thought the death of any magic person was a tragic waste (which may have been a lie, of course). Voldemort made it clear he just wanted Harry Potter dead and he insisted it had to be him who did it.

If you want to argue that Narcissa was disloyal to Voldemort in the end, there is no argument, whatsoever. She was. But with Lucius, I don't see it.

But that’s the issue, his most loyal did not presume him dead.

I don't know where you got this. I think they all thought he was (permanently) dead, like everyone else. All except Wormtail, Dumbledore (and probably Snape).

The only "truth" is the area each Voldemort follower happens to feel insecure about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it were not true that Bellatrix had a niece married to Lupin it would be absurd for Voldemort to say she does.

You are missing my point. I think the "truth" is that Bellatix was ashamed of her family and so Voldemort used it against her. The "truth" is that Voldmort personaly doesn't care a whit about Bellatrix's family. He cares about humble, shamed, subservient followers and keeping them that way.

Yes, and Voldemort’s most loyal follow is not likely to feel insecure about their own loyalty, a truly brave follower is not likely to feel insecure about their own cowardess.

I disagree. We are not dealing with the real world here. We are dealing with fictional characters.

Fictional, unequivocal villains (and Voldemort and his followers are surely that) cannot, by definition, really be "loyal" or "brave". Because loyalty and bravery are virtues, and cartoonish fictional villains like these cannot have ANY real virtues lest they be seen as less villainous.

So, when I say Wormtail was brave or that Lucius was loyal I mean that within the constraints of their basic villainous identity. As I see it, they were as brave and as loyal as their fictional villainous status would allow. Other villainous characters in Harry Potter were less loyal and less brave than these two.

Hopefully this clears up some misunderstanding.

But what could or could not have been done isn't the point.

I disagree. If you are berating someone for not doing the impossible then you aren't sincerely berating them. You just want them to feel bad.

Plus Quirll was able to serve him without making him a new body so if other followers had returned to him sooner they could have done the same.

Returned to him WHERE? Are you saying the means by which Quirrell acquired the spirit of Voldemort was common knowledge, available to everyone? I don't think that is the case.

If Wormtail had been following Voldemort's orders by staying in hiding until the right time it would be a different thing but that's not what happens.

I think it might be what happens. To receive orders from Voldemort after his death, you would have to know he was alive, at least in spirit, and be able to communicate with that spirit. Quirrell, of course does this. But I don't think Malfoy or other Death Eaters had the knowledge to do it.

I think perhaps (and I do mean maybe) Wormtail also was in communication with this spirit. I think it likely that Scabbers had a tendency to disappear for long periods of time from the Weasley home, off in Romania or wherever.

It is conjecture, based purely on the fact that Wormtail and only Wormtail seemed to have access to the fetal version of Voldemort. Somehow he (and only he) was able to infuse Voldemort's spirit into the fetal form. I don't see how all that could happen unless Wormtail was in communication with that spirit all along.

The idea that Wormtail deliberately ignored Voldemort for 14 years then suddenly showed up makes no sense to me. Why would he expect respect and praise and protection from a guy he had willfully ignored for that long?

Again, it is conjecture, but for me the only thing that makes sense is that Wormtail constructed the fetal thing himself (probably using Voldemort's spirit instructions) and it took 14 years to "ripen" or whatever before it was ready for Harry's blood and Wormtail's hand, etc.

Hopefully I don't have to explain why, in this scenario, Voldemort didn't gush over Wormtail and say, "Oh thank you, thank you ratboy, for your 14 years of dedicated service to my resurrection! Thank you for cutting off your hand. I appreciate it SO very much!".



reply

If they HAD turned against Voldemort (as many did) you might have a point.

The way I see it there are four options. 1: Support what is in Voldemort’s best interest at all times because you believe in Voldemort. 2: Support Voldemort ONLY when it serves one’s own purposes. 3: Do nothing. 4. Work against Voldemort
It is only people in category #1 that I would consider his “most loyal”. Just because I don’t consider those in category 2 or 3 his most loyal doesn’t mean I think those in #4 are.

It's almost like you think Snape was more loyal to Voldemort than these two.

I really don’t see how you could get that out of what I said but I hope what I said above clarifies my opinion.

But with the assumption Voldemort was gone forever, I don't see the problem.

The assumption is the problem.

I don't know where you got this. I think they all thought he was (permanently) dead, like everyone else.

They were on trail for torturing the Longbottoms in order to get information about Voldemort’s whereabouts so that they could restore him to power and Bellatrix was shouting about how he would rise again and reward the four of them who remained faithful. IMO that implies they don’t think he’s permanently dead.

Voldemort didn't want them to kill the defenders. He made it clear he thought the death of any magic person was a tragic waste (which may have been a lie, of course). Voldemort made it clear he just wanted Harry Potter dead and he insisted it had to be him who did it.

He said that when he gave them a chance to give up - they kept resisting. At the end those who were still with Voldemort were still fighting.

You are missing my point. I think the "truth" is that Bellatix was ashamed of her family and so Voldemort used it against her.

Yes, I believe I already agreed with that. Buy my point is there is enough fodder for him using things that actually happened or are already a personality trait of the person he is berating. He doesn’t need to create his own truth in order to make people feel ashamed. He can use what is already there.

I disagree. We are not dealing with the real world here. We are dealing with fictional characters.

That doesn’t mean they can’t be written realistically.

I disagree. If you are berating someone for not doing the impossible then you aren't sincerely berating them.

He berates them for not finding him. What would or would not have been possible after they found him is a different issue.

Returned to him WHERE? Are you saying the means by which Quirrell acquired the spirit of Voldemort was common knowledge, available to everyone? I don't think that is the case.

Not everyone, but if Wormtail and Crotch Jr. managed to find him I assume others of his inner circle could have.

Again, it is conjecture, but for me the only thing that makes sense is that Wormtail constructed the fetal thing himself (probably using Voldemort's spirit instructions) and it took 14 years to "ripen" or whatever before it was ready for Harry's blood and Wormtail's hand, etc.

If this were more than conjecture I would agree regarding Wormtail’s loyalty.

reply


The way I see it there are four options. 1: Support what is in Voldemort’s best interest at all times because you believe in Voldemort. 2: Support Voldemort ONLY when it serves one’s own purposes. 3: Do nothing. 4. Work against Voldemort
It is only people in category #1 that I would consider his “most loyal”.
For the sake of argument I can agree with your hierarchy. Our difference is that I don't think there ARE any Voldemort characters in category #1. I am assuming you think there are. Bellatrix and Crouch maybe? Hundreds of others perhaps? I disagree.

And since there ARE no category #1's in my opinion, I find category #2 members to be Voldemort's most loyal followers. To be a category #1 member you would have to be intensely loyal. And such loyalty is a virtue which, by definition, could never be found in (fictional) villains.

It's almost like you think Snape was more loyal to Voldemort than these two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don’t see how you could get that out of what I said but I hope what I said above clarifies my opinion.

I guess, in your scheme, Snape was partly category#2 and partly category#4.

Buy my point is there is enough fodder for him using things that actually happened or are already a personality trait of the person he is berating. He doesn’t need to create his own truth in order to make people feel ashamed. He can use what is already there.

I understand your point. My point is that Voldemort doesn't really care what is there. He just uses what is available to berate his followers. It is the berating which is important for him, not the subject matter. He just wants humble, ashamed followers.

He berates them for not finding him.

And what does he do to the one person who found him? He berates him for something else. Again, it is the berating that is important to Voldemort, not the subject of the berating.

Not everyone, but if Wormtail and Crotch Jr. managed to find him I assume others of his inner circle could have

Not if Wormtail (and Crouch) didn't want them to. I don't see them as a tightknit, highly cooperative group. Quite the opposite. I seem them all willing to screw each other over in hopes of gaining the greatest favor with Voldemort. And of course Voldemort encourages this and plays them against each other, never really letting any of them have his full, unconditional favor.


If this were more than conjecture I would agree regarding Wormtail’s loyalty.

Understood. But the theory that Wormtail hid for 14 years without giving a thought or any effort toward Voldemort doesn't make sense to me. So for me, this scenario is more than conjecture. For me it is "most likely".









reply

"Then I shouldn't have had to point it out."

You didn't have to point out that Voldy was the strongest, most powerful dark wizard THAT WE KNOW OF. I'm not sure what your point was in doing so.

"You are trying to argue the opposite, so you choose your words accordingly."

Explain to me how you feel Voldy and the DEs were cults of personality.

"You won't say where he ranks. Top five? Top ten?"

First, I am differentiating DEs from other followers of Voldy. The DEs were the ones who had the dark mark on their arms. I'm not sure how many there were, but I would put Lucius in the middle to bottom half of those DEs. Lucius was far more loyal to the ideology of pureblood supremacy than Voldy himself. Voldy for him was just a tool to bring about that ideology. This is why Lucius and others folded after Voldy's first death. They were more loyal to the ideology than to Voldy.

As for the other followers, I have no idea how they would have felt about being loyal to Voldy. It's more likely they were loyal to the ideology or loyal to a friend who invited him to battle. This is why they fled as soon as Harry came back.

"Dumbledore was more powerful and more caring and protective than Voldemort. But Wormtail was not loyal to Dumbledore."

Apparently, either Wormtail didn't think so or believed the DEs during the first war were more powerful than the Order and Ministry. After giving up the Potters, Wormtail hid from the world, possibly realizing he wouldn't be safe from his friends or members of the Order. Upon being exposed, Wormtail was probably scared about what Dumbledore would do to him as well (turn him in to the authorities for the murder of many Muggles when he faked his death), so he realized only VOldy could help keep him free.

"Arthur Weasley is a great case in point. He is meant to be likeable but still a weasel. Can't ignore Percy either. Clearly any backbone in the Weasley family comes from Molly."

How was Arthur a weasel? He was far from a pushover and showed his mettle. His weakness was working with Muggle technology and artifacts.

"Likewise Delores Umbridge showed more backbone than any of the actual Minsters of Magic, albeit in the service of evil."

I agree with that. She had her own agenda.

"I think it worked very well. When Harry Potter "came to life", Death Easters started running away and deserting, left and right."

There was a similarity with Voldy's comeback with the Order. The problem was that the Order had a harder time convincing others that they had to re-form and make sure they were on the right side (more than the Order members) while Harry's comeback happened in the middle of a battle.

"Unlike Voldemort, Dumbledore and The Order didn't demand fearful, quivering subservience and obedience from their followers."

So had they asked, the DEs would have given up Voldy?

Bob

reply


You didn't have to point out that Voldy was the strongest, most powerful dark wizard THAT WE KNOW OF. I'm not sure what your point was in doing so.


It was in response to this statement by you:

Voldy was far more than a cult of personality. He was the leader because he was the strongest and most powerful dark wizard.



Explain to me how you feel Voldy and the DEs were cults of personality.

I'm not sure I can explain it TO YOU since you are pre-disposed to NOT understand me and always seem to make a great effort to avoid doing so.

But for anyone else who is actually interested in understanding me, I call Voldemort's movement a "cult of personality" because it seems to me his followers are more interested in following Voldemort, the person, rather than promoting any ethos of ideas he may seemed to have been promoting.

Voldemort's followers needn't have stopped trying to kill Muggles and mudbloods after Voldemort disappeared, but they did. The puny Order Of the Phoenix didn't have enough members to stop thousands of dark wizards from willy nilly hiding behind bushes and zapping people with AK whenever they felt like it. They stopped because they had no leader. Hence a cult of personality rather than a cult based on principle.

First, I am differentiating DEs from other followers of Voldy. The DEs were the ones who had the dark mark on their arms. I'm not sure how many there were, but I would put Lucius in the middle to bottom half of those DEs

I think the ability to move around in a black puff of smoke is a better identifier since we weren't shown all their arms. Though probably more, there were at least a dozen. Could you really name six people who were demonstrably more loyal to Voldemort than Lucius Malfoy? I think it would be difficult. But perhaps you can prove me wrong. Who are the six?

Lucius was far more loyal to the ideology of pureblood supremacy than Voldy himself. Voldy for him was just a tool to bring about that ideology. This is why Lucius and others folded after Voldy's first death. They were more loyal to the ideology than to Voldy.

As for the other followers, I have no idea how they would have felt about being loyal to Voldy. It's more likely they were loyal to the ideology or loyal to a friend who invited him to battle. This is why they fled as soon as Harry came back.

You contradict yourself. If Lucius Malfoy was only loyal to ideology, he should have fled Hogwarts when Harry resurrected, with the others who were loyal only to ideology.

"Dumbledore was more powerful and more caring and protective than Voldemort. But Wormtail was not loyal to Dumbledore."

Apparently, either Wormtail didn't think so or believed the DEs during the first war were more powerful than the Order and Ministry.

Or he simply liked Voldemort more. That makes the most sense to me.


How was Arthur a weasel? He was far from a pushover and showed his mettle. His weakness was working with Muggle technology and artifacts.

He continued to work at the Ministry, knowing it was hopelessly corrupt and becoming anti-Dumbledore and anti-Harry Potter. Someone with more backbone and principles would have either walked away or actively sought to reform the Ministry from within. He kept his head down and did neither.

"Unlike Voldemort, Dumbledore and The Order didn't demand fearful, quivering subservience and obedience from their followers."

So had they asked, the DEs would have given up Voldy?

The DEs were not followers of Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix. They were enemies. Their "quivering subservience and obedience" was to Voldemort.











reply

"What I see is Voldemort co-opting the racist, pure-blood, anti-Muggle sentiment prevalent in magical society as a way of drumming up followers."

He didn't just use the ideology, he was a part of it. First, he was in Slytherin, whose members were most likely to believe in anti-Muggle sentiment. Second, he despised his Muggle father and his family to the point he killed them. I believe it was somewhere in HBP that said he likely originally felt his mother was the Muggle as she didn't survive childbirth. After he discovered the truth, it angered him o=on both sides of his family--his mother for abandoning him and his father for being a Muggle as well as abandoning his mother.

Voldy took to the pure-blood supremacy dieology because he believed in it. He hid his parentage and Muggle lineage from all his followers in part by creating the Voldemort moniker.

Hitler likewise was a rabid anti-Semite. Both did manage to use the popularity of their views to come to power.

Bob

reply

Hitler likewise was a rabid anti-Semite. Both did manage to use the popularity of their views to come to power.

In my opinion, the desire for power was far more important than anti-Semitism was for Hitler or anti-Mugglism for Voldemort.

reply

"It was in response to this statement by you"

Yes, but why did you have to be more specific by calling him the strongest and most powerful dark wizard in adding THAT WE KNOW OF? The part you added should have been obvious, but it was also stated that Voldy was the most powerful dark wizard alive then within the books and possibly the movies. In the last book, it was implied that he may have been more powerful than Gridnelwald was at his peak.

"I'm not sure I can explain it TO YOU since you are pre-disposed to NOT understand me"

No, I asked to better understand your position.

"Voldemort's followers needn't have stopped trying to kill Muggles and mudbloods after Voldemort disappeared, but they did."

You can't make that blanket statement. If, as you say, he had thousands of followers, you have to assume none of them ever killed Muggles or Muggle-borns in the thirteen years that Voldy was gone. There were none THAT WE KNOW OF, but it doesn't mean there were none. As for others, as I mentioned, many were more concerned about getting caught, something that was less likely when Voldy was around.

Lucius was one of the few that we heard about who did try things. The first was his plan to open the Chamber of Secrets (unknown if he planned to use Draco or how he planned to use the information). This was in order to kill Muggle-borns as well as get Dumbledore fired. Later, he and a number of other DEs tortured the Mr Roberts, the Muggle who managed the campgrounds, as well as his family.

"I think the ability to move around in a black puff of smoke is a better identifier since we weren't shown all their arms."

So only those who fled at the end of DHII were DEs? I doubt that. Only those who had the mark were DEs.

"Could you really name six people who were demonstrably more loyal to Voldemort than Lucius Malfoy?"

Within the books since the movies did not show enough:
Bellatrix, Rodolpho and Raastaban Lestrange, Barty Crouch Jr, Dolohov, Mulciber Jr. All of those were sent to Azkaban instead of pretending they were imperiused in order to avoid prison. Anyone who did that showed they were not loyal to Voldy, but were in it for themselves.

"Or he simply liked Voldemort more. That makes the most sense to me."

Could be, but that would then go to Wormtail suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome, where he goes back to his abuser.

"He continued to work at the Ministry, knowing it was hopelessly corrupt and becoming anti-Dumbledore and anti-Harry Potter."

Others who remained at the Ministry even after realizing they were corrupt: Dumbledore (except for book 5), Kingsley, and Tonks. How were they any different? Or are they also weaseley? He did work to try to reform the Ministry, but he wasn't close to being in any position of authority.

"The DEs were not followers of Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix. They were enemies. Their "quivering subservience and obedience" was to Voldemort."

So why did you tell me that the Order didn't demand such behaviour in their members when I said that no one considered giving Harry up?

Biob


reply


Yes, but why did you have to be more specific by calling him the strongest and most powerful dark wizard in adding THAT WE KNOW OF?

Because your position relies entirely on Voldemort being the most powerful wizard in existence which is a false premise.

My position is that Voldemort got where he is by being both powerful and desiring followers. To become like Voldemort (or Hitler) you have to have both qualities. And Voldemort did.

"I'm not sure I can explain it TO YOU since you are pre-disposed to NOT understand me"
No, I asked to better understand your position

That doesn't mean you really want to. You have had a very long time and very many opportunities to understand me. You have failed every single time. This demonstrates lack of desire.

You can't make that blanket statement. If, as you say, he had thousands of followers, you have to assume none of them ever killed Muggles or Muggle-borns in the thirteen years that Voldy was gone.

Of course I can make that blanket statement. Wizards are inherently superior to Muggles in many ways. They could walk around killing every Muggle they saw and there would be little that Muggles could do to stop them. Thousands of them doing that every day would soon leave very few Muggles on the planet. Since, after 14 years, there remain billions of Muggles on earth with no hint of genocide, we may conclude that, Voldemort's thousands of followers didn't continue to kill Muggles at their capacity to do so.

Lucius was one of the few that we heard about who did try things.

Yes, he did, demonstrating he was one of Voldemort's most loyal followers. I'm glad you finally understand this. (or will you fail again?)

All of those were sent to Azkaban instead of pretending they were imperiused in order to avoid prison. Anyone who did that showed they were not loyal to Voldy, but were in it for themselves.

Only if you believe Voldemort and think he was an honest and truthful person. Deeds matter more than words. And lying to the Ministry so as to remain free to continue to operate under Voldemort's "old ways" is more loyal than sheepishly allowing yourself to be herded to prison where you can't do anything in the service of Voldemort.

Try to think of it this way: If ALL Voldemort's followers had willingly gone to prison, including Lucius and Wormtail, what would that mean for Voldemort? Spending eternity as a weak spirit. Voldemort never being restored to full power. How is willingly allowing THAT to happen a show of loyalty? It isn't.

Do you understand that? Or have you failed once again to understand me? Nobody is asking you to agree. Simply to understand. Are you capable?


"Or he simply liked Voldemort more. That makes the most sense to me."

Could be, but that would then go to Wormtail suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome, where he goes back to his abuser.


You are not understanding Stockholm Syndrome correctly. But that is the right idea regarding Wormtail. He obviously preferred to be abused and ridiculed by Voldemort over being treated well by Sirius, James, Remus, Dumbledore, etc.

