Essay: The Truth and Authority

[DSDragon]

I'm not sure if there's a more appropriate thread for this essay to go on--and I did look, honest! If I missed a better thread to tack it onto, my humblest apologies, and mods, feel free to move it to that thread.

The idea for this essay actually came from a Post-OotP discussion I was having with a friend shortly after the book's release last June. It took a year for me to put my thoughts in anything resembling coherency, and the essay you will read below is the format that popped into my head last night as I was going to bed.

I hope you enjoy the essay, and please, comments are VERY welcome!

-----

The Truth and Authority
by DSDragon

lie n : an untrue statement made with intent to deceive
The Mirriam Webster Dictionary, page 426

A lie, other than a deliberate falsehood, is also a deliberate withholding of information. Of the authority figures in Harry Potter's life by the end of the Order of the Phoenix, Severus Snape is the only adult who has not lied to Harry.

The Dursleys were the first to lie to him; they told Harry that his parents had died "in a car crash," a lie uncovered with Hagrid's first visit (Sorcerer's Stone 53). Also, Vernon and Petunia deliberately withheld the information that Harry was a wizard until they are forced to admit to his heritage.

Harry's end-of-year meetings with Dumbledore are another issue. At the end of Harry's first year, Dumbledore deliberately withholds the answer to Harry's question: "why would [Voldemort] want to kill [Harry] in the first place" (Sorcerer's Stone 298)? But Professor Dumbledore tells Harry that he is withholding this answer, so this incident is not a lie. However, at the end of Harry's second, third, and fourth years, Dumbledore does not answer Harry's question, for, despite the fact that Harry does not ask again, the professor is aware (as of the end of book one) that Harry wants to know the answer.

The Dursleys are bad enough; Harry expects deceit and treachery from his relatives, but Dumbledore's admissions of guilt in Order of the Phoenix are the last straw. Harry cannot trust Professor Dumbledore after the end of book five, unless the professor makes an effort to earn Harry's trust back.

The Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge, does not play a major role in Harry's day-to-day life, but is an authority figure all the same. In Prisoner of Azkaban, when Fudge catches up with Harry at The Leaky Cauldron, the minister comes off as genial, fatherly, a little anxious, and very tired. However, after the events of the Third Task, Fudge shows his true colors as a politician willing only to save his position in society-he listens only to what he wants to hear.

Also in Harry's third year, Remus Lupin covers up his lycanthropy with lies, implying that he has a cold each full moon. It is not until Hermione exposes him in the Shrieking Shack that Harry finds out Lupin's secret, and his connection to Sirius.

Not only did Dumbledore deliberately keep the prophecy from Harry when he should have told, but the professor also had others make the same omission, once they knew. Molly Weasley was the most emphatic about keeping Harry from finding out about the prophecy, simply because Dumbledore says that the prophecy is not something Harry "needs to know" about (Order of the Phoenix 88). Clearly, by the end of book five, the fact becomes clear that Harry did need to know about the prophecy, if not the content of it. Harry's resentment over Occlumency lessons with Professor Snape, his dash to the Department of Mysteries, and Sirius' death are only a few of the problems that could have been prevented, had Harry known about the prophecy beforehand.

The other prominent adults lead Harry to believe that his father was a good person from the start. When Professor Snape comes to inform Harry of his impending lessons, the professor and Sirius get into an altercation:

"How touching," Snape sneered. "But surely you have noticed that Potter is very like his father?"

"Yes, I have," said Sirius proudly.

"Well then, you'll know he's so arrogant that criticism simply bounces off him," Snape said sleekly.

Sirius pushed his chair roughly aside and strode around the table toward Snape, pulling out his wand as he went; Snape whipped out his own. They were squaring up to each other, Sirius looking livid, Snape calculating, his eyes darting from Sirius's wand tip to his face (Order of the Phoenix 520).

Ever since his first days at Hogwarts, Harry has heard nothing but how great James and Lily Potter were. Sirius, in his reaction to Snape's taunting, leads Harry to believe that Snape is the liar in this instance. However, as Harry finds out in chapter twenty-eight of Order of the Phoenix, Professor Snape was really telling the truth: James was arrogant.

With one memory in a pensieve, Severus Snape was established as the most brutally honest of Harry's "role model set." Sure, the enmity between student and teacher is palpable, and Harry himself has not realized that the professor has been honest-usually almost brutally so-this whole time, but I think that will change at least a little bit, before the seventh book is over. After all, Harry did remember that Professor Snape could be trusted enough to tell him about Sirius' supposed kid napping before he went to the Department of Mysteries.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

This is a very interesting conclusion...and all too true. Harry likes hearing he wants to hear...that he is great, and that his father was perfect. The only person who tells him the truth (or the nearest thing to it) is snape, and harry hates him for it.

[dog star]

Interesting theory, but what might we be able to conclude from it?

There are a lot of people -- not just Harry, and not even really limited to characters in the books themselves -- who hate Snape for the things he says, but when you get down to it, he's really just kind of brutally honest. Yes, sometimes he's a bit over the top or says things that seem to be deliberately hurtful, but I can't think of an occasion when he's deliberately lied to Harry or anyone else. Dumbledore trusts him, which I think is important and says a lot for his character.

[netsirk]

but in this case, is lying the same thing as omission?
and what about lying as a form of protection?
snape has often been brutally effort in order to hurt harry, which hardly feels like a role model

[alpha_hazard]

Very well written and though out, I could never have the patiencce to take a whole year to think about that...

