Login  
 
 
Go Back   Chamber of Secrets > Harry Potter > The Stone > Legilimency Studies

The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis



Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old December 23rd, 2011, 1:55 pm
silver ink pot's Avatar
silver ink pot  Female.gif silver ink pot is offline
Assistant to Professor Snape
 
Joined: 5531 days
Location: Shining Snape's Halo
Age: 58
Posts: 9,778
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by ignisia View Post
From the Snape thread...and this is probably going to be a jumbo post.

I actually have something of a problem with this idea, and possibly with the JKR quote itself. The DEs may not feel they need to learn/cast the Patronus charm, since the Dementors were on their side, but the idea that they couldn't cast a Patronus if they knew the charm really rubs me the wrong way.

My thinking is, a Patronus can represent three things: one's inner nature (as, I suppose, Minerva's does), one's motivation or love (Severus' Patronus), and what protects the caster (Harry protected by his father/stag). With the notable exception of Voldemort, all the DEs are likely to have one if not all of these things. They probably have a self-identity (even a complete jerk like Umbridge has that forming her Patronus), a loved one (a mother, a child, a spouse, a pet), and a protector in that loved one.

The way I see it, Patronuses are symbols of love, from self-love to love for another. Although their master is entirely loveless, the DEs themselves I believe entirely capable of loving their families and being loved by those families in return.

An additional point I'd like to bring up is this hypothetical scenario: what if, in previous decades, a Hogwarts student learned to cast the Patronus charm and then joined the DEs after graduation? Would they suddenly lose the ability? What's the dividing line that determines when they'd lose it?

I therefore think it would make sense for the DEs to be able to create a Patronus. Most everyone has been loved by someone or loves someone, and I think even violent fanatics like the DEs are included in this. For me, the idea that they couldn't cast a Patronus suggests that they lack humanity, and I think the DEs are very human-- driven by human weaknesses, greed, fear, and hatred to commit terrible acts.
I agree with all of this because after all, JKR let Dolores Umbridge have a Patronus nearly the same as McGonagall's, although morally they were like night and day. I realize that Umbridge wasn't technically a DE, but JKR was walking a fine line with giving her a patronus at all.

And since Peter Pettigrew was in the Order, wouldn't he have had to use a patronus at times, even though he had already become a Death Eater?

I always wonder when reading DH whether the white peacock at Malfoy Manor might have actually been a patronus, or was meant to remind us of a patronus. I see it as symbolizing the fact that Draco and his family were not all bad and were basically being held hostage in their own home. If it is a patronus, then it strikes me almost as a cry for help, which I think is why Snape stares at it. And of course when he goes in, Charity Burbage is being tortured over the dining room table.


__________________


"It may have escaped your notice, but life isn't fair."
~ Severus Snape, OotP movie


Severus Snape ~ Bloomsbury Books Favorite HP Character

Severmore ~ NEW Harry Potter Network ~ LJ Dungeon

Last edited by silver ink pot; December 23rd, 2011 at 1:58 pm.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #62  
Old December 27th, 2011, 11:25 pm
FurryDice's Avatar
FurryDice  Female.gif FurryDice is offline
Hogwarts Graduate
 
Joined: 3924 days
Location: Ireland
Age: 34
Posts: 2,591
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by silver ink pot View Post
And since Peter Pettigrew was in the Order, wouldn't he have had to use a patronus at times, even though he had already become a Death Eater?
I could imagine Pettigrew pretending he was unable to produce a Patronus. He did a good job of downplaying his abilities, IMO.

Quote:
I always wonder when reading DH whether the white peacock at Malfoy Manor might have actually been a patronus, or was meant to remind us of a patronus. I see it as symbolizing the fact that Draco and his family were not all bad and were basically being held hostage in their own home. If it is a patronus, then it strikes me almost as a cry for help, which I think is why Snape stares at it. And of course when he goes in, Charity Burbage is being tortured over the dining room table.
I don't think it was a Patronus - Yaxley, on seeing the peacocks comments on how Lucius "always did well for himself" - which says that they were actual peacocks and not Patronuses. And they are not referred to as Patronuses.

I can't see it as symbolising any kind of goodness from a man who could use a child to attempt the murder of other children. I see no goodness in Lucius Malfoy.

I think the true prisoners in the Malfoy household were the unfortunate people kept as prisoners - at that time, Mr. Ollivander and Charity Burbage, and not those criminals like the Malfoys who fell out of favour with the murderous side they chose to join and got a taste of their own medicine when the cruelty of their master turned towards them. The Malfoys sowed what they had reaped, IMO.