This is not "Stockholm Syndrome" which refers specifically to kidnapping and hostage victims and only occurs within the period of captivity. Wormtail was never kidnapped by Voldemort against his will or anything like that.

I have met numerous people like Wormtail in my life. I don't know if there is a scientific name for their condition but I call them "ladder people". Ladder people are those who cannot comprehend the idea of other people being treated as equals. To a "ladder person" everyone else in the world is either above them and deserving of kissing their feet or below them and deserving of a kick in the head. For such people being social involves either giving or receiving abuse with "friendship" being a foreign concept. There may even be such ladder people to be found on IMDb.

Others who remained at the Ministry even after realizing they were corrupt: Dumbledore (except for book 5), Kingsley, and Tonks. How were they any different?

Dumbledore was not a minister of Magic. He was Headmaster of Hogwarts. The others were Aurors, who, like IA in a police department, have the job of investigating corruption. That is how these characters were different than Arthur Weasley who was weaseley and thus given that name.

"The DEs were not followers of Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix. They were enemies. Their "quivering subservience and obedience" was to Voldemort."

So why did you tell me that the Order didn't demand such behaviour in their members when I said that no one considered giving Harry up?

Voldemort demanded quivering subservience from his followers. The Order Of the Phoenix did not demand quivering subservience from its members. I can't explain it any simpler nor clearer than that.

If you are going to continue to say you can't understand the simplest ideas I mention, then I think the time for ending discussion has come.







reply

Only if you believe Voldemort and think he was an honest and truthful person. Deeds matter more than words. And lying to the Ministry so as to remain free to continue to operate under Voldemort's "old ways" is more loyal than sheepishly allowing yourself to be herded to prison where you can't do anything in the service of Voldemort.


They went to prison because they were looking for him and trying to restore him to power. Nothing sheepish about that. They tried to help him immediately, Lucius never even tried to look for him.

Dumbledore was not a minister of Magic. He was Headmaster of Hogwarts. The others were Aurors, who, like IA in a police department, have the job of investigating corruption. That is how these characters were different than Arthur Weasley who was weaseley and thus given that name.


Again, Dumbledore wanted Arthur to keep his job. There's nothing Arthur could do to change the Ministry's view. He wasn't a respected employee and nobody seemed to take him seriously at work. Dumbledore was taking care of trying to get the Ministry to see that Voldemort was back.

reply

They went to prison because they were looking for him and trying to restore him to power.

Others here disagree with you. They say that these people went to prison for their past allegiance to Voldemort and past evil deeds done and for refusing to renounce him and blame the Imperius curse for their past allegiance.

You say they were imprisoned for continuing to seek Voldemort after his death. I guess you guys can hash it out among yourselves.

Again, Dumbledore wanted Arthur to keep his job.

It wouldn't be the first or only time Dumbledore made a morally questionable decision in my opinion.

reply

Others here disagree with you. They say that these people went to prison for their past allegiance to Voldemort and past evil deeds done and for refusing to renounce him and blame the Imperius curse for their past allegiance.

You say they were imprisoned for continuing to seek Voldemort after his death. I guess you guys can hash it out among yourselves.


Other people are wrong, as are you. Bellatrix and her family were captured for torturing the Longbottoms into insanity to try and find out information on Voldemort's location. No opinion or debate. That's a fact. Saying otherwise is easily proven wrong. Book 4 and movie 4. Reread and rewatch if you struggle to remember facts.


It wouldn't be the first or only time Dumbledore made a morally questionable decision in my opinion.


Then the blame of Arthur working there still is with Dumbledore. He's the leader of the Order, and I don't recall a single member of the order besides Snape every questioning a single thing Dumbledore said. Even people like Lupin did anything he did without question.

reply

Other people are wrong, as are you. Bellatrix and her family were captured for torturing the Longbottoms into insanity to try and find out information on Voldemort's location.


I don't know who bsharporflat thinks is disagreeing with you but I said the same thing about why Bellatrix and the others were in Prison.

reply

'Because your position relies entirely on Voldemort being the most powerful wizard in existence which is a false premise."

No it didn't. You chose to read into my words what you wanted despite what I actually wrote.

" You have had a very long time and very many opportunities to understand me. You have failed every single time. This demonstrates lack of desire. "

It represents a desire to understand better your analysis. That you choose to make false claims against my intentions says a lot about you.

"Of course I can make that blanket statement. Wizards are inherently superior to Muggles in many ways. They could walk around killing every Muggle they saw and there would be little that Muggles could do to stop them."

So tell me what every follower of Voldy was doing while he was gone. You seem to know what Voldy's followers were doing if you can make the blanket statement that they stopped attacking Muggles. Fact: they are fictional people so maybe in your imagination, they suddenly became law abiding citizens.

You are also assuming that thousands of wizards attacked Muggles while Voldy was in power. The first Wizarding war took place over about 11 years but Voldy was in power for longer than that. Did The UK lose hundreds of thousands of Muggles every year during the 70s?

"demonstrating he was one of Voldemort's most loyal followers."

But Lucius didn't do this for Voldy but for the cause of pure blood supremacy. I am not sure why you can't separate being loyal to a cause and being loyal to a person. Voldy would never have wanted Lucius to misuse his horcrux diary the way he did.

"Deeds matter more than words. And lying to the Ministry so as to remain free to continue to operate under Voldemort's "old ways" is more loyal than sheepishly allowing yourself to be herded to prison where you can't do anything in the service of Voldemort."

Who sheepishly allowed themselves to be arrested? They simply were arrested, likely after putting up a fight. Those who lied to stay out of prison did so not to stay in Voldy's good graces or stick to the "old ways" but to keep themselves out of prison. They had no idea that Voldy was still alive so why would they feel the need to stay in his good graces?

"Do you understand that? Or have you failed once again to understand me?"

Insults are a sure sign of weakness. Keep it up.

"You are not understanding Stockholm Syndrome correctly. But that is the right idea regarding Wormtail."

Which is why I didn't call it definitely Stockholm Syndrome, but a form of it. I am not sure if there is a term for what I was thinking, the preference to return to an abuser over being free. But the idea that Wormtail went back to Voldy because Wormtail liked him is not my conclusion. I already told you that I look at it as Wormtail seeking protection from the only person he feels can best do so.

"Dumbledore was not a minister of Magic. He was Headmaster of Hogwarts."

Dumbledore was the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, the high court in Britain's wizarding government. He was temporarily relieved of his duties during Fudge's misinformation campaign against him and Harry. It was likely he was reappointed after Fudge was forced to step down as Minister.

"The others were Aurors, who, like IA in a police department, have the job of investigating corruption. That is how these characters were different than Arthur Weasley who was weaseley and thus given that name."

The name of Weasley was given to the family because Rowling likes weasels. But what did Arthur do at the Ministry that you didn't like? Arthur was responsible for the Muggle Protection Act in the Summer of the second book, which was why raids at houses were being conducted and why Lucius was at B&B to sell some of his artifacts. That office was not seen as a great job and had only two people in it. He was later placed in the Office for the Detection and Confiscation of Counterfeit Defensive Spells and Protective Objects under Scrimgeour. That office was in the Law Enforcement Office like the Auror office.

"Voldemort demanded quivering subservience from his followers. The Order Of the Phoenix did not demand quivering subservience from its members."

I disagree with the former. But again, it doesn't explain your answer.

I said: "No one considered giving Harry up."
Your response to that cited quote was: "Unlike Voldemort, Dumbledore and The Order didn't demand fearful, quivering subservience and obedience from their followers."
I then asked, with the supposition that the Order had demanded the DE give up Voldy, if they would since you are saying that they were quivering subservience from his followers. If the Order would have given up Harry had they been treated thusly, why not the DEs?

Bob

reply

That is how these characters were different than Arthur Weasley who was weaseley and thus given that name.


The name is misleading he stood up to the guy Harry was impersonating at a time when it was dangerous to do so. He’s on Dumbledore’s side even when that puts his job in jeopardy.

reply

He continued to work at the Ministry, knowing it was hopelessly corrupt and becoming anti-Dumbledore and anti-Harry Potter. Someone with more backbone and principles would have either walked away or actively sought to reform the Ministry from within. He kept his head down and did neither.


So did Kingsley and Tonks. Dumbledore wanted them to stay at the Ministry. If they were praising Dumbledore and Harry publicly, they'd get fired. Sirius says this. They can't afford to lose their jobs because they need to know what's going on in the Ministry.

And in Deathly Hallows, it would have been stupid to publicly stand against Voldemort once he took over. The family was being watched, and any sign of fighting Voldemort would get his family murdered.

reply

They can't afford to lose their jobs because they need to know what's going on in the Ministry.

So they were working as spies? Not the noblest profession. But I suppose working against evil by lying and sneaking is better than working with evil.


And in Deathly Hallows, it would have been stupid to publicly stand against Voldemort once he took over. The family was being watched, and any sign of fighting Voldemort would get his family murdered.

Sounds like the same excuse guards at Nazi concentration camps used to justify remaining at work and continuing to do evil and exterminate jews.

If you choose to support your family by doing evil that's your choice. But don't expect me to respect and praise your choice.

reply

So they were working as spies? Not the noblest profession. But I suppose working against evil by lying and sneaking is better than working with evil.


Everyone knew Arthur was with Dumbledore already, he was hardly a spy. But since Voldemort had people in the Ministry, yes I think it's important the Order has people too to make sure they know what's going on. If all the order members stand against the ministry publicly, they have no idea what's going on.

Sounds like the same excuse guards at Nazi concentration camps used to justify remaining at work and continuing to do evil and exterminate jews.

If you choose to support your family by doing evil that's your choice. But don't expect me to respect and praise your choice.


Ohhh so Arthur was helping to kidnap and torture and murder Voldemort's enemies and muggle borns? Wait, he wasn't? Yeah, thought so. Therefore, your comparison is worthless. No, he wasn't like the Nazis.

reply

Other people are wrong, as are you.

"Wrong" is such a harsh, disrespectful term to use about other people. Not very nice at all.

I can't be wrong since I have no opinion. And couldn't others be right that Lucius Malfoy also committed crimes but avoided Azakaban because he claimed he was under the Imperious curse?

Why do you have to be right and everyone else be wrong? Why can't everyone be right?

It wouldn't be the first or only time Dumbledore made a morally questionable decision in my opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the blame of Arthur working there still is with Dumbledore. He's the leader of the Order, and I don't recall a single member of the order besides Snape every questioning a single thing Dumbledore said. Even people like Lupin did anything he did without question

Unquestioning obedience seems an obviously terrible thing to me. Who is so perfect in their knowledge and authority that they can never be questioned? God maybe?

Voldemort wanted to be treated like God but I don't think Dumbledore did. We see Snape argue with and question Dumbledore quite a bit. Maybe I am wrong.

But perhaps you are wrong about this. Do at least consider the possibility.

reply

Wrong" is such a harsh, disrespectful term to use about other people. Not very nice at all.

I can't be wrong since I have no opinion. And couldn't others be right that Lucius Malfoy also committed crimes but avoided Azakaban because he claimed he was under the Imperious curse?

Why do you have to be right and everyone else be wrong? Why can't everyone be right?


So when someone is wrong, it shouldn't be pointed out? You're like a child. There is no debating about why Bellatrix is in prison. We know why she is. It's not something that's hinted at or we're just led to believe. It'd actually stated. She had her family and Crouch tortured the Longbottoms to find information on Voldemort. Saying they're in prison for another reason, and not that reason, is wrong. No big deal, people make mistakes. You do seem to make a lot of them though.

reply

So when someone is wrong, it shouldn't be pointed out?

I think it depends on the circumstances. If someone was on stage singing "Ain't No Mountain High Enough", would it be appropriate to stop the performance and correct their wrongful use of English?

You are going to have to decide for yourself when it is appropriate to correct people and when it is not. You can't rely on me to do that for you.

The real question is whether YOU appreciate it when someone corrects YOU. Isn't that something you think mature adults should welcome? You can't make other people act like adults but you can make yourself act like an adult. So shouldn't you focus your attention on correcting yourself, not others?

There is no debating about why Bellatrix is in prison. We know why she is.

That is rather arrogant. Perhaps you missed something that these other people have caught. Wouldn't it be more mature to explore this possibility rather than just dismiss it.

It'd actually stated. She had her family and Crouch tortured the Longbottoms to find information on Voldemort

That may be true. But I don't remember that being in the Harry Potter movies, which is what we are discussing. Perhaps I missed it.

But perhaps there is more that other people heard that you missed.

Saying they're in prison for another reason, and not that reason, is wrong.

You are getting confused. Just because there might be another reason doesn't mean that your reason is wrong. Two things can BOTH be right, can't they?

No big deal, people make mistakes. You do seem to make a lot of them though.

Sometimes I make mistakes, but not in this case. Other people have cited reasons for Bellatrix to be in prison other than the one you mention. That is a simple fact and there is no debating it. It can be found in various quotes in IMDb, if you care to check.

If you think they are wrong and want to correct them and tell them the right way to think, you'd be better off addressing them directly, rather than indirectly through me.


reply

You are the one and only person who has said anything about them being in prison for any reason other than torturing the Longbottoms. You keep saying other people have said that, and yet interestingly I don't see anyone saying anything like that. Where have you seen these posts? On this thread? On the board? In your head?

People have been discussing the books and the movies constantly, using both to make points. So saying the movies are the only thing being discussed now is ridiculous when the books have been discussed over and over on here. Regardless, in the movies Karkaroff gives up Crouch for torturing the Longbottoms in movie 4 during the pensive scene, and in movie 5 Neville explains thay is why Bellatrix is in prison. They were captured and sentenced to Azkaban for torturing the Longbottoms into insanity to find information on Voldemort. That is just a fact.

Wouldn't it be more mature to just admit you and others made a mistake and they were sent to prion for that specific crime?

reply

You are the one and only person who has said anything about them being in prison for any reason other than torturing the Longbottoms.

I assure you that several poster on this board have said that they were in prison because they refused to disavow Voldemort and pretend they were under the Imperius curse, like Lucius Malfoy. Others have argued this made Lucius less loyal to Voldmort, while I feel it made him more loyal. You are off on some tangent of your own and not really a part of the discussion.

People have been discussing the books and the movies constantly, using both to make points. So saying the movies are the only thing being discussed now is ridiculous when the books have been discussed over and over on here.

Saying the books are the only thing being discussed is even more ridiculous. This is IMDb and the M stands for "Movie".

Regardless, in the movies Karkaroff gives up Crouch for torturing the Longbottoms in movie 4 during the pensive scene, and in movie 5 Neville explains thay is why Bellatrix is in prison. They were captured and sentenced to Azkaban for torturing the Longbottoms into insanity to find information on Voldemort. That is just a fact.

If you want to argue that Lucius Malfoy didn't disavow Voldemort and didn't claim he was under the Imperius curse, that is your business. I really don't care. Your argument is with these others, not me.

Wouldn't it be more mature to just admit you and others made a mistake and they were sent to prion for that specific crime?

Of course not. Simple minded, single level answers such as you present are immature, in my opinion. I find it quite plausible that if they had claimed they were under the Imperius curse when they committed their crimes, they could have avoided prison just like Lucius Malfoy. If you find that idea impossible, and that excuse could only work for Malfoy, that's your business. I think the whole thing is silly and pointless and not worthy of discussion.



reply

"They say that these people went to prison for their past allegiance to Voldemort and past evil deeds done and for refusing to renounce him and blame the Imperius curse for their past allegiance."

Who is this "they" you are referring to on these boards and "these people" in referring to the wizards and witches?

There were a lot of people who were taken to Azkaban due to their past deeds while in service to Voldy. Bella, Rodolphus, Rastaban, and Barty Crouch Jr were arrested and sent to prison for the torture of the Longbottoms first and foremost. The authorities knew who did it because Igor Karkaroff told the Wizengamot about it.

Bob

reply

'Because your position relies entirely on Voldemort being the most powerful wizard in existence which is a false premise."

No it didn't. You chose to read into my words what you wanted despite what I actually wrote.

Voldemort's organization was based on his skills as a wizard, his personality or both. You claimed it was entirely due to his skills. I say it was both. We are both entitled to our opinions.

It represents a desire to understand better your analysis.

Perhaps you are being honest. But your failure to understand most of the time calls that into question.

"Of course I can make that blanket statement. Wizards are inherently superior to Muggles in many ways. They could walk around killing every Muggle they saw and there would be little that Muggles could do to stop them."

So tell me what every follower of Voldy was doing while he was gone.

You do not understand the meaning of the term "blanket statement". It means a statement which broadly covers the subject. You wrongly interpret it to mean a specific, individualized understanding of each minute element of the subject. It doesn't.

Magical society was in complete disarray when Voldemort ruled. When he died, it went back to the way it had been before, for the most part. That is the blanket statement which covers what Voldemort's followers did after his death. They went back to doing whatever they were doing before he arose.

But Lucius didn't do this for Voldy but for the cause of pure blood supremacy. I am not sure why you can't separate being loyal to a cause and being loyal to a person.

You can be loyal to both. And when the person dies, your only choice is to remain loyal to the cause. Lucius did this. Bellatrix did not. I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding this.

Voldy would never have wanted Lucius to misuse his horcrux diary the way he did.

If that's what he REALLY wanted, he would have explained the nature of the diary to Lucius who would then have treated it properly. Lucius used the book in the service of Voldemortian evil the best way he could think of in Voldemort's absence. If he misused it, the fault was entirely Voldemort's .

Can you think of any reason Voldemort might have preferred to be dishonest and blame Lucius instead? I think you can. If you are honest.

Who sheepishly allowed themselves to be arrested? They simply were arrested, likely after putting up a fight. Those who lied to stay out of prison did so not to stay in Voldy's good graces or stick to the "old ways" but to keep themselves out of prison.

Incorrect. It would be impossible for them to serve the cause of Voldemort or stick to the "old ways" living in Azakaban. If Wormtail and Lucius had consented to go to prison, Voldemort would have remained a spirit.

You seem to think "honesty" is a virtue in Voldemort's organization and that Bellatrix and others being honest about their love for Voldemort was a "good" thing in Voldemortian morality. It wasn't. Honesty is a bad thing among Voldemort followers. Lying and deceiving is a good thing to them. Lucius was loyal to this. Bellatrix was not. She loved him and followed her heart, both of which are anti-Voldemort behaviors.

You are thinking of Voldemort like Christ, and when Peter denies him three times it is a bad thing. Voldemort is like the anti-Christ so denying him to the enemy is a good thing. That's how I see it. I don't see why you are trying to change my mind. I find your position unsupported.

"Do you understand that? Or have you failed once again to understand me?"
Insults are a sure sign of weakness. Keep it up.

Do you mean "weakness" as an insult?

There is no insult in my post. Only a question, which you refuse to answer. Why are you afraid to answer "Yes, I understand" or "No, once again I do not understand".? How much more simple can it get?

Check out my discussions with teatat. Numerous times I have said "I don't understand" and then teatat explains, and then I do understand. This is the way adults have a discussion.

I am not sure if there is a term for what I was thinking, the preference to return to an abuser over being free. But the idea that Wormtail went back to Voldy because Wormtail liked him is not my conclusion. I already told you that I look at it as Wormtail seeking protection from the only person he feels can best do so.