Anyway...although I understand that the only person to never lie to harry is Snape...I also feel that Dumbledore's Withholding of information is something harry brings upon himself...Dumbledore does nothing to dispell harry's hesitance at given or asking inforation from dumbledore...because he establishes early on that he will not reveal certain information to him yet...

I did not vote for the Sirius Black Question on the JK rowling website because I knew she wouldn't answer it, because answering it yes would reveal far too much and outrage people for ruining things for them, and Answering no would be an outrage because everyone wants to believe he is alive. SImilarly I did not vote for the Snape/Lily relation question because I knew it was probably no, and even so, it is another question that would be far too revealing to the series...Therefore, rather than making Rowling Lie, or Deliberately withold information, I withheld my question because. Therefore, By Dumbledore witholding information and telling Harry straight the first time, he caused was able to prevent the need to lie or withold information from Harry.

Snape hardly has any altruistic goals in his honesty, except to perhaps show him that not everybody will Praise him for his whole life...which is an important lesson...
Snape in fact is not honest about Harry's father, withholding the fact that he was a jerk to him, it is only through harry's curiosity and downright foolinshness that he discovers this fact...and is horrified of course...What would snape have to gain from telling Harry such things...obviously since they are in the Penseive they are vulnerabilities, so revealing them to Harry is a weakness, furthermore, harry would never believe him...

THis leads me to another point about both Dumbledore adn the Dursleys...The dursley have nothing to gain from Telling Harry the Truth. They are already cruel enough as it is without trying to convince him of some fantastic story that his a wizard. Quite often in the First book he is still disbelieving, thinking it is just the ultimate prank they could play on him...Harry would never believe the Truth coming from the Dursleys.

Dumbledore has no reason to tell Harry for the same reason. Harry could never have believed that He was the subject of a prophecy and that it would mean he alone would one day face and defeat Voldemort, and this had been preordained the moment Voldemort came to his door. Harry never would have believe it is Dumbledore told him that for an entire year after Sirius escape that he had been reading the signs of Voldmort's return.

So you see, truth, although liberating, is also relative to ones own experiences, and quite often can mean the difference between trust and hatred...Just look at Harry's opinion of his most honest teacher! When dumbledore battles Voldemort at the end of Order Of the Pheonix, it reestablishes that trust and that notion that he is looking out for Harry. When Harry is threatened by Dementors in Little Whinging, it proves that Voldemort has little power there, as well as displaying to the Dursleys Harry's importance in the Wizarding world...Neither of these could have happened without the withholding of information. Ultimately, I think you are overlooking something in the early part of your Essay.

lie n : an untrue statement made with intent to deceive

Yes, unture statements may be made, but it is my strong feeling that none of these statements ever have the intent to deceive Harry or the Reader.

[barmy codger]

Telling Harry about the Prophecy risked the information getting to Voldemort through Harry. Dumbledore has taken great pains to prevent Voldemort learning about the Prophecy. He explained to Harry as well that he tried to keep the burden off Harry as long as he could, a noble motive. I also point out that Harry himself lies on a regular basis. Ms Rowling said this was a moral story and she is showing the consequences of telling lies and withholding information, as well as showing when people think lies are necessary.

Snape's honesty with Harry is a good point. The quoted passage shows him being honest about James' qualities, but was Snape honest when he said criticism bounced off Harry like it did his father?

[DSDragon]

Snape's honesty with Harry is a good point. The quoted passage shows him being honest about James' qualities, but was Snape honest when he said criticism bounced off Harry like it did his father?

As far as Snape was concerned, he was. Snape is so blinded by his hatred for James' memory and Harry himself, that he does not take the time to study the differences between father and son. It is the truth as Snape knows it, so he is being honest.

As for the remark alpha_hazard made about deception, I see your point. I tried to explain better about the Dumbledore thing, but that's what came out. Yes, the motives were, in themselves, noble, but in the end Dumbledore decieved Harry (and himself a bit too), inasmuch as the desired (and hoped-for) results of keeping the information secret did not truly come about. Am I making any sense? Perhaps I should go to bed before thinking on this further.

Just had a thought:

Perhaps, instead of including the withholding of information in the definition of "lie," I should have said "lied to, or withheld information from" Harry? That way, the deception aspect is left out of the ommission definition, and Harry's mistrust of those who have withheld the information (whether or not their intentions were noble) is still a valid argument.

As for where the theory goes? I think that, should Harry realize that Snape's not held information from him "to protect him," and that anything Snape's told him--though hateful and anger-inducing--was, nonetheless, true, then Harry might start going to SNAPE for answers eventually.

It wouldn't happen all at once, of course, but gradually. And the pair would possibly NEVER like each other, but Harry would at least know Snape was being completely honest.

[Katarzyna]

but was Snape honest when he said criticism bounced off Harry like it did his father?
I think Snape was mistaken in that opinion.

But he definitely lied to Harry in OotP, after Harry told Snape "He's got Padfoot!"

Snape replied that he had no idea what Harry was talking about. If one is being pedantic about others lying to Harry, then one must include this incident. Yes, Snape had his reasons for lying, but so did everyone else who "lied" or didn't tell Harry the entire truth.

Professor Snape was really telling the truth: James was arrogant.
In Snape's opinion. James was also a very good man, in many other people's opinons. Plus, Snape was wrong when he said Harry was arrogant--was that a mistke of Snape's, or a lie for Harry's ears?

The truth is can be a very difficult thing to perceive and share.

[DSDragon]

I think Snape was mistaken in that opinion.

But he definitely lied to Harry in OotP, after Harry told Snape "He's got Padfoot!"

