Agreed.

We could ask JKR. I'm sure she would be willing to expound at length (and dabble in some revisionist history) about how much instruction one needs to learn Occlumency and whether or not Snape's methods would have eventually worked... on ANYONE!

 

There is SO MUCH that I want to know about the HP world - underpinnings of wizarding traditions, global implementation of the Statute of Secrecy, how magic passes along family lines, the orgins of squibs and muggleborn, the laws of magic, parseltongue ...

 

Snape Apologists never cease to boggle my mind. An eleven year old orphan boy was to blame because he allowed an adult teacher's continual insults about both him and his murdered father to make him hate Snape instead of "taking the bigger picture into account"? Are you serious? And that's not even taking into account Snape's continual attempts at going beyond insults and actively trying to make him do worse in the class.

Out here in the real world, the blame lies with Snape for being such a complete 'bag and to a lesser extent with Dumbledore for his utter failure as an authority figure and refusal to protect his students. Try to imagine Snape's shenanigans in a real school. Ridiculous.

 

I am getting the feeling that Taure is sitting back laughing his arse off. I mean come on Taure you can't really belive the tripe you are spewing can you?

No worries though, I do agree that Harry could of tried more in Snapes Occlumency lessons and in potions class. Although, I am not very sure I would try to hard either if I knew the teacher was just going to "push my poiton off the desk for it to break", or give me a T even if the work was good.

However, the only thing in your whole argument that sort of made me go "WTF", was that humans automatically know how to think. Err..that is the most tripe I have ever heard in my life. Humans learn to think by being in any enviornment that stimulates them. They watch and learn, they don't automatically know how. If they did, I don't think we would need anyone to teach anything in the first place.

 

I swear, every HP topic seems to lead to Snape. He's a jerk, but he's an *interesting* jerk. He can certainly keep a conversation going.

Was Snape good for the Slytherins, or was he as bad for his "favorites" as Petunia and Vernon were for Dudley? Draco was spoiled by everyone, his entire life, until Riddle gave him a shot of reality. It seems that JKR really really really disapproves of coddling children - she regards it as a sure route to a complete lack of moral backbone.

Unfortunately she seems to think that the opposite of grossly exaggerated spoiling is actually physical, mental, and emotional abuse.

Both Draco and Dudley managed to achieve a certain amount of maturity all by themselves. Dudley was tested slightly and grew a little. Draco rose to a major challenge. God knows that their parents were poor teachers of self-discipline and accountability.

And Draco survived. He attempted first degree murder twice before he turned seventeen. He made a spirited effort to kill the Headmaster. Malfoy failed because he simply couldn't do it face-to-face. The Whole World knew that he let the DE (and a werewolf) into Hogwarts. He tried to stab Ron in the back while Ron was trying to rescue him.

Whatever happened to the Malfoy wealth and influence after the second War, Draco was fit, well-dressed, and could afford to send his child to Hogwarts. He appears to have landed on his feet.

 

I'd have to disagree with you on that assessment.

We're discussing the concept of thinking, not learning or acquiring some ability.

Thinking, as operationally defined as the firing of neural impulses in the brain, is innate and, in my opinion, present in most complex animal forms.

Taking it a tad deeper, self-consciousness requires a bit more biologically than just thought. Only the most mentally developed organisms are capable of self-consciousness, human beings being part of this category.

Delving even further, and we reach the level of logical and critical thinking, the latter of which I believe only humans are capable of.


But no matter how you categorize "thought", it cannot be denied that the process of thinking is biologically innate within humans. The process of thinking may be refined and fascilitated through learning and environmental stimulation, but the basic function of thinking is obviously innate and mechanical.



Re-reading your post just now, I think you confused the meaning of "think" with "do things".

 

Draco is average IMO. I think all the things he achieved were more through luck than skill, pretty much like Harry in that aspect. Other than that he relies on his father to bail him out. I don't think he works well under pressure or in a situation he's unfamiliar with, like the time Hermione slapped him. He's an average wizard trying to look better than he is.

Have to agree on that. I've always thought Occlumency was an obscure and difficult art because you need to calm your mind. Its like meditation and the quest for Nirvana, not everyone can do it and it takes multiple lifetimes for a being to achieve. It is not easy to tame the normal mind.

I don't think Snape's instructions for the lessons were sufficient. How can one clear their mind when one doesn't know how? It's not that easy. Heck I don't most witches and wizards can't do it, or even know how to do it. Those were to broad and simple instruction for a matter that is difficult to understand.

The argument that Voldermort wouldn't give warning so Snape's doing the right thing also falls flat. Snape attacks an untrained mind without warning. If it was a trained mind then that argument would stick. But this wasn't a trained mind, and he was supposed to be teaching not attacking. Think of the Martial Arts. No Sensei worth his salt would attack a first time student with the phrase "raise your hands" as the only warning. First your show them how to defend themselves and only then would you fight them to show them the weak points. Snape skipped straight to the latter. Not a good instructor.

I would also like to add that Harry didn't know what he was doing these lessons. All he was told was that Dumbledore said so. No reason was given. This at a time when he was worried about Mr. Weasley, after having a dream of being a snake that enjoyed biting the man. Plus the insturction were from a man who he had looked out to but how seemed to be ignoring him. Not to mention he was being an angsty teen. Would you willingly spend time with a person you hate?

 

Inbred and Stupid, I believe.

 

Just a thought: many people argue that Draco is completely dependent upon his father for fame, fortune, and influence.

Couldn't one argue the same thing about Harry? His fame from being the boy-who-lived aside, he is the established golden boy of Dumbledore by the end of the first year.

Just as Draco has his father to hide behind and depend upon, Harry has Dumbledore.