You clearly do not understand this sort of person, even though millions of them exist in the real world. It is perfectly possible and even frequent that a person enjoys abusive behavior more than kind behavior toward themselves.

I'm beginning to think I suffer from this syndrome in continuing the discussion with such an abusive, derisive sneering person who has no respect for me as a person.

The name of Weasley was given to the family because Rowling likes weasels.

Not surprising. So many of her characters fit the description.

I then asked, with the supposition that the Order had demanded the DE give up Voldy, if they would since you are saying that they were quivering subservience from his followers. If the Order would have given up Harry had they been treated thusly, why not the DEs?

I still don't understand what you are talking about.

If the Order of the Phoenix had demanded that the Death Eaters surrender Voldemort to them, they would have refused because they lived in quivering subservience to Voldemort.

When Voldemort demanded that Hogwarts and Phoenix Order members surrender Harry Potter to them, they did not because they were loyal to Harry and loyal to their principles. Not because they lived in quivering subservience to Harry Potter.









reply

"Voldemort's organization was based on his skills as a wizard, his personality or both. You claimed it was entirely due to his skills. I say it was both."

I did not claim it was only his skills. I said his followers came to him because they agreed with the ideology he espoused and saw him as a way to establish a regime to put those ideals into practice. Voldy's strength and organization skills led him to be the leader. His personality was far more important to his inner circle, but even then, he used fear far more than anything else. I doubt he was a pleasant person to be around.

"But your failure to understand most of the time calls that into question."

You again are confusing misunderstanding with disagreement. I understand everything you write here. Sometimes, I prefer to have you clarify certain aspects of what you are arguing so I can make sure we are on the same page. You, on the other hand, falsely accuse me of saying things I haven't said or even implied.

"Magical society was in complete disarray when Voldemort ruled. When he died, it went back to the way it had been before, for the most part."

That I would agree. But you did make a blanket statement when you said "Voldemort's followers needn't have stopped trying to kill Muggles and mudbloods after Voldemort disappeared, but they did." You stated that his followers stopped killing Muggles. That statement which broadly covers the subject. All I ask is where you got the information that they did stop attacking and killing Muggles and Muggle-borns.

"You can be loyal to both. And when the person dies, your only choice is to remain loyal to the cause. Lucius did this. Bellatrix did not."

How did Bella not stay loyal to the cause? Just because she was caught and thrown in Azkaban that means she no longer is loyal to the cause? So only when she got out was she loyal to the cause again? That is a powerful prison if it can make someone not loyal to a cause. The difference between Lucius and Bella is that while Lucius turned his back on Voldy by acting as if he was imperiused in order to stay out of prison, Bella and her cohorts actively sought to find what happened to Voldy and were arrested for the torture of the Longbottoms in trying to find that information.

"If that's what he REALLY wanted, he would have explained the nature of the diary to Lucius who would then have treated it properly."

Voldy didn't tell anyone about having horcruxes. Maybe that was a bad thing, but I am fairly sure he told Lucius that to safeguard the diary with his life or something similar to that. Still, Lucius knew it contained information on opening the Chamber of Secrets and could communicate with other people. That alone should be enough for him to want to safeguard it. Instead, soon after he finds this out, he gives it to an eleven-year-old girl with no guarantee that she would do anything with it.

"Can you think of any reason Voldemort might have preferred to be dishonest and blame Lucius instead?"

Voldy had no reason to be dishonest with Lucius. Lucius' actions got the diary (his first horcrux) destroyed, all because he got rid of it instead of keeping it in his possession and safe.

"If Wormtail and Lucius had consented to go to prison, Voldemort would have remained a spirit."

Lucius did nothing to bring Voldy back. Had he gone to Azkaban, nothing would have been different other than he wouldn't have screwed up by giving Voldy's diary away, thus putting Dumbledore on the track to realizing that Voldy had horcruxes. Staying out of prison allowed for the final death of Voldy. As for Wormtail, it is possible had Sirius killed him or sent to Azkaban, Voldy would still have risen, just later. Crouch Jr may have been able to escape his father as he did once.

"You seem to think "honesty" is a virtue in Voldemort's organization and that Bellatrix and others being honest about their love for Voldemort was a "good" thing in Voldemortian morality."

This is a ridiculous statement and shows me that you don't care to understand me. However, with Voldy being able to read most other people's minds, honesty is important as failure to be honest with Voldy if he knows otherwise would lead to painful consequences.

"You clearly do not understand this sort of person, even though millions of them exist in the real world. It is perfectly possible and even frequent that a person enjoys abusive behavior more than kind behavior toward themselves."

You clearly did not understand what I wrote again. I know there are people who go back to their abusers. This is why I brought up Stockholm Syndrome, which is associating with one's kidnapper or captors. There is a similar psychological issue going on with the abused going back to their abusers. In this case, it is due to being beaten down psychologically but also associating with their abusers, sometimes almost romanticizing them.

But again, I also stated that I don't think this was why Wormtail went back to Voldy. As I said, he went back to Voldy because he felt only Voldy could keep him safe from both his former friends and from staying out of prison. He is putting his own safety above everything else, including loyalty.

Regarding the surname Weasley, according to the Weasley family harrywhikia page, she stated about the weasel: "In Britain and Ireland the weasel has a bad reputation as an unfortunate, even malevolent, animal. However, since childhood I have had a great fondness for the family mustelidae; not so much malignant as maligned, in my opinion."

This description does describe the Weasley family: maligned. Arthur's views on Muggles held his career back and kept them poor.

"I still don't understand what you are talking about. "

Go back and reread the relevant part of the past messages that led up to this discussion. It seemed like you stated the reason that no one gave up Harry was because Dumbledore didn't "demand fearful, quivering subservience and obedience from their followers." That made me wonder if you figured that people who demanded fearful, quivering subservience and obedience from their followers would have given up someone at their enemy's insistence.

The relevant posts really start on p 13 here with my post on May 18, usually the last paragraph in each post.

Bob

reply

His personality was far more important to his inner circle,

I'm glad you have amended your opinion and understand why Voldemort's organization can be considered a cult of personality.

[quotehe used fear far more than anything else. I doubt he was a pleasant person to be around.][/quote]
You are still not comprehending that some people enjoy being cowed and bullied and prefer an unpleasant leader. I doubt it will help your understanding but such people generally consider kindness a weakness and pleasantness to be fake. They prefer "strong" leaders who "keep it real".

You again are confusing misunderstanding with disagreement.

I post on this board to mention my perspective on the Harry Potter story as seen in the movies. I have no intention of trying to make anyone agree with me.
That is idiotic and certainly not my goal.

Either you understand me or you do not. End of discussion.

Voldy had no reason to be dishonest with Lucius. Lucius' actions got the diary (his first horcrux) destroyed, all because he got rid of it instead of keeping it in his possession and safe.

Safe from what? Without being told it was a horcrux there was no reason to keep a book of blank pages "safe". The fault was entirely Voldemort's who dishonestly blamed Lucius.

As for Wormtail, it is possible had Sirius killed him or sent to Azkaban, Voldy would still have risen, just later.

Possible but unlikely. Therefore Wormtail did the right thing for Voldemort by staying out of prison, making Voldemort's return a 100% certainty.

"You seem to think "honesty" is a virtue in Voldemort's organization and that Bellatrix and others being honest about their love for Voldemort was a "good" thing in Voldemortian morality."

This is a ridiculous statement and shows me that you don't care to understand me.

I understand you. You do not understand Voldmort. Dishonesty and deceit are his central characteristics but you mistakenly find him to be honest and trustworthy.

You clearly did not understand what I wrote again. I know there are people who go back to their abusers.

You are easy to understand. Even when you get things wrong, as in this case. You fail to recognize that Voldmort's followers do not consider him "abusive". He is the sort of leader they prefer. If they wanted "honest" and "kind" and "trustworthy" they would have picked Dumbledore as their leader.

It seemed like you stated the reason that no one gave up Harry was because Dumbledore didn't "demand fearful, quivering subservience and obedience from their followers." That made me wonder if you figured that people who demanded fearful, quivering subservience and obedience from their followers would have given up someone at their enemy's insistence.

Apologies. It appears I do not possess the intelligence to make sense of this paragraph. It reads like gibberish to me.

Once again, I will try to explain that I think the Hogwarts crowd did not give up Harry Potter when demanded because they were loyal, brave and noble as Rowling wanted us to think of them. They are motivated by doing the "right" thing.

Voldemort's followers were quivering, subservient servants. They are not motivated by "right" and "wrong". They don't even understand those concepts. For them there is simply attempting to please Voldemort in any way possible. That is their motivation. Which is why it is a cult of personality.




reply

You are easy to understand. Even when you get things wrong, as in this case. You fail to recognize that Voldmort's followers do not consider him "abusive". He is the sort of leader they prefer. If they wanted "honest" and "kind" and "trustworthy" they would have picked Dumbledore as their leader.


Thank you for proving what an enormous hypocrite you are. You criticize me for pointing out when you and others are proven wrong and claim it's arrogant and a bunch of other nonsense in your little rant, and yet here you tell someone else they're wrong. And that they fail to recognize something.

Clearly you are more than willing to tell someone else they're wrong, but hate being called wrong by someone else. So you rant and rave about how mean and unnecessary it is to say someone is wrong to cover it. Hypocritical at its finest.

reply

Clearly you are more than willing to tell someone else they're wrong, but hate being called wrong by someone else.

You miss the irony.

And you are wrong. I love being called wrong by someone else. I welcome it. When have I ever said otherwise?

Anyway, I thought you were mature. How can you continue to wallow in the mud like a child? Did you miss the part about trying to improve yourself, which you COULD do, rather than try to improve other people which you CANNOT do. Why beat your head against a wall? Why not do something productive with your life which you are actually capable of doing? Why waste time trying to accomplish the impossible?

I don't. I would never try to advise someone else how to live their life or how to improve themselves. You should do the same.

reply

The name is misleading he stood up to the guy Harry was impersonating at a time when it was dangerous to do so. He’s on Dumbledore’s side even when that puts his job in jeopardy.

I'm not really serious about the name.

And Arthur Weasley is a good guy. He has his moments. But it seems to me his spine is as flexible as his namesake and his wife "wears the pants" in their family, to borrow a phrase. If there is an iron will and stiff backbone in this family it belongs to the distaff side (Ginny included). The guys tend to be more wambly and/or fun-loving sorts.

reply

Everyone knew Arthur was with Dumbledore already, he was hardly a spy. But since Voldemort had people in the Ministry, yes I think it's important the Order has people too to make sure they know what's going on. If all the order members stand against the ministry publicly, they have no idea what's going on

It has been discussed on this board before. Some people feel spying is a noble profession. I think it involves a life of lying and deceit and is, therefore, an ignoble way to spend your life.

We are all entitled to our opinion on this subject.


Ohhh so Arthur was helping to kidnap and torture and murder Voldemort's enemies and muggle borns? Wait, he wasn't? Yeah, thought so. Therefore, your comparison is worthless. No, he wasn't like the Nazis.

What was he doing? Accounting? It takes money to hire people like Delores Umbridge doesn't it?

In my opinion it doesn't matter HOW you help evil. What matters is simply knowing you are helping evil and continuing.

reply

I assure you that several poster on this board have said that they were in prison because they refused to disavow Voldemort and pretend they were under the Imperius curse, like Lucius Malfoy. Others have argued this made Lucius less loyal to Voldmort, while I feel it made him more loyal.


That’s not quite what was said. I did say Lucius is less loyal (IMO) because he claimed he was under the Imperius curse but I also said that the Lestranges and Crotch Jr. still believed Voldemort would come back and were still looking for him. Part of that was torturing the Longbottoms, which is what they were convicted for. They aren’t mutually exclusive ideas they are part of the same thing.

I find it quite plausible that if they had claimed they were under the Imperius curse when they committed their crimes, they could have avoided prison just like Lucius Malfoy.


The difference is they tortured the Longbottoms after Voldemort had disappeared, just when people were feeling safe again. When Voldemort disappeared those who had been under the Imperius curse were freed and the Malfoy’s claimed to be among them. It wouldn’t work as an excuse for crimes committed later.

reply

They aren’t mutually exclusive ideas they are part of the same thing.

Of course.

But the black night guy feels they can only be in prison for the reason he thinks matters and all others chains of causality are null and void topics of conversation because he didn't think of them.


The difference is they tortured the Longbottoms after Voldemort had disappeared, just when people were feeling safe again. When Voldemort disappeared those who had been under the Imperius curse were freed and the Malfoy’s claimed to be among them. It wouldn’t work as an excuse for crimes committed later.

The Imperius curse ends when the person casting it dies? I can accept that as a likely theory.

Still, it all seems off-topic. None of this convinces me that Lucius and Wormtail are disloyal, faithless followers as Voldmort pretends to accuse them of being.

reply

"I'm glad you have amended your opinion and understand why Voldemort's organization can be considered a cult of personality."

You can see them as a cult of personality, I don't. People followed Harry and Dumbledore due to their personalities as well, but the Order and DA were not cults of personalities.

"You are still not comprehending that some people enjoy being cowed and bullied and prefer an unpleasant leader."

This is not how I view The DEs. They are all strong-willed people with the exception of Wormtail. They do not enjoy being bullied or cowed by an unpleasant leader. They were not spineless subservient people. Narcissa alone showed she was strong-willed, defying Voldy twice, first by having Snape protect Draco in HBP and then by lying to his face that Harry was dead. Would Voldy had allowed her to be so strong-willed had he demanded such spineless subservience?

"Either you understand me or you do not. End of discussion."

Take your own advice. Don't accuse me of misunderstanding you or the characters or plots of the series. Disagreements are different than misunderstandings, a concept you continue to confuse.

"You fail to recognize that Voldmort's followers do not consider him "abusive". He is the sort of leader they prefer."

The discussion of Stockholm Syndrome and victims going back to their abusers was about your idea that Wormtail went back to Voldy because Wormtail liked Voldy. I disagreed with it, but went with the concept of what Wormtail's psychology would have to be to think like that. I do not think the DEs or Voldy's other followers consider Voldy to be an abuser. His other followers barely see him while the DEs just view him as their leader.

"It appears I do not possess the intelligence to make sense of this paragraph. It reads like gibberish to me."

I'm sorry you can't make sense of what you wrote as well. I told you to refer to the preceding discussions as I did to figure out where we went wrong. I encourage you to do it, too.

"I think the Hogwarts crowd did not give up Harry Potter when demanded because they were loyal, brave and noble as Rowling wanted us to think of them. They are motivated by doing the "right" thing."

They didn't give Harry up because they knew it was the right thing to keep him alive. The students who stood up to protect Harry when pansy suggested turning in Harry were not all loyal, brave, and noble. They just understood that sending someone to their death was wrong. The Order and DA didn't because they were friends of Harry's. I don't see that Dumbledore demanded of his Order members bravery or nobility. Loyalty, yes.

Harry didn't demand any of those except for loyalty to the DA during his fifth year, although it was really Hermione who set up the group while Harry was the teacher within it. Hermione did demand loyalty.

"Voldemort's followers were quivering, subservient servants. They are not motivated by "right" and "wrong". They don't even understand those concepts."

And this is where I vehemently disagree with your characterization of the DEs. They would never have been any kind of effective army had they been quivering subservient followers.

Bob

reply


You can see them as a cult of personality, I don't.

Yep. That is the bottom line and it took much too long to get there.


This is not how I view The DEs.

Right. It is how I view them.

Again, that is the bottom line and it took far too long to get there.

The students who stood up to protect Harry when pansy suggested turning in Harry were not all loyal, brave, and noble. They just understood that sending someone to their death was wrong

Yes, they understood that was wrong. AND then they DID the right thing, even though they knew it endangered their lives. Which makes them loyal, brave and noble.

The Order and DA didn't because they were friends of Harry's. I don't see that Dumbledore demanded of his Order members bravery or nobility. Loyalty, yes.

Harry didn't demand any of those..

Exactly. Now you are starting to understand. If you are only loyal, brave and noble because someone insists you act that way, then you are not really loyal, brave nor noble. The true version of such qualities can only come from within.

In contrast, Voldemort's followers acted the way they did because it was demanded of them. They are not truly loyal, brave or noble. Thus, any discussion of loyalty among Death Eaters must be engaged with a different set of standards than when discussing loyalty among Phoenix Order types.

Discussing Death Eater loyalty as though it were the same thing as Phoenix Order loyalty is doomed to failure. They aren't the same things.


And this is where I vehemently disagree with your characterization of the DEs.

You are free to do so.

They would never have been any kind of effective army had they been quivering subservient followers.

They were not an effective army. They were pathetic. They had vastly greater numbers on their side and they had the most powerful wizard on their side and they failed.

It took them a long time to break into Hogwarts. They fell for Neville's trick on the bridge. They failed to find or capture Harry Potter. And they deserted at the first sign that their leader was fallible. Truly pathetic.




reply

"That is the bottom line and it took much too long to get there."

The conclusion that you saw the DEs as a cult of personality and I didn't was evident in my first message to you when you mentioned it. Just because I disagreed with you and provided my own ideas did not change that conclusion.

"they understood that was wrong. AND then they DID the right thing, even though they knew it endangered their lives. Which makes them loyal, brave and noble."

I wouldn't call them loyal necessarily simply for not turning Harry in. They had lived a horrific year at Hogwarts and knew this was their time to truly be able to rebel. That can make them brave, but noble is also a bit much.

"Now you are starting to understand. If you are only loyal, brave and noble because someone insists you act that way, then you are not really loyal, brave nor noble. The true version of such qualities can only come from within."

And the DEs were loyal and brave (in general) because they wanted to be, not because they had to be. We don't know what Dumbledore would have done had someone in his organization been disloyal, but we do know what Hermione did, and she did so without telling anyone what would happen if they failed the DA. Voldy would kill anyone, but notably, in both the first war and second war, Voldy had three whose loyalty changed that we know about (not counting in between the wars). They were Regulus, Snape, and Narcissa, none of whom Voldy even knew had left his ranks. The Order had one that we know about, Pettigrew (originally thought to be Sirius).

Quivering, subservient followers would never have defected or changed loyalties. They would not have been able to do so.

"They were not an effective army. They were pathetic. They had vastly greater numbers on their side and they had the most powerful wizard on their side and they failed."

Voldy didn't fight with them for the most part . He stayed behind and let the others fight. But they were effective. They would have lost the battle quickly had they been quivering, subservient followers

"It took them a long time to break into Hogwarts. They fell for Neville's trick on the bridge. They failed to find or capture Harry Potter."

It didn't take too long. I found the movie imagery to be idiotic and too cliched, but ultimately, not too long to get past the shields. Neville didn't have any tricks. He knew the enemy had to cross the bridge where he was but couldn't due to the shields so he taunted them and then got caught too close when they shields came down. He had to run away from them rather than safely destroy the bridge from the other side.

As for finding Harry, there were a lot of people in Hogwarts, most of whom were putting up a spirited fight and they had to find one person in a large castle.

Bob

reply

"they understood that was wrong. AND then they DID the right thing, even though they knew it endangered their lives. Which makes them loyal, brave and noble."

I wouldn't call them loyal necessarily simply for not turning Harry in.

I said they were loyal because they didn't turn Harry in even though it endangered their live. The facing danger part also makes them brave and noble.