Snape replied that he had no idea what Harry was talking about. If one is being pedantic about others lying to Harry, then one must include this incident. Yes, Snape had his reasons for lying, but so did everyone else who "lied" or didn't tell Harry the entire truth.

Technically, Snape was lying to Umbridge in that instance.

In Snape's opinion. James was also a very good man, in many other people's opinons. Plus, Snape was wrong when he said Harry was arrogant--was that a mistke of Snape's, or a lie for Harry's ears?

Snape is very much stuck in the past, when it comes to James. Remember, his worst memory is only of his fifth year in Hogwarts, when James was rather hung up on himself, and showed it by harassing Snape just because Sirius was bored. The way Snape holds grudges (for generations, it seems), I'm not surprised that Snape was unable to recognize that James had changed, and that Harry is quite different from the James of Snape's fifth year.

Also, in some ways, Sirius, James and Harry are as prejudiced as the Death Eaters (except they show it differently, of course). Instead of trying to "mend fences," so to speak, when confronted by a school-age enemy, they lash out, and take revenge. In a way, James and Sirius were the Draco Malfoy of Snape's generation. And Harry, like Snape, doesn't take kindly to harassment--neither believes in "turning the other cheek," or "kiss and make up," but rather in, "I'll get you for that!" and "You slimy, rotten P(*&@!#(*!"

The truth is can be a very difficult thing to perceive and share.

Indeed it is.

[Katarzyna]

Technically, Snape was lying to Umbridge in that instance.
Snape answered a question that Umbridge asked, but it was in the presence of Harry. I would say that Snape technically lied to everyone in the room. Snape definitely had his reasons, and they were good ones, imo, but the lie was there for everyone to hear.

If you don't consider that a lie, then neither should you think that Lupin lied to Harry. Or Dumbledore, or McGonagall, or Flitwick, or... well, I could go on.

Snape is very much stuck in the past, when it comes to James.
Oh, cry me a river! It's in Snape's power to free himself from his past. That he chooses not to isn't the fault of Harry. I'm getting rather weary of people making excuses for Snape's bad behaviour.

Also, in some ways, Sirius, James and Harry are as prejudiced as the Death Eaters (except they show it differently, of course). Instead of trying to "mend fences," so to speak, when confronted by a school-age enemy, they lash out, and take revenge.
What? In what way did Remus Lupin lash out on Severus Snape in PoA? Even after Snape betrayed Lupin's secret? Lupin acted better than the perfect gentleman in that case.

In a way, James and Sirius were the Draco Malfoy of Snape's generation.
Not quite, though, I can see the parallels. However, James and Sirius grew up. Snape didn't.

And Harry, like Snape, doesn't take kindly to harassment--neither believes in "turning the other cheek," or "kiss and make up," but rather in, "I'll get you for that!" and "You slimy, rotten P(*&@!#(*!"
Well, given that Snape is supposed to be an adult in his 30s and, Harry is a boy aged 11-15, I'm slightly more inclined to cut Harry a break. Now, if the grown-up Harry acts as badly as the adult Snape does, I'll be the first to criticize him.

In conclusion, while I really believe that Snape is fighting for the good, I don't think it excuses him for being a nasty git and a bully to children. Snape needs to grow up.

[barmy codger]

So, Snape did lie on occasion, and he also said something false (about Harry) though he thought it true, which showed he wasn't being honest with himself. But the heart of this business is that Snape has indeed told Harry many things Harry needed to know. Information Harry got from no one else. Another question is, did Snape leave his worst memory in the Pensieve to hide it from Harry? A skilled Legillimens worried about an unskilled student breaking into his memories? Was that not an attempt to withhold information?

[Barbara Kennedy]

Here are a few threads that touch upon this subject.


Was Dumbledore telling the truth? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=11240)
Has Dumbledore been lying to Harry? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=7356) archive
Would Dumbledore have told Harry anyway? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=23533)
Was Snape protecting Harry from what James was? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=23380)
Harry’s mistakes & not listening to Snape (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=13441)

[lanifiel]

Despite there being some threads already discussing this (seemingly) I'm happy to have it stay open for discussion.

[netsirk]

so basically everyone harry knows has lied to him at one point or another, to one degree or another, including snape.

but are all lies made equal? what about omission to protect harry? dumbledore takes some fault for the events at the end of ootp - but realistically speaking, would knowing earlier have been too much of a burden for harry to carry at such a delicate age?

[DarkThunder]

What the...? I'd trust Dumbledore with my life even after that.

[netsirk]

but in terms of the people around harry being moral role models.

harry himself lies and omits to everyone he knows - it is absolutely a two-way street.
in almost every book harry chooses to not or wait to tell dumbledore about scarhurts, visions, experiences, etc.

the behavior of his friends and elders reinforces harry's own behavior about choosing which facts to tell and not tell others. he doesn't want people to worry about him unnecessarily - he's very late and sparse in communications with siriuis and dumbledore.

how much would his behavior change had others been more open?

[alpha_hazard]

ok, I wanted to say this, but I am too tired to filter through all the other posts before this, so somebody may have said it.

Harry may end up going to snape for answers, but I think that most often Snape will wish for Harry to find them for himself. In all his hatred and ill will I think Snape understands that Harry's greatest weakness is his trust for the answers given to him. Part of the reason I suppose that he is to teach him occlumency...because he knows that harry is going to try much harder to block him than he is to block Dumbledore.