__________________

Pic by julvett at deviantart http://julvett.deviantart.com/gallery/2984632
"Relationships are like glass; sometimes it's better to leave them broken than to hurt yourself trying to put them back together." Anonymous
"Like this one time I sort of ran over this girl on her bike. It was the most traumatising event of my life and she’s trying to make it about her leg. Like my pain meant nothing." - Cordelia; Buffy the Vampire Slayer S1Ep11.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old February 9th, 2012, 5:28 pm
Goddess_Clio  Female.gif Goddess_Clio is offline
Seventh Year
 
Joined: 2554 days
Location: The pirate ship Revenge
Age: 33
Posts: 1,853
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

From the Lily thread.

Quote:
I don't see how Avery and Mulciber can't be the Slytherin version of James and Sirius, and how can you be so sure Mulciber wanted to do Mary any harm? I might be wrong here -- but my point still stands.
Mulciber's intentions of doing Mary harm is implied by Lily saying he was using dark magic. One who uses dark magic, in the context of the Harry Potter series, isn't using it for good purposes. They are using it to hurt people, to kill people, to torture people.

Bellatrix + cruciatus curse (dark magic) = Longbottoms diven into madness (BAD)

Bellatrix + cruciatus curse (dark magic) = Hermione being tortured (BAD!)

Voldemort + horcruxes (dark magic) = Immortal Voldemort who can continue his monstrosities for generations (BAD!!)

Mulciber + dark magic used against Mary = ???

He probably wasn't trying to cure her acne, that's for sure. =^/

Mucliber's intentions for Mary are also implied by what we know of Mulciber from the books themselves. He used "dark magic" against Mary. It's said that he's an expert in the Imperius curse, the one where you can make your subject do anything you want. It seems once he was out of school he joined the Death Eaters, if we believe Lily's statement that she knows that's what Snape and his friends are aiming to become. He left the Death Eaters after Voldemort's fall and became an executioner for the Ministry. He fought against the trio + Neville and Luna in the Department of Mysteries so it's clear he never let his youthful associations and beliefs go and tried to become a 'good person.'

What does all this tell us about Mulciber's character? No qualms about using dark magic against a fell student, has a knack for dark magic in becoming an expert at an unforgivable curse, was sympathetic enough with Voldemort that he wanted to join the Death Eaters, was probably willing to act against blood traitors, mudblood and muggles in any way Voldemort asked because he was admitted to the death eaters, shows a sort of natural attraction to violence as the only real job we're told he has is to kill things (may I add he seemed disappointed not to be able to kill buckbeak in POA...) and shows no personal regret for his youthful actions by rejoining the Death Eaters upon Voldemort's return.

Not a great image for Mulciber and the reasons I believe he intended to do Mary serious harm by using dark magic against her.


__________________
"I could have been in politics 'cause I've always been a big spender."
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old February 21st, 2012, 5:13 pm
Sereena's Avatar
Sereena  Female.gif Sereena is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 2409 days
Age: 32
Posts: 599
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by snapes_witch View Post
In her first interview about DEs and patronuses JKR said the DEs couldn't use a patronus to communicate because it was an exclusive Order charm, but in a later one she said they couldn't produce patronuses at all.
I never really understood that one to be honest. Surely if they were ever taught how to cast a Patronus then that would have happened while they were students at Hogwarts, like Harry. None of them were Death Eaters when they were students so I don't see why they wouldn't have been taught how to cast one just like everybody else. Also, like someone else mentioned, only Voldemort himself was incapable of love but I don't see why Lucius for example wouldn't have been able to cast one by thinking of his wife and son. And even Voldemort-there must have been some things which made him happy and filled him with positive feelings (otherwise why bother to live forever, right?). I was also under the impression that Dementors weren't on Voldemort's side in the first war and even so the DEs would have still needed to protect themselves from them after Voldemort's defeat.


Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old February 21st, 2012, 6:34 pm
MerryLore's Avatar
MerryLore  Female.gif MerryLore is offline
Seventh Year
 
Joined: 2669 days
Location: catagorizing Sev's books
Posts: 1,627
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio View Post
Mucliber's intentions for Mary are also implied by what we know of Mulciber from the books themselves. He used "dark magic" against Mary. It's said that he's an expert in the Imperius curse, the one where you can make your subject do anything you want. It seems once he was out of school he joined the Death Eaters, if we believe Lily's statement that she knows that's what Snape and his friends are aiming to become. He left the Death Eaters after Voldemort's fall and became an executioner for the Ministry. He fought against the trio + Neville and Luna in the Department of Mysteries so it's clear he never let his youthful associations and beliefs go and tried to become a 'good person.'
Well, you're correct on most of the details, I think, but Walden Macnair, a former DE who claimed to have been Imperio'd, was the Ministry Executioner. Mulciber was sentenced to Azkaban with Bellatrix and company, and escaped when she did. And he didn't become an expert in the Imperious curse until after he left Hogwarts. Macnair, on the other hand appeared to relish killing, and I think was described as bloodthirsty.