Quivering, subservient followers would never have defected or changed loyalties. They would not have been able to do so.

They would if they saw their "invincible" leader humbled and thwarted. And they did.

"They were not an effective army. They were pathetic. They had vastly greater numbers on their side and they had the most powerful wizard on their side and they failed."

Voldy didn't fight with them for the most part . He stayed behind and let the others fight.

Hence they were pathetic. (except maybe the trolls)
They would have lost the battle quickly had they been quivering, subservient followers

They did.

Thousands of Voldemites were tasked with storming a school and capturing one teenager. They failed.

Neville didn't have any tricks. He knew the enemy had to cross the bridge where he was but couldn't due to the shields so he taunted them and then got caught too close when they shields came down. He had to run away from them rather than safely destroy the bridge from the other side.

Did any Voldemites die? If so, Neville's trick worked.

As for finding Harry, there were a lot of people in Hogwarts, most of whom were putting up a spirited fight and they had to find one person in a large castle.

It was thousands against dozens. The Voldemites had overwhelming numbers but failed because they were so pathetic.

reply

But the black night guy feels they can only be in prison for the reason he thinks matters and all others chains of causality are null and void topics of conversation because he didn't think of them.

Let me try saying this a different way:
When I hear someone say a person is in prison for a particular reason. I take that to mean that is the crime they were tried, convicted and sentenced for.

So when you say
several poster on this board have said that they were in prison because they refused to disavow Voldemort and pretend they were under the Imperius curse, like Lucius Malfoy.


I think, “No they were in prison for torturing the Longbottoms” (In other words the crime was torturing the Longbottoms.)

Now, if I understand you correctly you are saying they could have avoided prison if they had told the same lie Malfoy did, therefore they are in prison for not telling the lie. If that is your point, I see what you are saying (and maybe they could have avoided prison that way it depends weather they were believed) but they didn’t try it so we don’t know. But then we could also say they are in prison because they don’t know how to turn into rodents, or they are in prison because they didn’t commit suicide, or they are in prison because they weren’t able to do a mass memory charm, disaparate to Mexico ect, ect.

This may sound like splitting hairs but IMO it’s misleading to give any of these ways they didn’t avoid prison as the reason they are in. It’s like a person whose fingerprints were found on a murder weapon saying “I’m in prison for not wearing gloves.” In a way it’s true (maybe)but it makes it sound as if not wearing gloves is the crime, and whose to say that if they had warn gloves they wouldn't have been caught another way? Do you see what I mean?

If I understand Dark-knight correctly all he or she is saying that the crime Bellatrix and the others were tried, convicted and sent to Azkaban for is torturing the Longbottoms. (And hopefully he or she will correct me if I misunderstand.)

The Imperius curse ends when the person casting it dies? I can accept that as a likely theory.

I thought I’d read that but I can’t find the reference so maybe it is only a theory.

Still, it all seems off-topic.

I thought it was an interesting tangent but we certainly don’t have to talk about it if you don’t want to.

reply

The Imperius curse ends when the caster can no longer maintain it. There is no one way for that to happen. Harry was able to completely throw it off (eventually) on his own (against fake Moody and Voldermort). Crouch Jr. overcame the Imperius curse cast by his dad. At Gringots, the "Thief's Downfall" washed it away. When Voldermort was defeated the first time, people came out of their trances (aka, the Imperius curse, some real some faked).

So bottom line, there is no one way. But death would probably be the ultimate way; how can the caster maintain a spell when the caster is dead?

reply

Thousands of Voldemites were tasked with storming a school and capturing one teenager.


Where are getting that there were thousands? I'm not disagreeing I'm just curious were your info came from.

reply

Let me try saying this a different way:
When I hear someone say a person is in prison for a particular reason. I take that to mean that is the crime they were tried, convicted and sentenced for.

Yes, of course I understand that. That narrow perspective is surely what was trapping that Black Knight guy into his limited point of view.

But the question- "Why is he in prison?" has many answers, depending on the person asking the question and the prisoner in question.

Why was Nelson Mandela put in prison for 30 years? Because he was linked to terrorist bombings? Because he represented the leadership of a political organization devoted to ending Apartheid? Because somebody ratted him out? Because he wasn't sufficiently careful and walked into a government trap/sting operation? Because even in prison he refused to disavow his dedication to racial equality? Because the world was pushing for his release and the government of South Africa didn't want to bow to outside pressure?

Of course all of those statements are true and to simply pick one and say all the others are false is a way of avoiding the whole truth rather than understanding the whole truth.

That was the problem with dark knite's rant. He wasn't trying to increase understanding of the situation with Lucius Malfoy. He was trying to decrease understanding.

reply

Where are getting that there were thousands? I'm not disagreeing I'm just curious were your info came from.

From the hillside scene outside Hogwarts. They look to be the size of a mid-large outdoor concert crowd to me. 5-10,000

Not Woodstock (400,000) but not merely hundreds either.

reply

"I said they were loyal because they didn't turn Harry in even though it endangered their live. The facing danger part also makes them brave and noble."

The reasons for not turning Harry in is vital. Did they not turn him in due to associating with Harry or for their own reasons? The former is loyalty, the latter isn't. Similarly, the reasons for facing danger is important in deciding if it is noble.

"They would if they saw their "invincible" leader humbled and thwarted. And they did."

This is why I said not to look at the between-war period. Regulus found his leader was invincible and felt he had gone too far, so he sought to destroy his horcrux (the only one he knew about). That does not sound like a quivering,spineless follower. Snape changed as soon as his beloved was threatened by his boss. As I mentioned before, I don't think Snape ever had any true loyalty toward Voldy or the DEs. His loyalty was to Lily's safety.

Narcissa was never a DE, but rather just a follower, but her loyalty was to her family and at the time, all she cared about was Draco's safety. Voldy and the cause of pureblood supremacy be damned.

"Thousands of Voldemites were tasked with storming a school and capturing one teenager. They failed."

They failed that aspect, but they didn't lose quickly as I stated. Had they lost the battle, there would have been nobody left to fight at the end.

"Did any Voldemites die? If so, Neville's trick worked"

What trick? If it was the destruction of the bridge, that wasn't Neville's idea. It was McGonagall's with Seamus in charge of it. If it was tricking them onto the bridge, that wasn't a trick, as I mentioned, Neville was taunting them and was caught on the bridge when they were able to storm it.

"It was thousands against dozens."

I would say thousands against hundreds, but again, it was a large castle with great fighters on Harry's side, including the statues.

Bob


reply


The reasons for not turning Harry in is vital. Did they not turn him in due to associating with Harry or for their own reasons?

I think for those in Gryffindor it was for Harry. He was an upperclassman, the knew him, lived with him and would have good reason to want to save him just because they wanted to save their friend. Same for Luna.

Perhaps some others in Ravenclaw calculated the cost/benefit and decided it was in their best interest to not turn Harry in. Perhaps some others in Hufflepuff decided to not turn Harry in because it was the right thing to do. But I think the majority of the school rallied around Harry to save him, more than to save their own skins.

Regulus found his leader was invincible and felt he had gone too far, so he sought to destroy his horcrux (the only one he knew about). That does not sound like a quivering,spineless follower. Snape changed as soon as his beloved was threatened by his boss. As I mentioned before, I don't think Snape ever had any true loyalty toward Voldy or the DEs. His loyalty was to Lily's safety

Exactly. Voldemort's tricks didn't work on these two and they were both disloyal. His tricks did work on others such as Wormtail and the Malfoys and despite Voldemort's mistreatment of them, they remained loyal to him (except Narcissa in that one moment).

They failed that aspect, but they didn't lose quickly as I stated. Had they lost the battle, there would have been nobody left to fight at the end

How is an army of thousands against dozens going "lose quickly"? Anything other than a swift victory must be considered a loss, given such a mismatch of numbers.

What trick? If it was the destruction of the bridge, that wasn't Neville's idea.

You obviously know what trick. You are just playing dumb again. Someone else planned it and Neville carried it out. So what. You knew exactly what "trick" I was talking about but pretended you didn't. You apparently just like to argue and you don't care what the subject might be. You actually go on hunting trips for petty things to argue about, pretending you are dense.

"It was thousands against dozens."

I would say thousands against hundreds,

I don't find that arguing over which exponential advantage Voldemort's army had to be worth discussing.

it was a large castle with great fighters on Harry's side, including the statues.

Voldemort's trolls were far more effective than the statues. But Voldmort still lost. His army sucked, because they were working against the author and that's a battle they could never, ever win.





reply

"I think for those in Gryffindor it was for Harry. He was an upperclassman, the knew him, lived with him and would have good reason to want to save him just because they wanted to save their friend"

That would apply to those in Harry's and Ginny's classes primarily. The youngest member of the DA was Dennis Creevey (Nigel in the movies) who was three years behind Harry. I would suggest that most of the Gryffindors who stood to protect Harry in DH barely knew him, if at all, and most were merely housemates (fellow Gryffindors). When we take it farther to the other houses, even fewer would have personally known him outside of his class.

I find the others who didn't know Harry were more loyal to the cause than to Harry and they didn't turn in Harry partly because it would be wrong to do so as well as not wanting to help or capitulate to Voldy, knowing how the previous year had been on them.

"Voldemort's tricks didn't work on these two and they were both disloyal. His tricks did work on others such as Wormtail and the Malfoys and despite Voldemort's mistreatment of them"

If he turned them all into spineless, quivering followers, why didn't it work on those two before the war? What was special about them? Wormtail was already a spineless quivering coward only out for himself so he changed sides when he felt Voldy's side was stronger. The Malfoys were already ready to turn after Voldy abused them. Instead of turning them into spineless quivering followers, they turned rebellious, especially Narcissa.

"Anything other than a swift victory must be considered a loss, given such a mismatch of numbers."

Taking a castle is very difficult.

"You obviously know what trick."

Have you actually stated what trick you are referring to? I inquired about it being to lure them onto the bridge. If so, I disagreed that it was a trick. If it was not Neville attempting to lure them, please elucidate me on what trick you are referring to. Why wasn't Neville on the other side of the bridge with everyone else so that they could safely detonate the bridge? If the plan was to have someone on the bridge when it was detonated, that was a horrible plan.

"Voldmort still lost. His army sucked, because they were working against the author and that's a battle they could never, ever win."

The author didn't have the "300" like battle of the overwhelming force being beaten by the smaller army. The two sides were far more equal in numbers and the DEs did a better job. Voldy's far superior army was a movie issue so they lost because the filmmakers chose it to be so.

Bob

reply

That would apply to those in Harry's and Ginny's classes primarily. The youngest member of the DA was Dennis Creevey (Nigel in the movies) who was three years behind Harry. I would suggest that most of the Gryffindors who stood to protect Harry in DH barely knew him, if at all

Perhaps your experience in school was very distant, cold and impersonal. In most schools people have a sense of community with the other students and have a sense of knowing everyone, even if they have never actually spoken. Just walking the same halls and seeing others in the cafeteria, on the basketball court or on stage in a play develops a sense of camaraderie. In most American schools, when a student dies it affects the whole school. And this isn't a public school where you go home each evening. They lived, ate and slept together 24/7. But if you never felt any bond with schoolmates it makes sense you would have a different perception.

"Voldemort's tricks didn't work on these two and they were both disloyal. His tricks did work on others such as Wormtail and the Malfoys and despite Voldemort's mistreatment of them"

If he turned them all into spineless, quivering followers, why didn't it work on those two before the war? What was special about them?

Good question I guess. Answer however you like. The fact remains that they were special and most of Voldemort's followers were to fearful, subservient and/or adoring to be disloyal.

Taking a castle is very difficult.

It certainly was for a crappy army like Voldemort's. Hardly a disciplined, well trained, battle-hardened unit. Voldemort was many things, but a great military general he was not. But, of course he didn't mind wasting any number of his followers. That's why he sucked. He demanded loyalty of others be he was not loyal to any of them.

The author didn't have the "300" like battle of the overwhelming force being beaten by the smaller army.

The larger army won. But not because they were a highly skilled, highly trained, disciplined military force. They stunk it up, big time.



reply

"In most schools people have a sense of community with the other students and have a sense of knowing everyone, even if they have never actually spoken."

In the last book, about one-seventh of the students had never met Harry as they were first years when Harry hadn't been in school. Outside of Quiddich and the DA, the younger the students are from Harry, the less they will have had a chance to know him. Yes, they knew about him, but Harry kept to a very small group of people he hung out with. He was not eager to befriend everyone or as gregarious as the twins.

Knowing someone is much different than knowing about someone. Most of those who stood up to protect Harry would have been in the latter group who may have viewed him more like an actor or musician-- as an idol. This is why I said they were likely to be loyal to Harry's cause, but not specifically to Harry himself. In order to be loyal to someone, you have to know them.

By the way, when I was in high school, a girl in the grade above me died. I was saddened about the death, but she was a stranger to me so I wasn't that affected.

"most of Voldemort's followers were to fearful, subservient and/or adoring to be disloyal."

I would never say Bella was a quivering fearful subservient follower of Voldy's. She was strong-headed and a fiercely loyal supporter of Voldy who viewed him in more favor than her husband. I think most of the DEs were the same without necessarily finding him more in favor than their spouses.

"Hardly a disciplined, well trained, battle-hardened unit. Voldemort was many things, but a great military general he was not."

His group wasn't meant to be an army. It was meant to be a gang of domestic terrorists. Of course, the Order and DA also were not an army. they were a mishhmsh of aurors, students, and various others. But they were in the defensive position of a defensible castle.

"The larger army won. But not because they were a highly skilled, highly trained, disciplined military force"

I got that aspect wrong with "300" but the point was that was the image the filmmakers wanted to show--an overwhelming army against a smaller number. It was ridiculous and not what was shown in the book. In fact, in the book, the DEs started to lose after the pause in fighting when Slughorn came back with reinforcements from Hogsmeade. Prior to that, it was mostly a stalemate.

Bob

reply

"In most schools people have a sense of community with the other students and have a sense of knowing everyone, even if they have never actually spoken."

In the last book, about one-seventh of the students had never met Harry

It doesn't matter. Every school has s sense of community, especially when there is someone famous involved. Clearly nobody of note ever went to your school or you would know this.

In order to be loyal to someone, you have to know them.

A very silly statement which does not bear much resemblance to reality. People develop loyalty to various celebrities, military leaders, royalty, etc. without ever meeting them in person. It has nothing to do with ideology. It is attachment to the person or at least to the public image of that person. Do you really think the legions of Elvis fans which exist to this day care about his "ideology"?


By the way, when I was in high school, a girl in the grade above me died. I was saddened about the death, but she was a stranger to me so I wasn't that affected

Others in your school were affected. But your lack of sense of community with those around you is something I had already picked up on.

I would never say Bella was a quivering fearful subservient follower of Voldy's.

Of course not. You are trying to win an argument. Your true thoughts are not going to make an appearance here. That has been the case for quite some time.

She was strong-headed and a fiercely loyal supporter of Voldy who viewed him in more favor than her husband.

She was even willing to go to prison just for not disavowing this guy. Quiveringly subservient. Pathetically so.

but the point was that was the image the filmmakers wanted to show--an overwhelming army against a smaller number. It was ridiculous and not what was shown in the book

I am only discussing the movie. That's what is real. The book is fake.

In fact, in the book, the DEs started to lose after the pause in fighting when Slughorn came back with reinforcements from Hogsmeade. Prior to that, it was mostly a stalemate.

Ah, so you are saying in the book that Voldemort's army never made it into Hogwarts. Interesting interpretation.











reply

"Every school has s sense of community, especially when there is someone famous involved. Clearly nobody of note ever went to your school or you would know this."

No one famous attended my school at the time I went. However, we had roughly as many students in three grades that Rowling imagined Hogwarts had in seven. My high school (and Middle school) was much smaller than Hogwarts. Yes, there was a sense of community, but that doesn't mean any one student can know everyone else. I, like most people (including the students at Hogwarts likely), had a small group of friends that I hung around with while everyone else either classmates or friendly strangers.

"People develop loyalty to various celebrities, military leaders, royalty, etc. without ever meeting them in person."

No one develops loyalty to celebrities unless they know them personally and work or are friends with them. Idolization is not loyalty. Soldiers develop loyalty to their units, those units have loyalty to others units and the higher ups in the chain of command. They are loyal to their country and to the missions. They don't have to be loyal to the individuals higher up in leadership, just follow their orders. the same with royalty in both cases above.

"Others in your school were affected."

Yes, others were affected. Those who were closer that I was. Do you think the Harry, hermione, or Ron, much less Lee Jordan, Luna, or most of the other survivors cared that Crabbe (book) or Goyle (movie) died? No one missed Sally Ann even though she was never mentioned after the sorting.

"You are trying to win an argument. Your true thoughts are not going to make an appearance here. "

I am discussing the HP series here. You are reading my true thoughts on your screen--unless you want to explain what you feel my true thoughts actually are.

"She was even willing to go to prison just for not disavowing this guy."

I doubt she was willing to go to Azkaban. She went there not for disavowing Voldy but for trying to torture the whereabouts of Voldy from the Longbottoms.

"I am only discussing the movie. That's what is real. The book is fake."

Really? The movie is based on actual events? This is a topic started by me. I don't care if books are discussed here.

"so you are saying in the book that Voldemort's army never made it into Hogwarts."

Explain how you reached that conclusion from what I posted. That statement of yours is delusional.

Bob

reply

No one famous attended my school at the time I went

Your lack of familiarity with the sense of community which takes hold in such situations as Hogwarts and Harry Potter were in says something about you personally which marks you as unique and different than others.

No one develops loyalty to celebrities unless they know them personally and work or are friends with them

Apologies for rudeness but you simply don't know nor understand human beings very well.

Idolization is not loyalty.

Also, you have lost track of the conversation and the point you were hoping to make regarding Voldemort and his followers. Again, you have undercut your own position. It doesn't matter if you call it "loyalty" or "idolatry". Voldemort's followers had it as long as he seemed powerful and invincible. It wasn't a movement based purely on political beliefs or it would have carried on without Voldemort.

Yes, others were affected. Those who were closer that I was.

As already noted, your lack of feelings says something about you.

Do you think the Harry, hermione, or Ron, much less Lee Jordan, Luna, or most of the other survivors cared that Crabbe (book) or Goyle (movie) died?

Yes, except perhaps for Ron. I don't see how you can be so clueless. Harry Potter insisted on going back to save them. Harry Potter is the hero. Other heroic characters like Hermione and Luna also cared about their fellow students even if they were "enemies". Ron was a callous uncaring big boob of a character. Don't be like Ron. Try to be more like the heroes of this story.

All the great wise men and philosophers in history recognize the value of caring about others, even strangers and enemies. Nobody more so than Jesus. Take heed of their wisdom. If you do, you will start living a better life.







reply

That was the problem with dark knite's rant. He wasn't trying to increase understanding of the situation with Lucius Malfoy. He was trying to decrease understanding.


I prefer to give Dark-Knight the benefit of the doubt. It took me a while to work out that you weren’t using “the reason” as a synonym for “the crime he was convicted for”.

reply

From the hillside scene outside Hogwarts.


Thanks I'll have to rewatch that scene.

reply


I prefer to give Dark-Knight the benefit of the doubt. It took me a while to work out that you weren’t using “the reason” as a synonym for “the crime he was convicted for”.