[netsirk]

alpha - dumbledore makes it clear that snape was to teach harry rather than dumbledore because he did not want to let voldemort know about their relationship.

i don't think jkr provides any evidence about harry trying harder for one person than another as a deciding factor for who would teach him

[GryffindorGr]

Harry's end-of-year meetings with Dumbledore are another issue. At the end of Harry's first year, Dumbledore deliberately withholds the answer to Harry's question: "why would [Voldemort] want to kill [Harry] in the first place" (Sorcerer's Stone 298)? But Professor Dumbledore tells Harry that he is withholding this answer, so this incident is not a lie. However, at the end of Harry's second, third, and fourth years, Dumbledore does not answer Harry's question, for, despite the fact that Harry does not ask again, the professor is aware (as of the end of book one) that Harry wants to know the answer.

What Dumbledore did was what you said, withhold information. It's not a lie and people dont need to know everything right away--not until the right time. There's that saying, ‘You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.’ A radical claim indeed. If you want to get technical in the real world, they're discussing how it is now wrong to churn out information to the public on what's going on in prisons in other countries because then retaliations happen. People die and wrong accusations fly. Slow realization through experience and understanding will help.


With one memory in a pensieve, Severus Snape was established as the most brutally honest of Harry's "role model set." Sure, the enmity between student and teacher is palpable, and Harry himself has not realized that the professor has been honest-usually almost brutally so-this whole time, but I think that will change at least a little bit, before the seventh book is over. After all, Harry did remember that Professor Snape could be trusted enough to tell him about Sirius' supposed kid napping before he went to the Department of Mysteries.
Snape is brutally honest to Harry but at the same token, hurts you with that honesty. It's like what Draco says to Longbottom, Harry and Ron, he pinpoints all their weak points. Telling the truth about Neville's lack of confidence; his mental capacity, Harry's lack of parents and Ron's lack of money. He can access your weak points and hit anger in Harry, whereas he doesn't have to.
by DsDragon
Also, in some ways, Sirius, James and Harry are as prejudiced as the Death Eaters (except they show it differently, of course). Instead of trying to "mend fences," so to speak, when confronted by a school-age enemy, they lash out, and take revenge. In a way, James and Sirius were the Draco Malfoy of Snape's generation. And Harry, like Snape, doesn't take kindly to harassment--neither believes in "turning the other cheek," or "kiss and make up," but rather in, "I'll get you for that!" and "You slimy, rotten P(*&@!#(*!"

Not really. Because if someone treats you like a piece of rotten slime, you're not going to sit down and take it are you? Especially if you have a personality that equates to Sirius/James/Harry. Actually Harry is more toned down. He tries to hold it in but he's a kid and he's not like his father. (this is what I am curious about, how Snape reacted after the scene in his worst memory....) Interesting.

[DSDragon]

I'll admit, I wasn't prepared for how fast the replies would come to this thread. I have, however, taken the time to copy/paste all your arguments into a text file, and I will be cribbing my answers from that.

Also, I should mention (since I think I forgot to before) that the essay above is only the first draft, and I will be using your arguments to help me fill up the holes in my logic, re-focus the thesis so that it says more what I want it to say, and fixing a bunch of REALLY imprecise language that I've used.

As for the quotes that follow, I'm sorry if I don't acknowledge everyone by name, but there are so many to answer!

That said, I shall now answer your arguments:

Snape answered a question that Umbridge asked, but it was in the presence of Harry. I would say that Snape technically lied to everyone in the room. Snape definitely had his reasons, and they were good ones, imo, but the lie was there for everyone to hear.

If you don't consider that a lie, then neither should you think that Lupin lied to Harry. Or Dumbledore, or McGonagall, or Flitwick, or... well, I could go on.

One of the first things I've already decided to do with this essay is to separate the definition I put together of "lie." It just doesn't work when I include the withheld information in the definition of that one word.

Instead of saying that Snape is the only person who has not lied to Harry, I will say something along the lines of "Harry does not trust Professor Snape from the start, and it is sort of ironic that the only person in a position of authority (besides Professor Umbridge, since she's not there throughout the series, just book five) whom Harry does not trust, is also the only person who has not broken that trust in some way."

In that manner, I believe (or at least hope) that Dumbledore's, Lupin's, and the others' situations still fit.


Snape is very much stuck in the past, when it comes to James.


Oh, cry me a river! It's in Snape's power to free himself from his past. That he chooses not to isn't the fault of Harry. I'm getting rather weary of people making excuses for Snape's bad behaviour.

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! Who said ANYTHING about "making excuses for Snape's bad behavior?" Not me. I was simply explaining how Snape sees his views about James as truth, in order to better illustrate that Snape was not telling a lie. I was not, by any means whatsoever, excusing his behavior!

Also, in some ways, Sirius, James and Harry are as prejudiced as the Death Eaters (except they show it differently, of course). Instead of trying to "mend fences," so to speak, when confronted by a school-age enemy, they lash out, and take revenge.

What? In what way did Remus Lupin lash out on Severus Snape in PoA? Even after Snape betrayed Lupin's secret? Lupin acted better than the perfect gentleman in that case.

Again, you're confusing things I've said with things I haven't. If you'll look at the quote that came from my post, you'll not see Remus' name anywhere.

In a way, James and Sirius were the Draco Malfoy of Snape's generation.

Not quite, though, I can see the parallels. However, James and Sirius grew up. Snape didn't.

But that has nothing to do with the point of this essay.

And Harry, like Snape, doesn't take kindly to harassment--neither believes in "turning the other cheek," or "kiss and make up," but rather in, "I'll get you for that!" and "You slimy, rotten P(*&@!#(*!"

Well, given that Snape is supposed to be an adult in his 30s and, Harry is a boy aged 11-15, I'm slightly more inclined to cut Harry a break. Now, if the grown-up Harry acts as badly as the adult Snape does, I'll be the first to criticize him.