 

I don't think so. Less than a year after that, most of the school thought he had opened the Chamber of Secrets.

Harry accomplished nearly everything without Dumbledore's aid (desperately ignores HBP and DH); Draco relied heavily on his father, the Death Eaters, and his cronies.

 

But one must admit, the evidence against him (parseltongue, for one) was pretty compelling. It doesn't diminish the fact that Dumbledore's support for Harry eventually got him through (Fawkes, sword of Gryffindor, etc.)

You certainly can't argue that Harry's independent. Just as Draco has "his cronies", Harry has Hermione and Ron. In addition, Harry did receive plenty of aid from Dumbledore.

Year 2: Fawkes and the sword, as previously mentioned.

Year 3: the Time Turner as well as the alibi they needed.

Year 4: Dumbledore's belief and confidence at a time when no other adult would give it


Obviously, in the later books, the aid that Dumbledore gives is even more significant.

The point is, Dumbledore has done a lot to aid Harry, and Harry seems to be relying on him, much as Draco relies on his father. Just the loss that Harry feels with Dumbledore's death reveals the true extent of the role that Dumbledore played in Harry's life.

 

To a certain extent I'm arguing the point further than in necessary. Snape is not a good teacher, of that there is no doubt. Whether he is a sufficient teacher is up for grabs, and depends completely on your views on what Occlumency is, and the role of a student in a learning relationship (how much responsibility does a student have for their own learning?).

Anyway, my point is that Harry is a worse student than Snape is a bad teacher. Hermione, put in exactly the same position as Harry, would no doubt have mastered Occlumency, just as she succeeded at Potions where Harry failed.

 

I agree entirely. I read an essay recently that talked about HP and "girl power." The author's point is that the Women in the HP world were sidekicks, but nearly every one was smarter, stronger-willed, and more honest (even more honorable) than the men in their groups. http://mistful.livejournal.com/61583.html

McGonagall shines, especially compared to Snape.
Narcissa wasn't in Azkaban.
Petunia will certainly outlive Vernon.
Hermione blows the boys out of the water in every category except raw-power-in-a-crisis.
Bellatrix took down Sirius. And was crazier, to boot.

If it demands discipline, preparedness, and practicality, the girls have it covered. The guys *throw tantrums,* the girls adjust and stay focused. Dumbledore manipulates everyone, while Hermione, McGonagall, even Luna support and give information and choices. Snape went through high-school-hell, Luna went through high-school-hell (who do YOU think shows more character in their reactions - Luna even managed to make friends, eventually.) "Snape – twenty years of bitterness and still going strong. Luna – totally over it while it’s still happening."
Voldemort was a spectacular, murderous Bad Guy, who hid in the shadows - the Umbitch was well on her way to warping Seven Years worth of children into being too terrified to fight back. Dumbledore was all Big Picture - McGonagall's priority was the well-being of the students, Which Was Her Job.

Draco could see that The Umbitch had power, and he followed his father's example into attaching himself to her coattails. Of course, she was up against A Hero and His Sidekicks, so it came crashing down.

Snape had to watch his godson consistently make such STUPID decisions. I wonder how much strength of will it took to not pull the boy aside and tell him that his father's life choices are NOT survival-oriented. Or spank him.

 

I think Taure is both right and wrong on the occlumency issue.

There is every indication in canon that Harry has an immense amount of willpower. He is calm in a crisis, he can fight off the imperius curse, and he demolished Voldemort during the priori incantatum.

I even think he succeeded in occlumency. Remember--he did manage to overcome Snape and see his thoughts as well. He just never attempted to use it when it comes to his connection to Voldemort. He's pretty much fearless and independent so the idea of not peaking into Voldemort's mind was stupid to him right off from the start.

Which served him well in Deathly Hallows.

 

Didn't he use a Protego for that? I can't recall.

 

I'm not too sure, but I think that he did both things only in the movie. Didn't he enter Snape's pensieve to see the bastard's memories?

 

He saw the James Potter memory in the pensive, but he got glimpses of Snape's childhood from his mind.

 

He did use protego--just like Snape told him to.

Well not specifically, but here are Snape's actual insructions:

"You may use your wand to attempt to disarm me, or defend yourself in any other way you can think of," said Snape - OOTP pg 534

 

I'd forgotten about that. Too bad Harry didn't use a NASTY spell. That was probably the only chance he'd ever get to knock Snape down a little.
*sigh*
Just another wasted opportunity...

 

I can't be sure of where, but at some point in one of your posts, you made a claim that Snape had more will power then Voldemort (being able to hide his true intentions and loyalty). This is probably true, and while we have also seen that Harry has more will power then Voldemort (Priori Inctatem, I hope I spelled that right...) Snape obviously has more will power then Harry. Being able to throw off the imperious curse isn't a very good indication, as in order to maintain his cover Crouch could not have shown an extreme amount of skill with it, nor do we know his own amount of person will power. He could have very little will power to speak of, and thus throwing off his curse is nothing spectacular of someone with Harry's abilities.

Thus, with Snape having some skill in legimency, and more will power then Voldemort (which made it either equal or greater then Harrys) could easily overwhelm a much less trained Harry. Even assuming Harry and Snape have the same amount of will power, Snape's own skill in legimency would have to amount to some extra bonus tipping the scale in his favor. Plus the fact that Harry had no clue what he was doing.

As for your own ability to clear your thoughts, I see you as a reasonably intelligent and strong willed person so i don't find that odd. But Harry isn't intelligent, and he only seems to have tremendous will power in a situation in which he was in some form of danger (in danger of dieing, or losing his sense of self and self-control) it doesn't surprise me that he couldn't fight off the superior Snape.