Fair enough. If it took you a while to figure that out, it would be impossible for many others, I guess. For me, any "why?" question automatically has multiple possible levels of interpretation.

reply

"Apologies for rudeness but you simply don't know nor understand human beings very well."

Your assessment of me is completely lacking. When you can't argue the subject, you turn rude.

"It doesn't matter if you call it "loyalty" or "idolatry". Voldemort's followers had it as long as he seemed powerful and invincible. It wasn't a movement based purely on political beliefs or it would have carried on without Voldemort."

it does matter if you call it loyalty or idolatry. That you can't tell the difference is shocking. Hermione and Ron showed loyalty to Ron. Colin and Dennis (Nigel in the movies) showed idolatry of Harry. Loyalty is earned. Idolatry is given, sometimes for nothing.

The DEs had loyalty. The followers who were not DEs were wither loyal to Voldy or his cause. Some had that loyalty even after he lost his power. As for the movement, it was pureblood supremacy. It carried on without Voldy, just not with the accompanying violence that Voldy preferred. This was because with Voldy, the DEs tended to have the upper hand, without him, the Aurors did.

"I don't see how you can be so clueless. Harry Potter insisted on going back to save them. Harry Potter is the hero. Other heroic characters like Hermione and Luna also cared about their fellow students even if they were "enemies"."

In order to truly care and feel grief over one's death, which is what I was referring to, they would have to have had a bond with the person. Do you think Hermione cared as much about losing Crabbe (movie Goyle) as much as she did Fred or Remus or Tonks? Of course not. Hermione, like all humans, feel grief more over people who meant something special to them than for others. This was explicitly shown in the movie. Hermione, was shown to be much sadder and grief-stricken when she saw Fred's body and Harry's than when she realized Draco's friend had died.

Bob

reply


Your assessment of me is completely lacking. When you can't argue the subject, you turn rude.

I do try to be polite. But sometimes it becomes necessary to tell the truth, even if it is hurtful.

Loyalty is earned. Idolatry is given, sometimes for nothing.

This is an example of what I mean. This is far too simplistic an analysis and in some ways, flat out wrong.

First, nothing ever happens "for no reason". There is always a reason. If it seems like there is no reason for something to you, it is because you don't understand it.

Second, I have already discussed what you call the difference between "loyalty" and "idolatry". As a cartoonish, villainous, fictional character in a story, it is impossible for Voldemort to "earn" loyalty. J.K. Rowlings simply did not develop his character in a realistic, humanistic way for that to happen. So, by your definition, the best Voldemort can obtain within the story is "idolatry".

That's why it is foolish to argue about the terms. If "loyalty" is something only "good" people can "earn" then the word can't be used for Voldemort. But it has been used here and it is simply pointless to haggle over it.

If someone on this board says "loyal to Voldemort" you know what they mean. There is absolutely no point in priggishly insisting the word "idolatry" be used instead. If your purpose is to haggle over your own individually defined word meanings then there is no point in having a discussion at all.

The DEs had loyalty. The followers who were not DEs were wither loyal to Voldy or his cause.

Oh I see. Voldy or his cause "earned" it? You are being ridiculous and self-contradictory, even by your own definitions.

"I don't see how you can be so clueless. Harry Potter insisted on going back to save them. Harry Potter is the hero. Other heroic characters like Hermione and Luna also cared about their fellow students even if they were "enemies"."

In order to truly care and feel grief over one's death, which is what I was referring to, they would have to have had a bond with the person.

You remain clueless about human nature.

Many people feel grief over the death of people they didn't ever know. Some people feel grief over the death of a person simply because they were a human being. Hermione is clearly a humanitarian sort of person. You clearly are not.

I personally know several people currently grieving over the death of Prince. Same was true for Michael Jackson and for some it is still true for Elvis or JFK. Some people feel grief over the death someone they read about in the news or saw die on TV. Some people feel grief over the death of fictional characters.

It is the height of arrogance to tell all these people their feelings are illegitimate and invalid and "untrue". You personally may feel nothing at the death of strangers or death of someone you didn't like very much, but it is odiferously obnoxious for you to tell the rest of the world how they are allowed to feel.




reply

it would be impossible for many others, I guess.


LOL - I didn't mean it like that.

reply

The authorities knew who did it because Igor Karkaroff told the Wizengamot about it

Under duress. If you were imprisoned then paraded in front of a posh audience like an animal in a cage, you would say anything you could think of to get out.

reply

And his information was accurate regardless. So what is your point?

reply

"But sometimes it becomes necessary to tell the truth, even if it is hurtful."

You haven't told the truth about me at all. Every time you assume something about me, it is wrong ie not the truth.

"First, nothing ever happens "for no reason". There is always a reason. If it seems like there is no reason for something to you, it is because you don't understand it."

I didn't say no reason, I said for nothing. As in the person didn't do anything to deserve to be idolized. The person who is idolizing someone else has a reason, but the person who is being idolized may not have done anything to deserve it.

"If "loyalty" is something only "good" people can "earn" then the word can't be used for Voldemort."

Loyalty is something that can be earned by anyone, good or bad. What made you imagine I said only good characters could earn loyalty?

"If your purpose is to haggle over your own individually defined word meanings then there is no point in having a discussion at all."

Words carry meanings. If you don't care what they mean, then it will be impossible to communicate.

"I personally know several people currently grieving over the death of Prince"

That is because they felt a bond with Prince. The same with other entertainers. People develop bonds with them, or their images of them. This is idolatry.

As for the deaths in HP, only the people with whom they had a bond did deaths affect the characters. This is human nature, despite what you have said here. Draco had a close bond with his friends, so he grieved for his friend while the trio didn't care as much. The Malfoys cared much more about Bella's death than for Tonks' death.

Bob

reply

You haven't told the truth about me at all. Every time you assume something about me, it is wrong ie not the truth.

You think I am not giving my true opinion? Why? Aren't you giving your true opinions?

I didn't say no reason, I said for nothing. As in the person didn't do anything to deserve to be idolized.

"Didn't do anything..." in YOUR opinion. Others who idolize celebrities think they DO deserve idolatry. Your arrogance is on full display here. Why is your opinion so important that it erases all other opinions?

I personally do not idolize any celebrities. But I have the common decency to respect others and how they choose to think and feel.

"I personally know several people currently grieving over the death of Prince"

That is because they felt a bond with Prince. The same with other entertainers. People develop bonds with them, or their images of them. This is idolatry.

Such people might say they "idolize" Prince. Or they might say they feel loyal to Prince and his memory. Who are you to tell these people what their feelings are? Show some respect for other people on this planet.

As for the deaths in HP, only the people with whom they had a bond did deaths affect the characters. This is human nature, despite what you have said here.


No, this is A. Bob's nature which he thinks must apply to every other human being on the planet. As noted, I don't idolize nor feel loyalty to celebrities. But I don't spit on the people who do feel that way.



reply

"You think I am not giving my true opinion? Why?"

Its not your opinions that I am questioning. It is your analysis about me. So far, you have been wrong on virtually every instance.

""Didn't do anything..." in YOUR opinion."

Did you intentionally truncate what I wrote intentionally to be able to make your point or are you just incapable of understanding what I wrote? Let me remind you of what I wrote: I didn't say no reason, I said for nothing. As in the person didn't do anything to deserve to be idolized. The person who is idolizing someone else has a reason, but the person who is being idolized may not have done anything to deserve it.

Note where I wrote that the person who is idolizing the other has a reason.

"Such people might say they "idolize" Prince. Or they might say they feel loyal to Prince and his memory."

Feeling loyal to someone's memory is far different than being loyal to someone.

"this is A. Bob's nature which he thinks must apply to every other human being on the planet."

So the Harry Potter characters are real? If you don't have a bond with someone, you won't feel the grief when that person dies. Unless, or course, you will tell me you read obituaries of random people and feel real grief.

Bob

reply

Its not your opinions that I am questioning. It is your analysis about me. So far, you have been wrong on virtually every instance.

You are not in a position to know how you seem from the outside. You only know yourself from the inside.

Let me remind you of what I wrote: I didn't say no reason, I said for nothing. As in the person didn't do anything to deserve to be idolized. The person who is idolizing someone else has a reason, but the person who is being idolized may not have done anything to deserve it

This statement is just as silly this time as the first time you wrote it.

YOU don't think the idol "did anything to deserve to be idolized". But that is just your opinion. The idolizer obviously thinks their idol has done some wonderful things, be it artistically or politically or militarily. You are entitled to your opinion but that does not erase or negate the opinions of others. The idol DID SOMETHING. And obviously some people think what they did IS worth idolizing. Your opinion of the idol doesn't change that fact in the slightest.

Feeling loyal to someone's memory is far different than being loyal to someone.

In your opinion. Billions of other human beings disagree. Hence cemeteries. You have no grounds for telling the rest of the world what to think or feel.

So the Harry Potter characters are real?

I don't think so. But when you say:

Feeling loyal to someone's memory is far different than being loyal to someone

I take this statement of your as applying to all people. If your statement only relates to the fictional characters of Harry Potter and has no bearing whatsoever to real people in the real world, you should probably explain that.

If you don't have a bond with someone, you won't feel the grief when that person dies. Unless, or course, you will tell me you read obituaries of random people and feel real grief.

And once again, you are telling other people of the world how to think and feel. If others feel grief over the death of strangers, who are you to tell them they can't?








reply

"You are not in a position to know how you seem from the outside."

And yet, you have said nothing about me that you have gotten right about me. You are implying you know what I think.

"The idol DID SOMETHING. And obviously some people think what they did IS worth idolizing."

That is not in question. The idol did something and the idolizer thought what they did merited the idolizing, but what they ultimately did may not have been intended to have merited having others view them in that way. Numerous people hate the idea that they are being idolized by others as they don't believe they did anything to earn that.

"Billions of other human beings disagree."

Prove it. I don't think you understand anything when you make such outrageous statements. Feeling loyal to someone's memory means the person has died or is in some other way gone. Being loyal to someone means both people are alive.

"And once again, you are telling other people of the world how to think and feel. If others feel grief over the death of strangers, who are you to tell them they can't?"

I can't tell them whether they can or can't. Do you truly believe people feel the same grief over loved ones as over strangers? Did you feel Molly in the movies was immoral or inhuman for smiling at the death of Bella? She obviously didn't feel grief over her death, but she was distraught over her son's death.

Should Ginny have screamed the same way she did when she saw the "dead" Harry as when she saw the wizards on the bridge plummet to their supposed deaths?

Bob

reply


That is not in question. The idol did something and the idolizer thought what they did merited the idolizing, but what they ultimately did may not have been intended to have merited having others view them in that way.

It doesn't matter what was "intended". We are not discussing the feelings of "idols". We are discussing the feeling of those who idolize them. People whose feelings you dismiss as worthless pieces of trash.

I can't tell them whether they can or can't.

Of course not. You only think you can.

Do you truly believe people feel the same grief over loved ones as over strangers? Did you feel Molly in the movies was immoral or inhuman for smiling at the death of Bella? She obviously didn't feel grief over her death, but she was distraught over her son's death.

Should Ginny have screamed the same way she did when she saw the "dead" Harry as when she saw the wizards on the bridge plummet to their supposed deaths?

The feelings of other people are not your business or mine. Even the feelings of fictional people are the product of the writers, directors and actors who have created them. If people of the world feel a certain way then that's how they feel. How A. Bob feels about that is of no importance or consequence.

Thousands and thousands of people are currently showering Muhammed Ali with praise and grieving and condolences. Try to stop them. Go ahead. Try. Give them your lecture about how they SHOULD feel and the whole personal connection thing and the whole nonsense about how Harry Potter characters feel. I'm sure you can convince them they are wrong to feel the way they do.

reply

I am finding it hard to discus this topic with someone who is willingly ignorant regarding what I am writing. I assume you are not completely illiterate sine you can respond.

"We are discussing the feeling of those who idolize them."

We are discussing both the idol and the idolizer. I have stated clearly that the idols idolizers can idolize those people for any reason they want, whether it is deserved or not. Do you think murderers deserve to be idolized? Have they done anything to deserve to be idolized?

"The feelings of other people are not your business or mine."

You act as if they were your business.

"Thousands and thousands of people are currently showering Muhammed Ali with praise and grieving and condolences."

Because they felt a bond with him. Many of them are also loyal to his memory. A select few of them may have been loyal to him while he lived.

Now I will ask my questions again that have to do with the HP series:

Did you feel Molly in the movies was immoral or inhuman for smiling at the death of Bella? She obviously didn't feel grief over her death, but she was distraught over her son's death.

Should Ginny have screamed the same way she did when she saw the "dead" Harry as when she saw the wizards on the bridge plummet to their supposed deaths?

I am not interested in their feelings, I am interested in how you view their characterizations.

Bob

reply


"We are discussing the feeling of those who idolize them."

We are discussing both the idol and the idolizer.

We are not. We are discussing the idolizers. The emotions of the "idol" are of no importance, at least in this discussion.


"The feelings of other people are not your business or mine."

You act as if they were your business.

I am comfortable noticing and understanding the feelings of other people. I am not comfortable sitting in judgment on the feelings of others and pronouncing whether they are valid, "true" feelings or not. I'll leave the value judging of other people to you.


Because they felt a bond with him. Many of them are also loyal to his memory.

So there you are. In a roundabout way you admit people can be loyal to people they don't and never knew.

A select few of them may have been loyal to him while he lived.

Even the people who were personally acquainted with Muhammed Ali are loyal only to his "memory" which is the mental image they have of him.

That's ALL we can have of any other person: a mental image based on our perceptions of that person. What we see, hear etc. and remember about another person- that's how we know another person and that's all we can know.


Did you feel Molly in the movies was immoral or inhuman for smiling at the death of Bella?

Somewhat immoral. Not inhuman. I find it to be immoral to delight in the pain and death of another human being, even if it is during self-defense. I think it is quite human to delight in vanquishing your enemy and (having been an athlete) I have been guilty of this sin myself at certain crucial times. But I don't encourage such feelings in myself. I discourage them and prefer to be empathetic to all other people on the planet as much as possible.


Should Ginny have screamed the same way she did when she saw the "dead" Harry as when she saw the wizards on the bridge plummet to their supposed deaths?

I am not interested in their feelings, I am interested in how you view their characterizations.

"Should" is a value-laden, judgemental term and judgment is an activity I eschew as much as possible. I would not presume to tell Ginny Weasley (if she was real) how to act in any given situation. I'm sure her behavior was characterized as spontaneous and heart-felt, and therefore not subject to the judgment implied by the word "should".

What I would teach Ginny, if she was my own child or my student in an Ethics class is that we should value all human life as equally sacred. For if we start dehumanizing and demonizing others and treating them like sub-humans, we can only expect the same in return when the pendulum swings back toward us (and it always does, eventually).

I would like my own life to be valued and treated sacredly, even by my political opponents. Thus I treat them in the manner I would like to be treated.








reply

"We are discussing the idolizers. The emotions of the "idol" are of no importance, at least in this discussion."

You cab't discuss one without the other. The emotions of the idol are not important, rather the deeds they did that the other person felt was worthy of idolization. Some deeds are deserving of idolatry, others are not.

"I am not comfortable sitting in judgment on the feelings of others and pronouncing whether they are valid,"

yes you are. You have proven it in this board plenty of times.

"In a roundabout way you admit people can be loyal to people they don't and never knew."

You misread what I said.

"Even the people who were personally acquainted with Muhammed Ali are loyal only to his "memory" which is the mental image they have of him."

They were only loyal to his memory after his death. Unless you are going to admit that no one in the HP universe was loyal to Voldy, only to his memory. That implies to me that one cannot be loyal to another person unless they are not around. As soon as you are with the person, you cannot be loyal to him.

Harry was loyal to Snape's memory by convincing McGonagall to place his portrait in the headmaster's office as well as loyal to his memory by naming his second child after Snape. Harry was never loyal to Snape when Snape was alive.

"I think it is quite human to delight in vanquishing your enemy and (having been an athlete) I have been guilty of this sin myself at certain crucial times."

While I agree that you shouldn't delight in any death, vanquishing one's enemies is definitely a reason to feel pride, pleasure, or relief. However, you never had enemies while an athlete. You had rivals and defeat of them was not a sin as, I am assuming, you did not kill them.

"What I would teach Ginny, if she was my own child or my student in an Ethics class is that we should value all human life as equally sacred."

In an idealized world, you can. But that cannot exist in real life. You will always feel closer to ones who you love or had a close bond with far more than everyone else. You will grieve for them far more than others you didn't know. Those you hated or who abused you, their deaths will be a relief and the more horror they caused within you the more you will feel happy in their deaths.

This was my point all along.

Bib

reply

If you don't have a bond with someone, you won't feel the grief when that person dies.


I’m getting off topic of Harry Potter but, I’ve been following this thread and thinking about this idea of grief without a bond. I’m defining grief as, “deep sorrow, especially that caused by someone's death.” By this definition I do think people can grieve for those they don’t have a bond with. A friend of mine use to talk about “circles of grief” those who share the closest bond with the person who died will feel the deepest grief (be in the “inner circle”) but those in the outer circles are still grieving.

I’m thinking of a time when a coworker of mine lost her daughter. I didn’t know her daughter and didn’t know my co-worker all that well. But, all of us who worked with her felt a deep sorrow. Obviously nothing like what she felt but a deep sorrow all the same. One might argue we were feeling empathy for our co-worker but I don’t think that’s quite all of it. There was a real sense of sorrow over such a loss. I’m also thinking of times when there is a shooting and people with no connection at all to the victims feel a deep sorrow over it.

I know you’ve been talking about celebrities and this is a different thing, I’m only responding to the statement I quoted above. You say in another post, “You will always feel closer to ones who you love or had a close bond with far more than everyone else. You will grieve for them far more than others you didn't know.” And that I agree with. So, perhaps you don’t mean the line above in the cut and dry way I am taking it.

To get back to Harry Potter, I think there are many people, who would have grieved if Harry died, even without knowing him. Many people put so much hope in him that the loss would have felt personal even to any number of people who didn’t know him.

reply

"We are discussing the idolizers. The emotions of the "idol" are of no importance, at least in this discussion."

You cab't discuss one without the other.

You can and you would be, if you were not so judgmental of other people.

Some deeds are deserving of idolatry, others are not.

In your opinion. Why should your opinions govern every other human being on earth?


"I am not comfortable sitting in judgment on the feelings of others and pronouncing whether they are valid,"

yes you are. You have proven it in this board plenty of times.

Unlike you, I do not tell other people what emotions to feel.

They were only loyal to his memory after his death. Unless you are going to admit that no one in the HP universe was loyal to Voldy, only to his memory. That implies to me that one cannot be loyal to another person unless they are not around.

You are not well-versed enough in philosophy, specifically Cartesian Dualism, to continue this conversation.

Harry was loyal to Snape's memory by convincing McGonagall to place his portrait in the headmaster's office as well as loyal to his memory by naming his second child after Snape. Harry was never loyal to Snape when Snape was alive.

I don't find personal presence to be a significant factor in "loyalty". If you do, we shall just have to disagree.