In conclusion, while I really believe that Snape is fighting for the good, I don't think it excuses him for being a nasty git and a bully to children. Snape needs to grow up.

And in that, we agree. But again, that is not the point of the essay. The point of the essay was to illustrate that Snape has not--unlike other authority figures--broken Harry's trust, simply because Harry has never truly trusted Snape. I realize that wasn't clear with the essay as it stands at this moment, but I intend to rectify that situation as soon as possible.

So, Snape did lie on occasion, and he also said something false (about Harry) though he thought it true, which showed he wasn't being honest with himself. But the heart of this business is that Snape has indeed told Harry many things Harry needed to know. Information Harry got from no one else. Another question is, did Snape leave his worst memory in the Pensieve to hide it from Harry? A skilled Legillimens worried about an unskilled student breaking into his memories? Was that not an attempt to withhold information?

For this, I would like to quote (and humongously praise) Inkwolf, whose post I was shown by another online friend:

'd like to comment on the 'Harry isn't James' argument.

It's perfectly true.

But from Snape's point of view--there is little difference! Think about what Snape knows and has seen of Harry, rather than what we, seeing things from Harry's POV, have seen.

Year one--Harry turns up, looking just like James, and everyone making a huge fuss over him, just as they did James. He's a Quidditch star, just like James. The fighting starts between Harry and Snape's favorite pupil, just as it started between Snape and James. This time, though, the Slytherin has his teacher to back him up. Bet Snape wished someone had backed him up as a kid.

Year Two--Harry steals a car and flies it to school, first thing. Something James would have done! Just like James probably did, Harry gets off pretty much scot-free with a little detention. Later he throws a firecracker in someone's potion pot (a Slytherin student of course), causing terror and distress to the class. James-like, if you don't know the reason.

Year Three--Harry gets into trouble for illegally using magic over the summer. Comes to school, and more fuss being made over him than ever, but this time for his own protection. Breaks the rules to go wandering off to Hogsmeade, risking his silly neck when everyone else in the world is trying to protect him--sound like Jameslike arrogance? Turns up with an insulting old relic of the Marauders. Has Lupin as an ally against Snape, and takes Sirius's side against him, too.

Year 4--More fuss than ever being made over Harry, who has apparently broken the rules yet again to get himself made the star of the tri-wizard tournament. Malfoy and his friends come home covered with curses: looks like the Potter gang has been having some Jameslike fun on the train.

Year 5--Harry is sulky, resentful and rude. And yet, just when Snape is finally beginning to understand him and cut him some slack (note, in spite of insults, no punishments in occlumency lessons...for instance when Harry scorched Snape involuntarily and when he used the shielding spell "Did I tell you to do that?" In other times, Snape would quite likely have taken the excuses to nab a few points from Gryffindor.) Harry, of course, blows everything by sneaking behind his back to check out the pensieve.

As far as Snape knows, Harry is JUST like James.

And as for a skilled legilimens trying withhold that information--I think it wasn't really so. I mean, the easiest way to get something seen/heard/whatever is to make it forbiddent to see/hear/whatever it--as proven by the Quibbler incident in OotP.

Also, the same friend who pointed me to Inkwolf's quote had a better way to say something I've been trying to say all along. Included below is a conversation we had over AOL Instant Messenger--or part of it, anyway:

Tarawyn: Insofar as witholding information goes... I think you're going to have to distinguish between having an unquestionable reason to withold information and knowing that the information you're withholding is being witheld wrongly.
Tarawyn: What good reason does Snape have to give a person like the one he perceives Harry to be access to that?
Tarawyn: As opposed to Dumbledore, who doubted shielding Harry and regrets it...
Tarawyn: Remus, who I'd say feels similarly.
Tarawyn: Although with Remus, he's also deceiving himself.
Darcy783: Ah, yes. But it's all in Harry's reactions.
Tarawyn: Which blurs the lines of this a bit.
Tarawyn: Yep.
Darcy783: Whether the person believed it or not.
Tarawyn: Yes.
Tarawyn: Which proves your point well.
Tarawyn: Harry never expected Snape to show him what was in the Pensieve.
Tarawyn: I'd never expect anyone I didn't trust implicitly to show me a moment like that...
Tarawyn: Harry's problem is that Sirius and Remus withheld that from him.
Tarawyn: So that proves your point again.

All righty then . . . Next argument:

so basically everyone harry knows has lied to him at one point or another, to one degree or another, including snape.

but are all lies made equal? what about omission to protect harry? dumbledore takes some fault for the events at the end of ootp - but realistically speaking, would knowing earlier have been too much of a burden for harry to carry at such a delicate age?

Delicate age? Ha! I remember being fifteen, and let me tell you, fifteen-year-olds are stronger than they look! Harry especially. As for the wish to protect Harry . . . YES it is noble, but the way HARRY reacts to it is what's important here. Harry no longer sees Dumbledore as infallible, in a way, that's a broken trust . . . or at least a major disappointment.

but in terms of the people around harry being moral role models.

harry himself lies and omits to everyone he knows - it is absolutely a two-way street.
in almost every book harry chooses to not or wait to tell dumbledore about scarhurts, visions, experiences, etc.

the behavior of his friends and elders reinforces harry's own behavior about choosing which facts to tell and not tell others. he doesn't want people to worry about him unnecessarily - he's very late and sparse in communications with siriuis and dumbledore.

how much would his behavior change had others been more open?

And again, we have an argument for another thread! That's not the point of the essay.