While I agree that you shouldn't delight in any death, vanquishing one's enemies is definitely a reason to feel pride, pleasure, or relief

That's because you are a self-centered person. When you vanquish your enemy, you make them feel terrible. I see no reason to delight in that. Moreover, the way you treat them in defeat may well determine the future of the conflict. It seems you are one of those who delight in conflict and hope to prolong it as long as you possible can.

You had rivals and defeat of them was not a sin as, I am assuming, you did not kill them.

"Sin" implies sanction from God. Are you referring to a "Heavenly Father"? Or yourself? There doesn't seem to be much difference, in your mind.

In an idealized world, you can. But that cannot exist in real life. You will always feel closer to ones who you love or had a close bond with far more than everyone else. You will grieve for them far more than others you didn't know. Those you hated or who abused you, their deaths will be a relief and the more horror they caused within you the more you will feel happy in their deaths.

This selfish philosophy is the cause of wars and untold human misery. Just because YOU love somebody that doesn't make them an objectively more important person on the face of the planet than say people who live in Bhutan.

If you were capable of empathy, you would realize that "your enemies" have as much love amongst themselves as you and your family and your nation do. Instead you dehumanize them which allows you to feel good about invading them, bombing them and otherwise destroying their families and their ways of life.








reply

"You can and you would be, if you were not so judgmental of other people."

Everyone is judgmental. You pretend as if you are above being a human.

"Why should your opinions govern every other human being on earth?"

Judgmental and also an incorrect assumption of what I said. Where have I said my opinions should govern every other human being? However, I do ask if you believe Charles Manson did anything to be idolized. This requires an opinion based on judgement. If you lived in the HP universe, would you have idolized VoldY? What would you have thought of those who did?

"Unlike you, I do not tell other people what emotions to feel."

Another judgmental reply. Also, another incorrect assumption regarding what I said. Where have I told other people what emotions to feel?

"You are not well-versed enough in philosophy, specifically Cartesian Dualism, to continue this conversation."

Continue to discuss and stop making incorrect assumptions regarding what I do and don't understand. You are also acting as if your philosophy is supreme here and unless I discus only what you want in your own philosophical opinions, I am unworthy. That is the height of judgmental.

"When you vanquish your enemy, you make them feel terrible. I see no reason to delight in that."

So what? They are your enemy because they want to cause you harm or kill you. Defeating them means you are safe. Feeling pride in your accomplishments is normal. Feeling pleasure in being safe is healthy and normal, especially after a period of feeling unsafe or in peril. Feeling relief cannot be seen as anything wrong.

""Sin" implies sanction from God. Are you referring to a "Heavenly Father"? Or yourself?"

I am referring to what you wrote. Do you not remember what you wrote? You wrote: "I think it is quite human to delight in vanquishing your enemy and (having been an athlete) I have been guilty of this sin myself at certain crucial times." So were you referring to a deity? Were you referring to yourself? Please keep up with the conversation.

"Just because YOU love somebody that doesn't make them an objectively more important person on the face of the planet than say people who live in Bhutan."

Why do you continue to attribute simplistic meaning to things I write? People you love are more important TO YOU than anyone else in the world. If you don't understand that, then have no loved ones. Your spouse would have no extra value to you than a stranger and your children would have no extra value to you than children who live in China.

I see from this that you have no true love in you. All people are the same to you whether family or strangers. You will react to your father's death the same way as you would hearing of an man you've never met involved in an auto accident.

I can feel sadness and sorrow for strangers. However, the stronger the bond I feel with someone, the stronger the grief I feel when they die. If you cannot understand that, I feel sorry for you. Stop being so judgmental and start actually reading in order to understand what I am writing instead of assuming you understand me.

Bob


reply

Everyone is judgmental. You pretend as if you are above being a human.

All human beings engage in judgment of other human being. The difference is in whether you revel in such judgments or try to minimize them.

If you enjoyed being judged you might have a leg to stand on. But you don't. You claim the god-like right to judge others but complain when others judge you.

Where have I said my opinions should govern every other human being?

When you claimed the god-like wisdom to judge whether any particular act is worth idolizing and whether it isn't.

However, I do ask if you believe Charles Manson did anything to be idolized.

I am not a Charles Manson expert. I do not know if he has done "anything" in his long life that merits idolization. I have heard his followers did some terrible things. Things I don't approve of, such as murder. I haven't heard that Charles Manson himself was guilty of murder.

If you lived in the HP universe, would you have idolized VoldY?

If I grew up in the Malfoy family then yes, I think I would.

stop making incorrect assumptions regarding what I do and don't understand...That is the height of judgmental.

I told you that you don't like being judged. Such philosophical mentions are meant purely heuristically.

You are also acting as if your philosophy is supreme here

I didn't mention my philosophy. I mentioned Descartes' philosopy. A simpler, layman's way of understanding Cartesian Dualism is to call it the "mind-body" problem. Rowling and the movie makers address this philosophy at the end if the King's Cross Station scene with Harry and Dumbledore.

Why do you continue to attribute simplistic meaning to things I write? People you love are more important TO YOU than anyone else in the world.

The issue being discuss is the parameter of narrow-mindedness vs. broad-mindedness.

You fail to understand that there were people who loved and idolized Charles Manson. People who loved and idolized Adolph Hitler. And Osama Bin Laden. And the Catholic popes. And the presidents of the United States. And, fictionally, Voldemort.

People have gone to war, invaded other nations, slaughtered millions and millions of people for this love and loyalty. It is the same emotion over and over again found in different people.

The reason you are narrow-minded and judgmental is that you take some of the examples above and say they are okay, while others on the list must be categorized as horrendous villains with no possible redeeming value.

Did Muggles ever burn witches at the stake? Did they bury them in pits and throw rocks on them? Did the prejudice and fear of Muggles drive witches and wizards into hiding? Might the followers of Voldemort have a point in their hatred of Muggles?


These are important types of questions to ask, when attempting to understand the world as it is. If you are incapable of asking these questions you are trapped in your own personal viewpoint, guilty of dehumanizing others, and thus part of the problem, not the solution.







reply

Did Muggles ever burn witches at the stake? Did they bury them in pits and throw rocks on them? Did the prejudice and fear of Muggles drive witches and wizards into hiding? Might the followers of Voldemort have a point in their hatred of Muggles?


According to A History of Magic by Bathilda Bagshot

Non-magic people (more commonly known as Muggles) were particularly afraid of magic in medieval times, but not very good at recognizing it. On the rare occasion that they did catch a real witch or wizard, burning had no effect whatsoever. The witch or wizard would perform a basic Flame Freezing Charm and then pretend to shriek with pain while enjoying a gentel, tickling sensation. Indeed, Wendelin the Weird enjoyed being burned so much that she allowed herself to be caught no less than fortyseven times in various disguises.

This is text is quoted in Book Three. I would think that the other examples you mention of Muggles torturing Wizards would be similar. There may be a few rare cases like what happened to Dumbledore’s sister but for the most part Muggles are powerless against Wizards.

These are important types of questions to ask, when attempting to understand the world as it is.


Another important question is who is in a position of power so as not to blame the victim. IMO muggle hating Wizards are not an example of a group that has risen up against their oppressors. They are an example of those in power dehumanizing the powerless.

reply

You will always feel closer to ones who you love or had a close bond with far more than everyone else. You will grieve for them far more than others you didn't know.


This selfish philosophy is the cause of wars and untold human misery. Just because YOU love somebody that doesn't make them an objectively more important person on the face of the planet than say people who live in Bhutan.

If you were capable of empathy, you would realize that "your enemies" have as much love amongst themselves as you and your family and your nation do.


Those are two entirely different things. It’s one thing to care about the sanctity of all human life, to emphasize with others and to refrain from dehumanizing them. It’s another thing entirely to grieve as deeply for those we don’t know as we do for those we are close to. If we all experienced the same level of deep sorrow for each and every death in the entire world as we do when someone we are close to dies no one would be able to function. It doesn’t mean that those we aren’t close to are objectively less important it simply doesn’t hurt as much to lose someone you never knew. You don’t pick up the phone to call them and then remember they are gone, you don’t find a project they started and will never finish and feel as if someone just kicked you in the gut, you aren’t reminded of them in places you use to go together, ect. ect. ect.

reply

In DH (the book), Harry is burying Dobby and realizes he can shut Voldy out from his memories. He learned the Occlumency that Snape couldn't teach him because, like the first time he could keep Voldy out, he was feeling grief for Dobby. The first time was an even more important time right after Sirius' death and Voldy was forced out of his head. Harry recognized that Dumbledore would not call it grief, but love.

And yes, those who are the closest will feel the deepest grief, but the circles of grief is basically the same as having a bond with them. Generally, when you know someone who has lost someone you never knew, your sadness or sorrow is more for the person and not specifically for the one who died.

Note in the quote you cited above by me, I said If you don't have a bond with someone, you won't feel the grief when that person dies. I never said you won't feel grief, I said the grief as in the grief you feel with someone you had a bond with. I think this started, in part, with me saying that Luna and Ginny wouldn't have cared that Goyle died as they really didn't know him much.

Bob

reply

Note in the quote you cited above by me, I said If you don't have a bond with someone, you won't feel the grief when that person dies. I never said you won't feel grief, I said the grief as in the grief you feel with someone you had a bond with.


OK if by “the grief” you mean “the grief you feel with someone you had a bond with” I agree, I say something similar in another post. It never would have occurred to me that “the grief” meant something different than “grief” though. Thank you for clarifying.

reply

The witch or wizard would perform a basic Flame Freezing Charm and then pretend to shriek with pain while enjoying a gentel, tickling sensation.

That's an interesting take Rowling decided to take on the real history of witchcraft in Europe.

Another important question is who is in a position of power so as not to blame the victim. IMO muggle hating Wizards are not an example of a group that has risen up against their oppressors. They are an example of those in power dehumanizing the powerless.

Perhaps. But Muggles have two things on their side: Science/technology and numbers. I'll estimate there are about 1 million Muggles for every one Wizard or Witch.

Despite their powers, I don't think Wizards could survive an all out attack using fill scientific weaponry and being so outnumbered. I think there is a reason magic-types keep themselves hidden and I think it is mostly for their own protection.

In medieval times, perhaps Potterian Witches had little to fear from Muggles. But magic had grown and advanced very little since that time, while Muggles and their science have grown tremendously. In the 21st century I think wizards need to stay hidden for their own safety.

reply

That's an interesting take Rowling decided to take on the real history of witchcraft in Europe.

Indeed. I have to wonder if she really thought that through. Muggles were so afraid of witchcraft they were killing each other and actual magic users, when they were caught, just played along.

But Muggles have two things on their side: Science/technology and numbers.

If Rowling had placed any limits on what magic can do that would be true but superior numbers don’t help if a few wizards can turn your entire army into ferrets (and even if this can’t be done on a large scale, a small number of Wizards in invisibly cloaks picking them off in groups and the muggels wouldn’t know how it was happening or how to protect themselves). The muggles might briefly have the upper hand if wizards haven’t paid that much attention to what Science/Technology can do but a single wizard can apparate past any kind of defense system and put key muggel leaders under the imperious curse, once they find out what technology can do they can use magic to find out how it is powered and destroy all the power sources. They can change memories and convince muggels they see things that aren’t there, they could easily trick muggels into fighting each other. As far as muggles launching an all out attack where would they attack? Witches and Wizard’s are spread throughout the world and even if the muggels knew they existed, they wouldn’t know where there major power centers are, or even where to find large groups of witches and wizards.

Magic in this world hasn’t needed to grow and advance. It can already do for Witches and Wizards almost everything technology can do for us and then some. The only thing they seem to be missing are weapons that kill on a large scale, but those are useless if you don’t know where to aim them, or if you can’t aim them at Wizards without aiming them at muggels as well.

reply


Those are two entirely different things. It’s one thing to care about the sanctity of all human life, to emphasize with others and to refrain from dehumanizing them. It’s another thing entirely to grieve as deeply for those we don’t know as we do for those we are close to.

Makes sense to me.

But there are people who grieve deeply for long periods of time over people they never met. Celebrity "idols" A. Bob. likes to call them.

A.Bob feels comfortable telling such people that their feelings are invalid. I am not comfortable with that. That's all this conversation really boils down to.

As far as war goes, A. Bob finds it justifiable if it is our side conducting the warfare. But that has been covered in previous conversations.

reply

If Rowling had placed any limits on what magic can do that would be true but superior numbers don’t help if a few wizards can turn your entire army into ferrets (and even if this can’t be done on a large scale, a small number of Wizards in invisibly cloaks picking them off in groups and the muggels wouldn’t know how it was happening or how to protect themselves). The muggles might briefly have the upper hand if wizards haven’t paid that much attention to what Science/Technology can do but a single wizard can apparate past any kind of defense system

Well, Rowling does, of course, place a lot of limits on what magic can do. It would be a pretty boring story if every wizard could do anything he/she wanted without boundaries or limits.

Each supposition you make about magic can be made about science. Science could identify the gene that makes people magic and genetically engineer a virus which would target only wizards, killing them instantly. Electronic sensors could be invented which.....etc. etc.

One thing I think is clear: Muggles are better at working together in large groups than wizards AND (most importantly) Muggles are far better at reproducing than Wizards.

It can already do for Witches and Wizards almost everything technology can do for us and then some.

Then why aren't Wizards the dominant species, slowly out-competing and out-reproducing the inferior Homo sapiens? They've had a long time to outcompete human beings and they haven't done it. I detect something self-limiting within the basic make-up of the wizard race.

reply

Well, Rowling does, of course, place a lot of limits on what magic can do.

Not in any way that would give the muggels an advantage. There are a handful of things magic can’t produce and some witches/wizards are better at certain types of magic than others but they can improve with practice. IIRC there’s nothing, for example, to say that magic can only be used within a certain distance; magic users don’t have any recovery time after casting a spell; except in some cases of dark magic there is no cost to the witch/wizard nor is there a source for their power that they need to tap into, it just works.

Each supposition you make about magic can be made about science. Science could identify the gene that makes people magic and genetically engineer a virus which would target only wizards, killing them instantly. Electronic sensors could be invented which.....etc. etc.

That assumes there is a scientific explanation for magic, a gene that determines who has magic and who doesn’t, and it’s not just magic. Even if that’s the case it would take time to identify the gene and come up with the virus. Magic users don’t need to understand how technology works in order to destroy it, they can get that information from muggels, or put spells on muggels so that they will destroy it themselves. Plus even if sensors, ect could be invented that detect magic, the muggels wouldn’t even know that was necessary. So much could be done before they even figured out that magic was being used against them.

Muggles are far better at reproducing than Wizards.

Yes, but they are so much more powerful that superior numbers wouldn’t help the muggels.

Then why aren't Wizards the dominant species, slowly out-competing and out-reproducing the inferior Homo sapiens?

These aren’t two difference species competing with each other. They are the same species but a small group has power that most don’t have. It is never explained why they choose to keep to themselves rather than using this power against the muggels as some would like to do. For the most part the muggels don’t seem to have anything the wizards really want.

reply

I think we have very different impressions of Harry Potter magic.

IIRC there’s nothing, for example, to say that magic can only be used within a certain distance;

I see just the opposite. Pretty much all magic is done in fairly close proximity and within line-of-sight of the wizard. The one exception to that was quite jarring to me: i.e. Snape being able to control his Patronus and guide Harry and Ron to the Sword of Gryffindor from a very long distance away. I can't remember any other spell working like that. Certainly I don't remember any spells working like ICBM missiles, aimable from thousands of miles away. There may be other exceptions but it seems like magic spells are almost all pretty local in effect.

magic users don’t have any recovery time after casting a spell

Oh they very much do, as I see it. Each spell takes a wave of a wand or a spell mumbled under their breath or whatever. Wizards seem to have nothing close to the rapid-fire ability of a machine gun. And compared to computer-controlled electronic weaponry there just isn't any comparison at all to the speed and range of attack that modern technology can bring.

That assumes there is a scientific explanation for magic, a gene that determines who has magic and who doesn’t, and it’s not just magic.

I'll stand by that assumption because the Wizards are living within a larger Muggle world. I have to assume that there is some scientific basis for magic (since the basic definition of "magic" is: "that which current science cannot explain". Gradually scientists have been able to figure out most of what used to be called "magic".

Isn't the main reason magic has taken such a backseat in the past 1000 years because science has become so good at explaining things? In Medieval times weird women really did find themselves flying through the air and having sex with demons etc. But scientific analysis of the atropine hallucinogen found in the belladonna plants and deadly nightshade they used have basically explained that phenomemon. (the witches of that time used a broomstick to apply it to themselves; hopefully I don't have to go into detail)


Yes, but they are so much more powerful that superior numbers wouldn’t help the muggels.

Reproductive superiority will always, eventually, win any war, given enough time. Look at South Africa as a good example. Similar trends in Europe today. Also there is a reason Palestinians and devout jews of Israel are both producing families of 6-8 kids. They all know it is that which provides the ultimate victory.


These aren’t two difference species competing with each other. They are the same species but a small group has power that most don’t have.

Technically, the definition of a "species" is supposed to involve the inability to breed with other species. But the real world does not always work so neatly and cleanly. Thus with humans and wizards.

Since magic ability is clearly inherited from birth, it is a genetic trait. And there doesn't appear to be any "hybridization" going on. Half-bloods are not half as powerful as full-blooded wizards. Though abilities vary, basically you either have magic or you don't. There aren't people with 1/2 and 1/4 and 1/8 magical abilities based on ancestry in HarryPotterland. In fact, oddly, many of the most powerful wizards and witches are halfbloods or "mudbloods".

It is never explained why they choose to keep to themselves rather than using this power against the muggels as some would like to do.

Given that racism and classism runs rampant in these stories, take it for granted that this is what is behind the wizard world keeping itself hidden. I see Muggle-hating wizards to be sort of a repressed minority who want to rise up and prove they don't have to stay hidden (though, as noted above, they really do have to stay hidden, given the inherent superiority of science to magic, IMHO).

For the most part the muggels don’t seem to have anything the wizards really want.

Funny. For me it has been quite the opposite impression. I am not jealous of the abilities of Harry Potter wizards and witches at all. I quite prefer my own life to theirs and I rather feel sorry for them for having to live in the 19th century, for the most part.






reply

The one exception to that was quite jarring to me: i.e. Snape being able to control his Patronus and guide Harry and Ron to the Sword of Gryffindor from a very long distance away.


But its never named or explained away as an "exception". Harry is able to accio his broom from the castle to the dragon arena. Hermione is able to accio books from Dumbledor’s office. Lee is able to send a nuffler through Umbridges window. But my point is that Rowling doesn’t assign any limits. She doesn’t for example, have Hermione say, it’s a good thing we are within x feet of the dragon arena, so you will be able to summon your broom.” This is a mistake a number of authors make when giving characters supernatural powers. There seems to be a distance limit on how far one can aparate but even so one could just do it in hops.

Certainly I don't remember any spells working like ICBM missiles, aimable from thousands of miles away. There may be other exceptions but it seems like magic spells are almost all pretty local in effect.

They are small community and most fights are between individuals or small groups. They haven’t needed anything like this. But, McGonagall is able to animate all the statues in Hogwarts with a single spell. I’m not convinced that if she wanted to pick off a group of muggels she would need to pick them off one at a time.


Oh they very much do, as I see it. Each spell takes a wave of a wand or a spell mumbled under their breath or whatever.

That’s not recovery time that’s just the time it takes to do the spell. The witch or wizard never has to rest and recover their magic. In the war everyone is doing one spell after another. Whatever the source of their power is it is never depleted as it is in other magic worlds.

And compared to computer-controlled electronic weaponry there just isn't any comparison at all to the speed and range of attack that modern technology can bring.

But to use that weaponry you have to have a something to aim it at. Where would muggles attack? The ministry of magic? They don’t know where it is. Communities of Wizards? They don’t know where they are, ect. They wouldn’t even know if the person programming the weaponry is under the imperious curse or has been replaced by a wizard drinking poly-juice potion.

I'll stand by that assumption because the Wizards are living within a larger Muggle world. I have to assume that there is some scientific basis for magic (since the basic definition of "magic" is: "that which current science cannot explain". Gradually scientists have been able to figure out most of what used to be called "magic".


That’s in our world. They are not living in our world they are living in the world of Rowling's creation. In Rowling’s world magic simply exists. It’s not some mass hallucination people really are doing magic. It follows its own rules. Nothing that scientists in our world have figured out is anything like what is done in Rowling’s world. (For example a full grown man is able to turn into a rat with no consideration for mass.) If there was a scientific explanation for magic it could be duplicated, but it can’t, if two people do exactly the same thing the magic will work for a wizard and not for a muggel.

Reproductive superiority will always, eventually, win any war, given enough time.

There wouldn’t be enough time.

Technically, the definition of a "species" is supposed to involve the inability to breed with other species. But the real world does not always work so neatly and cleanly. Thus with humans and wizards.

Based on what? There is nothing in the books or movies to indicate they are a different species except that some can do magic and some can’t. That doesn’t make them a different species.

Since magic ability is clearly inherited from birth, it is a genetic trait.

That isn’t proven. In a magical world there can be other ways for people to “inherit” a trait.


Given that racism and classism runs rampant in these stories, take it for granted that this is what is behind the wizard world keeping itself hidden.

That still leaves many possibilities. IMO the possibility that the wizards hid themselves because they had anything to fear from muggles is the least likely. Especially given that they had to have hidden back when they had even less to fear from muggles than they do now.

Why didn't wizards work to convince muggles they had nothing to fear instead of playing along with the witch burnings?

I see Muggle-hating wizards to be sort of a repressed minority who want to rise up and prove they don't have to stay hidden

That would be a good story but it’s not the one Rowling wrote.

“given the inherent superiority of science to magic, IMHO).”

That’s where we disagree. Look at all the things madam Pomfry can do instantly that science can only fix slowly and painfully. The biggest advantage science has over magic is that anyone can use it. But there are also many cases where it wouldn’t help. Like when you don’t know who your enemy is or where they are.


I am not jealous of the abilities of Harry Potter wizards and witches at all. I quite prefer my own life to theirs and I rather feel sorry for them for having to live in the 19th century, for the most part.

Yes, to each his own. But the point is that the wizards and witches haven’t had reason, so far, to care much about what muggels get up to.

reply

The one exception to that was quite jarring to me: i.e. Snape being able to control his Patronus and guide Harry and Ron to the Sword of Gryffindor from a very long distance away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But its never named or explained away as an "exception".

There is no need to argue. We see things differently and there is nothing wrong with that.

To me, all the examples you cite of magic being done around the Hogwarts vicinity is not even close to the magic that Snape manages to project all the way from Hogwarts to the Forest Of Dean, wherever that may be. (Keeping in mind that the Forest of Dean was a place picked so as to be unknown to dark wizards seeking them, which Snape certainly was).

Certainly I don't remember any spells working like ICBM missiles, aimable from thousands of miles away. There may be other exceptions but it seems like magic spells are almost all pretty local in effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are small community and most fights are between individuals or small groups. They haven’t needed anything like this.

Exactly. While humans have had two World Wars and have thus created weaponry which could destroy all life on the planet. I see nothing in Harry Potter magic capable of anything like that.

Since magic ability is clearly inherited from birth, it is a genetic trait.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn’t proven. In a magical world there can be other ways for people to “inherit” a trait.

Such as?

Human beings and all living things on earth transmit inheritance through DNA based genes. If Wizards do something different they are not human or even an earth-based life form. They must be aliens from another planet. Perhaps you are suggesting this?

That still leaves many possibilities. IMO the possibility that the wizards hid themselves because they had anything to fear from muggles is the least likely. Especially given that they had to have hidden back when they had even less to fear from muggles than they do now.

Doesn't work for me. Wizards are not immortal. Nor can they only die from magical means. They are quite susceptible to death from physical calamities and injuries, a fall from a cliff, a knife to the throat etc.

This means that even in Medieval times there must have been instances when a wizard was surprised and killed or knocked unconscious and then killed by witch-hating Muggles. Over thousands of years it had to have happened now and then.

And once guns were invented, the chances of wizard deaths increase. High powered rifles with sniper scopes, fighter jets releasing stealth missles from miles high in the sky, computer assisted drone technology. I don't think wizards stand a chance.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see Muggle-hating wizards to be sort of a repressed minority who want to rise up and prove they don't have to stay hidden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be a good story but it’s not the one Rowling wrote.

I think it is.

It is the wizard community which is in hiding. If they were a shy, timid race who preferred to not be noticed, like brownies and fairies, you might have a point. But wizards are at least as proud and class-conscious domineering and haughty as the human race. If they remain a hidden minority there has to be a reason for it. There is no way they can accept second-class status to humans, which is what they have (admit it or not; it is THEY who hide)

“given the inherent superiority of science to magic, IMHO).”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s where we disagree.

Yes it is.

That’s where we disagree. Look at all the things madam Pomfry can do instantly that science can only fix slowly and painfully.

Sorry, that does not impress me. Modern medicine can do a lot of healing that magic doesn't seem so good at.

Modern technology can take lumps of ore and minerals and assemble them into giant transport devices which can haul millions of tons of cargo around the world and even to other planets. Magic can't do anything like that. As already mentioned, human technology can remake the entire world or destroy it.

Magic's major limitation is that it is always individually based. They can't draw on any power sources other than themselves. Given fossil fuels, solar power and nuclear energy, Humans can tap into vast energy resources that Wizards never could.

I am not jealous of the abilities of Harry Potter wizards and witches at all. I quite prefer my own life to theirs and I rather feel sorry for them for having to live in the 19th century, for the most part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, to each his own.

It isn't just me. Perhaps you would be willing to become a wizard/witch and give up all TV shows, all movies, and especially all Internet activity. No IMDb for you.

Wizards and witches in Harry Potter seem to have good lives as long as they have a strong network of friends and family. But if they don't they are SO wretched. I think Voldemort may have become a much less horrible person if he could have just watched a movie or some TV now and then or got out some of his hostilities on the internet chat boards.

People are simply less interested in world domination and violent killing since the mass media was globally instituted. The past 50 years prove that. In previous centuries it was hard to find a nation in the world that wasn't at war. Now, it is really difficult to find a nation that is. Life expectancy used to be 45. Now it is 75. People aren't as interested in killing others when they can just watch it on TV.










reply

There is no need to argue. We see things differently and there is nothing wrong with that.

That could be said about any debate on this board. If you aren’t interested in the discussion and would like to agree to disagree that’s fine but only if you can do so without presenting an argument at the same time. Since you have presented a lengthy argument I’m going to assume you are still interested in debate.

Snape manages to project all the way from Hogwarts to the Forest Of Dean,

In the book it is implied his is in the Forest and there is nothing in the movie to say he did the magic from Hogwarts. But the point is there’s nothing in the text to say there’s a limit.


Such as?

Magic

Human beings and all living things on earth transmit inheritance through DNA based genes.

That’s based on the assumption that things in a magical world work as they do in the real world. But even if there is a gene it wouldn’t help it’s a mute point. It would take too long for the muggels to even know they should be looking for it and develop a virus.


This means that even in Medieval times there must have been instances when a wizard was surprised and killed or knocked unconscious and then killed by witch-hating Muggles.

An instance here and there is not enough to send all the wizards into hiding.


And once guns were invented, the chances of wizard deaths increase.

That would make sense if the wizards had gone into hiding once muggels started developing superior weapons but that isn’t the case.

High powered rifles with sniper scopes, fighter jets releasing stealth missles from miles high in the sky, computer assisted drone technology. I don't think wizards stand a chance.

You continue to ignore how useless these weapons are when there is no one or no place to aim them. You also ignore that such weapons are a liability when wizards can easily trick muggels into using them against each other.

If they remain a hidden minority there has to be a reason for it.

If Rowling intended the reason to be that the muggels are dangerous she wouldn’t have included an excerpt about how totally useless witch burnings were with no hint that muggels are or have ever been a threat.

Modern medicine can do a lot of healing that magic doesn't seem so good at.

Like what? What have we ever seen magic not be able to cure besides injuries that were caused by magic?

Magic's major limitation is that it is always individually based. They can't draw on any power sources other than themselves. Given fossil fuels, solar power and nuclear energy, Humans can tap into vast energy resources that Wizards never could.

Yes but the individual never runs out of magic where muggel power sources can be turned off. By questioning a series of muggels and forcing them to tell the truth the wizards could learn all this. If they stated systematically shutting down all the power plants and turning fossil fuels into jello the muggels would be trying to find a logical non-magical explanation. By the time they even realized they were up against magic they would have nothing to fight with.

It isn't just me.

I never said it was. “To each is own” in no way implies that it’s just you. It’s like saying some people prefer one thing or some another. It doesn’t matter whether you or I would want a wizard’s life. The point is that wars often start because people are competing for resources and muggels don’t seem to have anything wizards are interested in. If wizards can have magic radios there’s no reason they couldn’t have magic TVs so they must not care about them.

People aren't as interested in killing others when they can just watch it on TV.

I’m not going to debate you on this one it’s too ridiculous.

reply

Since you have presented a lengthy argument I’m going to assume you are still interested in debate.

Well, I don't know. You have a way of tricking me into it. If you are still up for it, I will do my best to cooperate.

In the book it is implied his is in the Forest and there is nothing in the movie to say he did the magic from Hogwarts. But the point is there’s nothing in the text to say there’s a limit.

I don't see how Snape could be in that forest. It was a place only Hermione knew about. And Snape was there well in advance of the trio. How could he have found it and spent so much time travelling and preparing that unlikely scenario? The sword was beneath a thick sheet of ice. Why did he do that? Why didn't he just leave it in their tent? Or provide them the Sorting Hat, which would provide them the help they needed? The whole scene has always seemed like a plot hole to me. Just an implausible way to create unnecessary drama.


That’s based on the assumption that things in a magical world work as they do in the real world.

A pretty good assumption I think.

Unless you are suggesting that everything in this "magical world" is different than our real world. Which means that Muggles aren't really human beings like us in this Harry Potter world either. Doesn't make sense to me but perhaps that's what you are saying.

But if not, and if Muggles are meant to be normal human beings like us, and wizards can interbreed with them, it means that Wizards have DNA and chromosomes and semen and eggs and fallopian tubes and uteri and a placenta and all the other reproductive system equipment we have. No little microscopic fairies or midichlorians would be living within Wizards granting them magical powers or anything like that. If there were then same-species Muggles would have them also. If we can interbreed, it has to be in the genes.


You continue to ignore how useless these weapons are when there is no one or no place to aim them.

I don't see your point. They would aim them at wizards. Wizards are not invisible to Muggles. Though a few wizards have invisiblity powers they are not as good as Harry's and can't be maintained 24/7. If there was a war between the species, a lot of wizards are going to get shot. And that was true for 500 years before modern technology. They wouldn't stand a chance today.
(I am thinking that perhaps military strategy and tactics is a subject you haven't devoted a lot of time or thought to?)

If Rowling intended the reason to be that the muggels are dangerous she wouldn’t have included an excerpt about how totally useless witch burnings were with no hint that muggels are or have ever been a threat.

Perhaps. Depends on how deep and devious her mind was working. In my view, this is a Wizard story intended for Wizards. Perhaps to ease the minds of wizard children who have heard (true) horror stories about the past treatment of witches by muggles. "Don't worry dearie, no group of medieval Muggles could ever sneak up on a sleeping witch, knock her unconscious, break her wand and burn her. We are just too superior to them for that to EVER happen. We are invincible. Don't believe those old fairy tales about really burning witches."

Like what? What have we ever seen magic not be able to cure besides injuries that were caused by magic?

The first example I can think of are throats cut by knives, as was true for owners of the Elder Wand. I'm sure there are more. Are you suggesting every witch and every wizard is immortal and only dies because of a magical attack? That doesn't seem to fit the story as I see it.

The point is that wars often start because people are competing for resources and muggels don’t seem to have anything wizards are interested in.

Wizards are not interested in gold? Wizards are not interested in power? Wizards are not interested in protecting their property and their families?

Wizards in Harry Potter are fighting all the time. What do you think they ARE fighting over?

People aren't as interested in killing others when they can just watch it on TV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not going to debate you on this one it’s too ridiculous.

Perhaps you think people are more likely to kill each other if they watch violence on TV. It's a theory. But the facts don't bear it out. Since the advent of television, violent deaths in the world have dropped significantly, life expectancy has gone up dramatically and world population has grown exponentially. There are surely many contributing factors to this. But if you think the power of fantasy has no effect on the human psyche I don't think you have been paying attention.

Yes but the individual never runs out of magic where muggel power sources can be turned off. By questioning a series of muggels and forcing them to tell the truth the wizards could learn all this. If they stated systematically shutting down all the power plants and turning fossil fuels into jello the muggels would be trying to find a logical non-magical explanation. By the time they even realized they were up against magic they would have nothing to fight with.

You argue under the assumption that Wizards will ALWAYS have the power of surprise over Muggles. A false assumption, I think. There is much that science and pure power of numbers for which Wizards have no answer for. And in a war of attrition, Wizards would run out fighters far more quickly than the 7 billion that humans have at their disposal.

But I have come to realize that feeling Wizards are superior to human beings is part of what makes the Harry Potter story enjoyable for you. Thus, to continue to debate serves no purpose at all. I now agree that you are right on all points.



















reply

"If you enjoyed being judged you might have a leg to stand on. But you don't. You claim the god-like right to judge others but complain when others judge you."

You are arguing with a fictional idea that you have of me, not me. You read my words and attribute them to your version of me, the straw man you want to argue with. Why you feel the need to do this is beyond me. I have repeatedly told you that you are wrong about your assumptions of me and not once have you changed your views. This is a pointless endeavor not only because of that, but also because this no longer is about Harry Potter.

When you want to judge me, I am happy to accept the judgement. When you continually get wrong, usually intentionally so, and can't accept who I am, you are in no position to make any kind of judgment.

Bob

reply

You are arguing with a fictional idea that you have of me, not me.

Of course.

The only "you" I know is the persona you have created with words in IMDb. Obviously, that is a fictional persona and that is all that I am addressing.

When you want to judge me, I am happy to accept the judgement.

Sorry. Not interested. Perhaps someone else will.


reply

Well, I don't know. You have a way of tricking me into it.


I’m tricking you into it? When I answer a post it’s because the person has said something interesting. I’m sorry to learn the feeling is not mutual and you are only answering me because you have been “tricked” or out of some false sense of obligation. Since I can’t tell the difference between when you are actually interested in talking to me and when you are only doing it to be cooperative I guess I should stop talking to you.

I’ll leave you to believe what you want about muggles and Wizards and stop trying challenge you or pay you the compliment of rational debate. I will only say in regards to the rest of your post that all your questions about Snape and the sword are answered in the last book and on the TV issue, no, that is not what I think.

reply

I’m tricking you into it? When I answer a post it’s because the person has said something interesting. I’m sorry to learn the feeling is not mutual and you are only answering me because you have been “tricked” or out of some false sense of obligation. Since I can’t tell the difference between when you are actually interested in talking to me and when you are only doing it to be cooperative I guess I should stop talking to you.

Perhaps.

My problem is that in reading your responses, I keep getting the feeling there is more than just academic interest at work. As with certain others on this board, I get the sense that personal feelings of anger and hurt and personal rivalry are creeping in. And I don't like being a part of that.

If I truly knew your intentions were detached and academic rather than negatively emotional and personal it would make discussion easier for me.

reply

My problem is that in reading your responses, I keep getting the feeling there is more than just academic interest at work. As with certain others on this board, I get the sense that personal feelings of anger and hurt and personal rivalry are creeping in. And I don't like being a part of that.

I’m sorry you feel that way. That being the case I’m surprised you sited our conversations as an example of how adults communicate to another poster, but there we are. I’ve always respected your opinions when we disagree and tried to make that clear but I’ll put you ignore so I don’t bother you again.

For the record the only comment you made that I had a negative emotional reaction to was the one about people not wanting to kill each other if they watch enough TV. In light of the recent tragedy I hope you might understand that one.

reply

I apologize if I hurt your feelings. But you seem unconcerned about why I might feel as I do.

reply

"Roughly the same time."

Not roughly the same time. The movie shows Snape's memory of Lily with baby Harry minutes before Voldy came in to kill the family. The movie shows Snape's memory of Lily being killed.

"Voldy may even have promised Snape he wouldn't hurt Lily."

If he made that promise, Snape wouldn't have turned on Voldy. Snape tells Dumbledore in the movie that "He intends to hunt them down and kill them." This is very similar to what was in the book. Voldy's intent was to kill all three Potters.

"Remember, Voldemort never tried to kill Lily. The shot that killed her was aimed at Harry."

As walker stated, this is a ridiculous statement.

"We see him in the house, cradling Lily's dead body."

That was after the Fidelus Charm had been broken with the deaths of the Potters.

Bob

reply

I think it's clear the movie added scenes like Lily with Harry and other memories that Snape wasn't there for just for added drama and to make the scenes more emotional and didn't care it'd be an error as far as how pensives are supposed to work.

reply

Not roughly the same time. The movie shows Snape's memory of Lily with baby Harry minutes before Voldy came in to kill the family. The movie shows Snape's memory of Lily being killed.

I don't see why "just before Lily is killed" and "just after Lily is killed" wouldn't be considered "roughly the same time".

"Voldy may even have promised Snape he wouldn't hurt Lily."

If he made that promise, Snape wouldn't have turned on Voldy.

You think Snape would have forgiven Voldemort for accidentally killing Lily? I don't. That doesn't sound like Snape to me.

Remember, Voldemort never tried to kill Lily. The shot that killed her was aimed at Harry."

As walker stated, this is a ridiculous statement

So you also deny that Lily stepped in front of Harry and sacrificed herself for her son by taking the AK curse aimed at him?

That was after the Fidelus Charm had been broken with the deaths of the Potters.

Doesn't matter.

If Snape arrived at the Potter home with Voldemort when he arrived to kill them, he certainly wouldn't go IN with Voldemort.

Snape would only have gone to pose as a hero after James and Harry were dead. To rescue Lily and comfort her in her time of terror and mourning. It didn't work out the way Snape had hoped. Harry lived. Lily did not.

reply

"So you also deny that Lily stepped in front of Harry and sacrificed herself for her son by taking the AK curse aimed at him?"

she placed Harry in the crib behind her and stood there. she did not step in front. she was already there. the AK curse that killed her was meant for her. Voldemort killed her deliberately.


Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

reply


she placed Harry in the crib behind her and stood there. she did not step in front. she was already there. the AK curse that killed her was meant for her. Voldemort killed her deliberately.