What Dumbledore did was what you said, withhold information. It's not a lie and people dont need to know everything right away--not until the right time. There's that saying, ‘You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.’ A radical claim indeed. If you want to get technical in the real world, they're discussing how it is now wrong to churn out information to the public on what's going on in prisons in other countries because then retaliations happen. People die and wrong accusations fly. Slow realization through experience and understanding will help.

I agree with you, to an extent here. See, who's to decide just how slow to dole out the information? Even Dumbledore is fallible. And it's Harry's reactions to the information withheld (when he finds out about it) that are important here.

Also, in some ways, Sirius, James and Harry are as prejudiced as the Death Eaters (except they show it differently, of course). Instead of trying to "mend fences," so to speak, when confronted by a school-age enemy, they lash out, and take revenge. In a way, James and Sirius were the Draco Malfoy of Snape's generation. And Harry, like Snape, doesn't take kindly to harassment--neither believes in "turning the other cheek," or "kiss and make up," but rather in, "I'll get you for that!" and "You slimy, rotten P(*&@!#(*!"

Not really. Because if someone treats you like a piece of rotten slime, you're not going to sit down and take it are you? Especially if you have a personality that equates to Sirius/James/Harry. Actually Harry is more toned down. He tries to hold it in but he's a kid and he's not like his father. (this is what I am curious about, how Snape reacted after the scene in his worst memory....) Interesting.

Again, not the point of the essay. Nonetheless, I have an answer.

Not all people fight back. (paraphrasing/quoting Tarawyn again) Ron mutters to himself until he explodes, Hermione chants "ignore them, ignore them" until the pressure becomes too much, Harry and Snape cut their enemies down with words--although Snape has more practice. Harry comes off as insolent, while Snape achieves the desired reaction, inciting anger:

Tarawyn: First Occlumency lesson...
Tarawyn: Snape takes "great joy" or something like it in a veiled insult.
Tarawyn: He's prodding Harry to be angry, but like Harry, he isn't yelling "you slimey git."

Ok, that's it for now.

Thanks to everyone who's given constructive arguments. Also, thanks to everyone who posted so far (whether on topic or not). I'll see what I can do about either re-writing the essay or answering more replies when they come.

[ornjbreezy]

I would disagree with the part about Dumbledore- he really didn't think Harry was ready to hear the prophecy in his first year (or subsequent years) and was only keeping it from him in attempt to save him pain. Now this may constitute withholding information from him, but Harry certainly has not been told everything outright. Snape never answered Harry when he asked why he called Voldemort 'the dark lord.'
I really like your essay and it certainly is a new point of view from which we can see Snape. I just want to stick up for my favorite character (Dumbledore) in saying that he didn't really lie to Harry.

[la_ginny]

I like this essay --- very interesting. The fact that Snape is the only person who has not lied or withheld information -- is this something we expect Harry to realize in future books? What will happen when he does?

If Harry asks Snape questions, will he answer? What about Snape's role in the Order -- will he tell Harry about it if he asks?

And the bigger question -- will Harry have trust issues about all of this? In OotP we see the beginning of the blurring of lines between the adult world and Harry's world. Adults don't always know best. Now that the infallible Dumbledore is in that group, what will this mean for Harry?

[netsirk]

has mcgonnagal actually lied to harry yet? flitwick? sprout?

[Scarlet Tears]

Another adult character could be added to the list of people who "lied" to Harry is Hagrid, who withheld the information regarding both the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone and the circumstances surrounding his expulsion. Mrs. Weasley also tried to withhold information from Harry in the Prisoner of Azkaban when she tried to prevent Arthur from telling him that Sirius Black had escaped to come after him. Again, Dumbledore "lied" to Harry when he told him he saw himself with woolen socks in the Mirror of Erised (or at least that is what we assume). And Harry's own friend, Hermione, withheld information from Harry, as well as Ron, when she was using the Time Turner to get to class.

But the thing is, even Harry has withheld information, and told outright lies, during the series. Harry never told either Ron or Hermione about the fact that the Sorting Hat told him that he would have done well in Slytherin. In the Chamber of Secrets, when Dumbledore asked Harry if there was anything he wanted to share with him, Harry denied it even though there were dozens of things on his mind at the time. Then he directly lied to Snape, and was backed up by Lupin and Ron, when Snape found him sneaking back from Hogsmeade and wanted to know what the Marauder's Map was.

So the fact is, withholding information cannot always be held against a character, and telling lies is not always grounds for completely losing trust in someone, since every character in the entire series is guilty of it at some point, including Harry himself. Though it does bring up an interesting question of whether or not we can trust what anyone says, because they are most likely not being completely honest (with the exception of Snape, which is an interesting observation in itself). But if everyone was so willing to divulge every single thought that went on in their head, then we wouldn't really have a story!

[netsirk]

withholding information about the ss/ps is different than lying
if someone swears you to a secret, it is not unreasonable to expect this information to be withheld from others

[barmy codger]

DSDragon, I remember Inkwolf's post and try to keep those ideas in mind even now. But I must point out that Snape was vile to Harry from the very first class, which took place before Harry ever flew a broom. Up to the time of his first potions class Harry had done nothing to call attention to himself. Snape's actions were prejudiced, at least up to that point. Also, the possibility that Snape left the Pensieve deliberately to tempt Harry has been discussed elsewhere, Layers thread for one. If it is Dumbledore's Pensieve, perhaps Dumbledore deliberately neglected to mention to Snape Harry's curiousity about Pensieves. So it might have been Dumbledore taking advantage of Snape. Snape's extreme anger at Harry for looking into his worst memory, suggests Snape didn't leave the Pensieve out deliberately. This is why I didn't mention the possibility.

One character who didn't lie to Harry is Dobby. That's one of the reasons I like him. He has withheld information, but not for the usual reasons. He was constrained by rules governing house-elves. Unlike others who withheld as much as possible, Dobby told as much as possible.

[Scarlet Tears]

Originally posted by Barmy Codger (love the name, by the way!)
One character who didn't lie to Harry is Dobby. That's one of the reasons I like him. He has withheld information, but not for the usual reasons. He was constrained by rules governing house-elves. Unlike others who withheld as much as possible, Dobby told as much as possible.

That is a good point. Similarly, Hermione had sworn not to tell anyone about the Time Turner when she was using it in the Prisoner of Azkaban to get to all of her classes. And Hagrid wasn't supposed to reveal any information about the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone (but he did by accident). It demonstrates how in certain situations it is not the character's decision to withhold information, but that they are influenced by rules or restrictions.

[DSDragon]

ornjbreezy and la_ginny, I think I've already beat the answers to those questions like a dead horse. If you want to know the answers, please see the humungous post just above ornjbreezy's.

And Scarlet Tears, I have also addressed Harry's not-so-openness in that post.

withholding information about the ss/ps is different than lying
if someone swears you to a secret, it is not unreasonable to expect this information to be withheld from others

Did I mentioned this? Or was it someone else? I forget.

But I must point out that Snape was vile to Harry from the very first class, which took place before Harry ever flew a broom. Up to the time of his first potions class Harry had done nothing to call attention to himself. Snape's actions were prejudiced, at least up to that point.

Yes, Snape WAS vile to Harry from the very first class. Which stems from (although we didn't know it until OotP) the way James and co. treated Snape.

One character who didn't lie to Harry is Dobby. That's one of the reasons I like him. He has withheld information, but not for the usual reasons. He was constrained by rules governing house-elves. Unlike others who withheld as much as possible, Dobby told as much as possible.

Alas! You have a good point, but, as Dobby is not an authority figure, he does not count in this essay.

That is a good point. Similarly, Hermione had sworn not to tell anyone about the Time Turner when she was using it in the Prisoner of Azkaban to get to all of her classes. And Hagrid wasn't supposed to reveal any information about the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone (but he did by accident). It demonstrates how in certain situations it is not the character's decision to withhold information, but that they are influenced by rules or restrictions.

Yes, and I've done my best to not include those things. Except, for instance, in the case of Molly Weasley and Sirius. Sirius and Molly were both told not to tell Harry more than he "need[ed] to know," (somewhere in OotP--don't have my copy handy) but, while Sirius chose to tell him as much as he could about what was going on (like Dobby), Molly tried to keep Harry from finding out as much as SHE could. She even went so far as to argue--in front of the children no less--with Sirius about that. Now, Molly's intentions WERE noble, I freely admit that. She was obviously trying to protect Harry. But again, Harry's reactions here are key. Harry resents Mrs. Weasley just a little bit while she's arguing with Sirius, I think.

Perhaps her arguments would best have been voiced to Sirius privately.

Anyway, I'm off to bed now! I'll come back either tomorrow or later in the week.

[barmy codger]

The 'accidental' release of information by Hagrid about the Philosopher's Stone, amounts to nearly everything about it. I mentioned this in Layers thread, that I suspect this may have been deliberate in a way, if not directed by Dumbledore, then at least what Dumbledore was counting on Hagrid to do. I think Dumbledore pretty much engineered the encounter between Harry and Quirrell/Voldemort.

I realise that Dobby isn't an authority figure, but perhaps that bears another look. He is a source of important information and he plays a major part in the events surrounding Harry. But he is not authoritarian. He comes from a subservient class. From all indications it is an egalitarian class, no house-elf leaders that we know of. He is flattered when Harry treats him as an equal, yet he bested Lucius Malfoy, a powerful Death Eater. The social lack of authority may be misleading. Dobby may have real influence that is intrinsic and not socially acquired. If Harry recognises Dobby's power, and that Dobby has always fed him the straight goods in Harry's best interest, we have a strong basis of trust that may prove meaningful. I'm thinking of a lateral association or interchange as opposed to the vertical one of wizard authority figure to Harry. It's even possible that the contrast between Dobby and the others highlights how questionable the behaviour of the authority figures is.

[Drusilla]

Snape answered a question that Umbridge asked, but it was in the presence of Harry. I would say that Snape technically lied to everyone in the room. Snape definitely had his reasons, and they were good ones, imo, but the lie was there for everyone to hear.

If you don't consider that a lie, then neither should you think that Lupin lied to Harry. Or Dumbledore, or McGonagall, or Flitwick, or... well, I could go on.


And what choice did he have? Be a hero,do the right thing (i.e. say "it's all right,Potter,I know what you're talking about and we'll let Sirius Black out of Voldemort's clutches.") and lose any chance of ever getting help? I think it's part of the Slytherin philosophy,in a way-doing only as much as is needed and not risking themselves for the sake of principles that are impractical to apply in a particular situation:Phineas Nigellus seemed to imply as much.

[netsirk]

dobby witheld information - and when harry asked if it had anything to do with voldemort, dobby said no. dobby's reasoning is that he was trying to give a clue and it's really about tom riddle anyway

which is all really symantecs considering riddles speech about voldemort being his past present and future

[DSDragon]

Snape answered a question that Umbridge asked, but it was in the presence of Harry. I would say that Snape technically lied to everyone in the room. Snape definitely had his reasons, and they were good ones, imo, but the lie was there for everyone to hear.