So you are denying that Voldemort wanted to give Lily a chance to live?

I think he did either try to give her a chance to live or wanted to give the appearance of that.

Either way, I feel the scenario plays out that Lily took the AK spell meant for Harry. This sacrifice is what protected Harry on the next AK spell which rebounded and hit Voldemort. That seems to be the important issue, not where her feet happened to be.

she placed Harry in the crib behind her and stood there. she did not step in front.

To me that sounds like "stepping in front".

she was already there.

No, you can see her walking over to the crib and turning around. If that doesn't seem to you like 'stepping in front' of her child to protect him, I guess that's okay.

But is it really worth arguing over?

reply

I think your problem is you apparently struggle to remember details in the books and movies. There's nothing to deny about Lily diving in front of Harry to save him. It didn't happen that way. This is a fact that can't be refuted. If you think it would make more sense for Lily to have jumped in front Harry and taken a curse aimed at him, that's a different story. But it did not happen that way.

reply

I think your problem is you apparently struggle to remember details in the books and movies. There's nothing to deny about Lily diving in front of Harry to save him. It didn't happen that way. This is a fact that can't be refuted. If you think it would make more sense for Lily to have jumped in front Harry and taken a curse aimed at him, that's a different story. But it did not happen that way.

You are jumping to conclusions. I don't have a "problem" though you may think I do.

Again, please explain why Voldemort tried to give Lily Potter a chance to live if he was always planning to kill her. Doesn't make sense to me. Why not kill Dad, kill Mom then kill baby? Why tell Mom to "stand aside" if he was planning to kill her anyway?

If Lily hadn't sacrificed herself for Harry, he wouldn't have gotten the protection which rebounded the next spell from his wand. And if Lily wasn't scheduled to live then it wasn't a sacrifice.

Inexorable logic, as far as I can tell.

reply

Snape asked him to spare Lily, so he decided to offer her a chance to live. When she refused his offer, he decided to kill her. He didn't make up his mind to kill her until the moment he did. He went to the house planning to give her a chance to live,

But regardless, we see how her death happened, and it didn't happen close to the way you claim. He meant to kill her when he did, she didn't jump in front of a curse.

reply

Snape asked him to spare Lily, so he decided to offer her a chance to live. When she refused his offer, he decided to kill her. He didn't make up his mind to kill her until the moment he did. He went to the house planning to give her a chance to live,

But regardless, we see how her death happened, and it didn't happen close to the way you claim. He meant to kill her when he did, she didn't jump in front of a curse.

You've lost track of the point of this discussion. Whether she "jumped in front" is irrelevant.

(Although, in a hazy scene, that does seem to be what happens. Lily is carrying Harry protectively then puts him in his crib and stands in front of the crib, absorbing the AK spell from Voldemort. Starts at about the 1:00 mark of the video below. Feel free to re-watch. But, as already noted, it doesn't matter to this discussion.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fQYzuDTJG0

The point was an explanation for WHY Voldemort would ever have considered sparing Lily Potter's life.

And when one of Voldemort's most devoted followers happens to be in love with Lily Potter, the mystery has an easy solution.

reply

It does matter actually, because it's something you were wrong about. Be an adult and admit instead of just ignoring it completely.

reply

It does matter actually, because it's something you were wrong about. Be an adult and admit instead of just ignoring it completely.

If it makes you happy I would love to admit I was wrong.

But that means I have to pretend the video clip I posted doesn't exist. Why oh WHY did I post that? Now I can't make walker125 happy and I really wanted to do that. I'm sorry, dude.

reply

Snape would only have gone to pose as a hero after James and Harry were dead. To rescue Lily and comfort her in her time of terror and mourning. It didn't work out the way Snape had hoped. Harry lived. Lily did not.


Snape already knew he couldn't trust Voldemort not to kill Lily - that's why he went to Dumbeldore in the first place. If he was there and could see that Lily wasn't getting out of the way he could have done something to get her out of the way. If he was not there for that then he shouldn't have the memory.

reply

Snape already knew he couldn't trust Voldemort not to kill Lily - that's why he went to Dumbeldore in the first place

Yep.

If he was there and could see that Lily wasn't getting out of the way he could have done something to get her out of the way

It is A. Bob's argument that Snape could not have entered the house while James and Lily lived. Thus he was just outside the house when Lily died. Otherwise he could not have been there to cradle Lily's dead body before Hogwarts heroes arrived to gather up baby Harry. He must have been just outside the Potter house when Voldemort killed them.


reply

It is A. Bob's argument that Snape could not have entered the house while James and Lily lived. Thus he was just outside the house when Lily died.


This was all in the context of A.Bobs original question:

4 How did Snape get the memories of Lily cooing Harry and Voldy killing her?


If Snape was outside when she died he should remember this.

reply

4 How did Snape get the memories of Lily cooing Harry and Voldy killing her?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Snape was outside when she died he should remember this.

Good point.

Snape couldn't have gotten that memory whether he was inside or outside the house. No way Lily is cooing to Harry while Snape is in her house. Maybe he was invisible when he got that memory.

reply

"I don't see why "just before Lily is killed" and "just after Lily is killed" wouldn't be considered "roughly the same time"."

No one but a few specific people could even see the house before the Potters were killed--Sirius, Peter, Bathilda, and the Potters (likely also Lupin) due to the Fidelus charm. Peter, the secret-keeper, told Voldy. Snape would not have been able to enter into the house prior to the Potter's deaths. But you do seem to have underztood what I was talking about in your post earlier today.

"You think Snape would have forgiven Voldemort for accidentally killing Lily?"

I said that Snape turned on Voldy as soon as Voldy targeted Lily for death. He never told Snape he would not kill Lily. This is why Snape went to Dumbledore to protect her.

"So you also deny that Lily stepped in front of Harry"

Yes, she was already in front of Harry, standing between him and Voldy. My video I used came from Snape's memories: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf0_RP6TwPo I am trying to remember where that other scene came from you provided that showed Lily holding Harry.

Bob

reply

But you do seem to have underztood what I was talking about in your post earlier today.

Yes, I understand. I don't see how Snape could have been there to cradle Lily's body just after her death if he hadn't gone to the house with Voldemort. I think he and Wormtail did.

"You think Snape would have forgiven Voldemort for accidentally killing Lily?"

I said that Snape turned on Voldy as soon as Voldy targeted Lily for death. He never told Snape he would not kill Lily. This is why Snape went to Dumbledore to protect her.

I see no reason for Voldemort to even consider sparing Lily's life except for Snape asking him to. Thus I think he asked him.

Do I think Snape believed that Voldemort WOULD spare Lily's life after requesting it? Nope. How would Voldemort have treated such a request? With contempt. Voldemort simply isn't the kind of guy who would say, "Oh yes, Severus, I promise not to hurt Lily, because I know you love her".

Just the opposite. As I see it, Voldemort would have sneered at Snape's request to spare Lily. So then, when he spared her, he would have an even more loyal subservient slave in Snape. But it backfired on Voldy.

Voldemort assumed Snape would be far more afraid of him than in love with Lily. But it was the opposite. Snape's love for Lily was so strong he betrayed Voldemort to their greatest enemy. Thus Snape was already playing double agent even before Voldemort's death. This scenario makes sense to me.

"So you also deny that Lily stepped in front of Harry"

Yes, she was already in front of Harry, standing between him and Voldy. My video I used came from Snape's memories: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf0_RP6TwPo I am trying to remember where that other scene came from you provided that showed Lily holding Harry.

I think you are over-thinking flawed evidence. The movies make it clear that people's memories are distorted, edited and in some cases, just plain false. For example, one Snape memory has James Potter willfully knocking his books out of his hand. The next memory shows James merely bumping into him carelessly.

We don't KNOW what exactly happened as the Potters were killed. By your argument, Snape couldn't have been in the house before it happened. He didn't see it. Therefore what we see is just what Snape THOUGHT happened. He blamed Voldemort based on his own interpretation not what he saw. That his memories might change in this situation is completely natural and supported by the movie.

All this discussion of exactly where Lily Potter's feet were before she died is truly silly and pointless. It doesn't matter. What matters is that she sacrificed herself for Harry, which provided him protection from Voldemort's next AK spell.

reply

"I don't see how Snape could have been there to cradle Lily's body just after her death if he hadn't gone to the house with Voldemort. I think he and Wormtail did."

Being there after is iffy, but plausible, I just loathe that concept. We don't know the specific timetable of the length of time between when Voldy died and Hagrid and Sirius showing up. It could have been hours. However, as I said, there was no way for Snape to be in the house prior to the Potter deaths.

"Voldemort assumed Snape would be far more afraid of him than in love with Lily. But it was the opposite. Snape's love for Lily was so strong he betrayed Voldemort to their greatest enemy. Thus Snape was already playing double agent even before Voldemort's death. This scenario makes sense to me."

Well yeah. That part does make sense except for the fact that Voldy did not understand love. He understood loyalty, respect, and fear but not love and sacrifice. Snape was working as a double agent for about a year prior to Voldy's downfall. But Voldy never considered sparing Lily for a specific reason. In the movies, he didn't even consider sparing her life. In the books, he treated her as an annoyance, not as a request from Snape to spare her. He in fact, thought that he could easily have moved her out of the way but felt it would be "prudent to finish them all" (DH p 344).

"The movies make it clear that people's memories are distorted, edited and in some cases, just plain false."

Only one memory was like that. We saw Dumbledore's memory in GoF that dealt with Karkaroff naming names in exchange for leniency. In OoP, we saw Snape's worst memory. In HBP, we saw Dumbodore's memory of his first meeting of Tom Riddle and we saw a fake and then real memory from Slughorn. We don't know how accurate the memory was in CoS that came from the diary, but it was likely a fairly accurate portrait of Tom Riddle framing Hagrid.

"one Snape memory has James Potter willfully knocking his books out of his hand. The next memory shows James merely bumping into him carelessly."

Where did you see him doing it carelessly? James and Sirius are racing through the halls, running between Snape and Lily, knocking the books from both of their hands intentionally. Sirius comes running right after as their books have fallen. James then turns around to look at them, smiling at Lily.

"All this discussion of exactly where Lily Potter's feet were before she died is truly silly and pointless."

I am not arguing where her feet were. The point is that Voldy's intent was to kill Lily with the spell he cast, not Harry. Only when she was dead could Voldy turn on Harry as he had no more resistance.

Bob

reply

4 How did Snape get the memories of Lily cooing Harry and Voldy killing her?


For gits and shiggles, it's fan theory time. That wasn't Snape's memory, that was Harry's memory. Snape stole it from Harry during their Occlumency lessens and it slipped into his tears.

reply

I like it! :o)

reply

1. Because the filmmakers wanted one thing to be correct continuity wise
2. Because the filmmaker didn't give a crap about continuity after they'd made sure one thing was right.
3. It's a HP film, there is never any point to what is done unless it's to make money.
4. It's a HP film so every character has an memories need to have the film make money.
5. Because Snape is a sadistic bastard who never gave a crap about Harry. He probably didn't even notice him.

reply


2

Why was Snape's memory of Lily and James dancing--a picture that Hagrid gave to Harry at the end of the first movie? Was Snape behind the camera?


Perhaps Snape seen it when he was doing Occlumency lessons with Harry and remembered it ever since.

reply

"Why would Snape visit the Potter house after their deaths and leave baby Harry alone in the house with two dead parents?"

Because at that point he didn't care about Harry. He loved Lily but he hated James, and Harry was proof that Lily had chose James over him. He already had no connection to Harry, and once Lily was dead, that lack of a connection was even greater. It took Dumbledore to convince Snape that he had to protect Harry because of his love for Lily.

reply

"Why would Snape visit the Potter house after their deaths and leave baby Harry alone in the house with two dead parents?"

Because at that point he didn't care about Harry. He loved Lily but he hated James, and Harry was proof that Lily had chose James over him. He already had no connection to Harry, and once Lily was dead, that lack of a connection was even greater. It took Dumbledore to convince Snape that he had to protect Harry because of his love for Lily.

Seems clear and logical. Why else would Snape both protect Harry AND treat him like crap across all 7 books? Love for Lily, hate for James. Simple, elegant solution for the conundrum Rowling had first created in Sorcerer's Stone.

reply

"Because at that point he didn't care about Harry."

it's not about caring for Harry, it is about basic humanity. Harry was a fourteen month baby who was in his crib and Snape presumably just left him alone in a house for he didn't know how long with no way to fend for himself.

Bob

reply

Snape led a very lonely life. There was only one woman he ever truly loved, and she chose another man over him, one that treated him terribly. And then she was murdered, giving her life to protect her infant son. Why would he want to show any feelings for Harry, who he probably partially blamed for Lily's death? He looked at Harry and saw the reason she was dead.

reply

He doesn't have to care for Harry. He also didn't have to bully and harass him deliberately for years.

reply

"He doesn't have to care for Harry. He also didn't have to bully and harass him deliberately for years."

Good, because he doesn't care for Harry. Snape was bullied by James as a child and in his mind James stole Lily from him. He looks at Harry and sees everything that he saw in James. So he thinks that Harry is just like James.

And he doesn't bully him. Bullying is a serious problem, so saying the way Snape treats Harry is bullying is an insult to everyone who is actually bullied in real life.

reply

Defending a bully is insulting to anyone bullied in real life.

Snape, a grown man, insults and mocks and harasses an 11 year old boy. You don't call that bullying? What do you call that, little freak? Being nice?

Not to mention he bullies other students as well. He was going to kill Neville's toad. He mocked Hermione when she got hit by a spell that caused her teeth to grow and hurt her. He would refuse to listen when Gryffendors told him that Slytherin students were attacking the Gryffender quiddich team. How you going to justify all that, freak?

reply

It doesn't matter how many times you say otherwise Snape did bully Harry and other students as well. Nothing James did is any excuse for this because Harry isn't James.

reply

Snape intentionally isolated himself emotionally from others. He chose not to look for another woman and let his love for Lily (and her death) rule his life. Lily was unbelievably patient with Snape, staying friends with him much after her friends felt he was unworthy due to his love of dark arts and his death eater wannabes

His feud with James was mutual and both were the instigator that feud. Snape wasn't an innocent victim of James' bullying. They got each other many times.

"Why would he want to show any feelings for Harry, who he probably partially blamed for Lily's death?"

He had a choice, view Harry as an extension of Lily and bring his love of Lily to Harry or to see Harry as an extension of James and bring his hatred of James to Harry. Snape chose the latter. I doubt he blamed Harry for Lily's death, Snape himself was the guilty party who heard the first part of the prophecy and told Voldy, who chose the Potters as their victim. But again, when talking about the scene in the movie where Snape is in the house, why leave any baby alone? That would show a complete disrespect for Lily and a sociopathic quality where he doesn't care what happens to a fourteen-month-old baby.

Bob

reply

"Snape intentionally isolated himself emotionally from others. He chose not to look for another woman and let his love for Lily (and her death) rule his life. Lily was unbelievably patient with Snape, staying friends with him much after her friends felt he was unworthy due to his love of dark arts and his death eater wannabes"

Snape isolated himself from others because he didn't have anything in common with them. Lily was the only person he had a connection with. Once Lily chose James over him, he isolated himself from everyone because he had lost the only woman he had ever loved to the person he hated the most. And Lily did try to stay friends with Snape but she chose James over him, which Snape saw as a betrayal, even though he still loved her.

"His feud with James was mutual and both were the instigator that feud. Snape wasn't an innocent victim of James' bullying. They got each other many times."

I don't remember any instances of Snape bullying James or antagonizing him. It was always James and his crew (Sirius, Lupin) bullying Snape. Snape wanted nothing to do with James, while James went out of his way to antagonize and bully Snape.

"He had a choice, view Harry as an extension of Lily and bring his love of Lily to Harry or to see Harry as an extension of James and bring his hatred of James to Harry. Snape chose the latter. I doubt he blamed Harry for Lily's death, Snape himself was the guilty party who heard the first part of the prophecy and told Voldy, who chose the Potters as their victim. But again, when talking about the scene in the movie where Snape is in the house, why leave any baby alone? That would show a complete disrespect for Lily and a sociopathic quality where he doesn't care what happens to a fourteen-month-old baby."

Of course Snape blamed Harry for Lily's death. There was a prophecy that the baby would be a threat to Voldemort, so voldemort tried to kill Harry and ended up killing Lily. He blamed Voldemort, but he also blamed Harry, because it was Harry's existence that ended up killing Lily. It's like when a mother dies in childbirth, sometimes the father looks at the baby and thinks "That's my child, but they were also responsible for killing the woman I love." In this situation Snape doesn't even have the father/son connection with the baby Harry - he looks and sees a baby that before this moment he had no feelings for or against (although he probably resented him as physical proof of Lily choosing James over him) but after Lily's death he looks at Harry (even as a baby) and thinks "You are the reason Lily is dead". Why should he take care of this baby who caused the death of the love of his life?

reply

Jesus Christ you a disturbed freak. It's okay to hate a baby? Wow.

And hey retard, you know who's actually to blame for Lily's death? Snape himself. Because HE TOLD VOLDEMORT THERE WAS A PROPHECY, AND VOLDEMORT WENT AFTER THE POTTERS. If Snape never tells Voldemort, Voldemort never goes after Harry and kills Lily. FACT. Are you too retarded to remember how we're told Snape was listening outside the door when Dumbledore heard the prophecy? And how he then immediately told Voldemort? Snape is to blame for Lily's death. You're so stupid.

reply

"Lily was the only person he had a connection with. Once Lily chose James over him, he isolated himself from everyone because he had lost the only woman he had ever loved to the person he hated the most. And Lily did try to stay friends with Snape but she chose James over him, which Snape saw as a betrayal, even though he still loved her. "

Snape had a connection with his fellow Slytherin classmates, who were into dark arts and Voldy. Snaoe harbored racist attitudes that he had no problem sharing with others. He called other Muggle-borns "Mudblood" frequently. It was this and his friendships with his Slytherin friends that was why Lily's friends couldn't stand him. Snape could have chosen to abandon his hatred and acceptance of dark arts and kept Lily as a friend and possibly as a girlfriend, but he went the other way.

It was Snape calling Lily a Mudblood that finally ended their friendship. That was why it was Snape's worst memory. At the time, Lily hated James as well. It was over a year later when they were in their seventh years that Lily and James started going out, after James changed enough to make an impression on Lily.

"I don't remember any instances of Snape bullying James or antagonizing him."

Because we didn't see any of them, but he did. Even Lupin mentioned that they Snape and James were both instigators of their feud. And this was during a conversation with Harry where they admitted they all acted stupidly during their Hogwarts years.

"Of course Snape blamed Harry for Lily's death. There was a prophecy that the baby would be a threat to Voldemort, so voldemort tried to kill Harry and ended up killing Lily. He blamed Voldemort, but he also blamed Harry, because it was Harry's existence that ended up killing Lily."

Snape blamed himself primarily for the death of Lily. He was the one who overheard the prophecy and reported it to Voldy. He of course blamed Voldy as he was the one who killed Lily and worked to take Voldy down after that. Harry was different. Harry looked like James and that was the primary reason Snape hated Harry.

Bob

reply

Snape isolated himself from others because he didn't have anything in common with them. Lily was the only person he had a connection with.

Snape and Lily have an argument because Lily doesn't like his friends. Therefore he does have friends.

reply