If you don't consider that a lie, then neither should you think that Lupin lied to Harry. Or Dumbledore, or McGonagall, or Flitwick, or... well, I could go on.

And what choice did he have? Be a hero,do the right thing (i.e. say "it's all right,Potter,I know what you're talking about and we'll let Sirius Black out of Voldemort's clutches.") and lose any chance of ever getting help? I think it's part of the Slytherin philosophy,in a way-doing only as much as is needed and not risking themselves for the sake of principles that are impractical to apply in a particular situation:Phineas Nigellus seemed to imply as much.

First off, I think I can still get away with saying that, whether or not Snape's lie in Umbridge's office was to Harry or anyone in the room, that doesn't shoot down my theory of broken trust on the parts of everyone else, Katarzyna.

Second, thank you, Drusilla, for answering that for me. You gave a perfect response, and I couldn't have said it better myself.

dobby witheld information - and when harry asked if it had anything to do with voldemort, dobby said no. dobby's reasoning is that he was trying to give a clue and it's really about tom riddle anyway

which is all really symantecs considering riddles speech about voldemort being his past present and future

True, true. But Dobby is still not an authority figure in Harry's life, in the definition I'm using of "authority figure," anyway. Although, I might include a side note or something in the new draft (which I still haven't got around to doing yet) about Dobby's non-authoritarian authority. I'll be sure to cite your post, barmy codger, if that's okay with you?

[barmy codger]

I'll be sure to cite your post, barmy codger, if that's okay with you?
Cite away, as long as Dobby gets his due. I am puzzled by this thread. It's the first I've seen where the posts are moderated for their contribution to an author's thesis. Do you intend to shut it down when you deem you have enough material? Usually a topic is offered and discussion follows or fails of its own accord.

[DSDragon]

Technically, I'm not a moderator--I just wanted the arguments to stay on topic.

But no, I don't plan to shut it down (if I could) when I have enough material. I plan to post the re-written essay, and get y'all's thoughts on THAT one too. :)

[barmy codger]

Two things to consider for your re-write. You have mentioned splitting the issues of telling lies and withholding information. I think, since they are both ways of controlling information, that you should still keep them associated. Also, I think you should change the focus a little bit. The classification "authority figures in Harry's life" is too wide. We have seen that several (McGonnagal, Flitwick, etc, says netsirk) have not lied to Harry. So maybe it should be narrowed to authority figures who have direct knowledge of Harry's family, background, and information relevant to him and Voldemort.

[netsirk]

First off, I think I can still get away with saying that, whether or not Snape's lie in Umbridge's office was to Harry or anyone in the room, that doesn't shoot down my theory of broken trust on the parts of everyone else, Katarzyna.

Second, thank you, Drusilla, for answering that for me. You gave a perfect response, and I couldn't have said it better myself.



True, true. But Dobby is still not an authority figure in Harry's life, in the definition I'm using of "authority figure," anyway. Although, I might include a side note or something in the new draft (which I still haven't got around to doing yet) about Dobby's non-authoritarian authority. I'll be sure to cite your post, barmy codger, if that's okay with you?

not to sound like a jerk, but barmy codger was saying that dobby told harry as much as possible

my quote is actually the one ref: about dobby lying, and how he said no to voldemort in order to give a clue

i'd be interested in some further clarification about "authority figure"

dobby clearly intends to influence harry's behavior and even punishes harry in order to make these changes happen...the cake, the rogue bludger...stealing letters

[barmy codger]

not to sound like a jerk, but barmy codger was saying that dobby told harry as much as possible

my quote is actually the one ref: about dobby lying, and how he said no to voldemort in order to give a clue

i'd be interested in some further clarification about "authority figure"

dobby clearly intends to influence harry's behavior and even punishes harry in order to make these changes happen...the cake, the rogue bludger...stealing letters
I think DSDragon had our ideas separate in his head but combined references to them in one paragraph. You are not being a jerk for wanting proper credit. I myself don't care what is cited because I value the discussion as much as or more than the essay.

I feel Dobby did not lie about Voldemort. What he said to Harry was technically true and was his way of giving information without directly giving it I think he was trying to do the best he could within constraints. I understand your point and your opinion of the thing but this is how I see it, so my conclusion differs.

I realised a day or two ago that Dobby did withhold information by holding back the letters to Harry. I am uncomfortable with this and can't offer an excuse that lets him off the hook. However, I think you are weighting your argument by using examples of Dobby's physical approach to keeping Harry out of danger. The pudding, closing the barrier to Platform 9 3/4, and the rogue bludger are not cases of lying or withholding information. Dobby also freely acknowledged doing those things and made his reasons clear. If I were to try to excuse Dobby's actions, I would point out that he suffered constant abuse from Lucius Malfoy and might have had difficulty thinking creatively about non-cruel ways to deal with Harry. Also, the letters were not information Harry needed to know about his family or his dealings with Voldemort. In all, what Dobby withheld was not pertinent and what he revealed was very important.

I don't want a thread about Dobby, but since I like him I want to support his role consistently. This one thing is an anchor for me here in a thread on a topic that I think is a bit wooly and contentious.

[Drusilla]

When it comes to Dobby,I think people have forgotten something:at the time of his first visit to Harry,he was bound to serve the Malfoys.He was their house-elf,and no matter how much he wanted to,he couldn't have given Harry all the information he needed about what was going to happen-but he did everything he could,despite the risk of serious punishment for having done so (on one hand there were the self-inflicted punishments,on the other there was the possibility of worse from the Malfoys if they ever found him out).So what he did (withholding information) can't be seen as deliberate,because it wasn't.