Perhaps Mulicber used dark magic, but I don't think we know enough about his Hogwarts days to tell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sereena View Post
I never really understood that one to be honest. Surely if they were ever taught how to cast a Patronus then that would have happened while they were students at Hogwarts, like Harry. None of them were Death Eaters when they were students so I don't see why they wouldn't have been taught how to cast one just like everybody else. Also, like someone else mentioned, only Voldemort himself was incapable of love but I don't see why Lucius for example wouldn't have been able to cast one by thinking of his wife and son. And even Voldemort-there must have been some things which made him happy and filled him with positive feelings (otherwise why bother to live forever, right?). I was also under the impression that Dementors weren't on Voldemort's side in the first war and even so the DEs would have still needed to protect themselves from them after Voldemort's defeat.
I don't think the patronus charm was ever taught as part of the regular cirriculum at Hogwarts, and was only taught to members of the Order, etc., with the exception of Lupin teaching Harry. It seemed to only have two functions -

1) ward off dementors (and those were usually only found guarding the prison and most people were unlikely to ever run into them)
2) as a way to send messages

I think Lucius, Draco, etc. could learn to cast a patronus - I just don''t think they ever needed to.


__________________
avatar by me and WB, banner by Dark_Disciple

When I'm 80 years old and sitting in my rocking chair, I'll be reading Harry Potter.
My family will say to me, “After all this time?
And I will say, “Always.
- source unknown
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old July 15th, 2012, 11:32 pm
asdfasdf17  Undisclosed.gif asdfasdf17 is offline
Third Year
 
Joined: 2446 days
Posts: 440
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

The Death Eaters all seem to be after something for personal gain and they don't really think about anybody else (including each other). Lucius was in it for the power, Bellatrix liked Dark Magic, Greyback wanted power, and Snape (before he defected) liked Dark Magic. Also, Voldemort rules them using fear and that tends not to be a good way to buy loyalty. Some of them are really into the cause but others just joined out of fear (Peter Pettigrew). Without Voldemort the whole group falls apart so they aren't that stable or organized even if they are powerful.


Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old July 16th, 2012, 4:56 am
merrymarge's Avatar
merrymarge  Female.gif merrymarge is offline
Hogwarts Graduate
 
Joined: 3540 days
Posts: 2,159
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Well, no, the whole group didn't fall apart without Voldemort. Dumbledore mentioned that after Voldemort disappeared, some of the DE were pretty ruthless and Harry was still in danger. No one was sure if Voldemort was dead or not. The DE's continued with their torturing and killing until they were eith captured by aurors or killed. Some did pretend to repent their ways by saying they were under the Imperius Curse.


Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old July 16th, 2012, 10:53 am
FurryDice's Avatar
FurryDice  Female.gif FurryDice is offline
Hogwarts Graduate
 
Joined: 3924 days
Location: Ireland
Age: 34
Posts: 2,591
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by asdfasdf17 View Post
The Death Eaters all seem to be after something for personal gain and they don't really think about anybody else (including each other). Lucius was in it for the power, Bellatrix liked Dark Magic, Greyback wanted power, and Snape (before he defected) liked Dark Magic. Also, Voldemort rules them using fear and that tends not to be a good way to buy loyalty. Some of them are really into the cause but others just joined out of fear (Peter Pettigrew). Without Voldemort the whole group falls apart so they aren't that stable or organized even if they are powerful.

I think therein lies the weakness of the DEs as a group - they are self-serving, above all. While most of them believe in the blood purity, there are few of them for whom that is the only motivation. Even Bellatrix relishes the opportunity to torture and maim as well as promote her extreme bigotry. They all have selfish motivations, like torture and murder, like ill-gotten power, control, delusions of grandeur, self-preservation at any cost. This selfishness makes them weaker as a unit - their fellow branded terrorist is a threat as much as s/he is an ally.


Quote:
Originally Posted by merrymarge View Post
Well, no, the whole group didn't fall apart without Voldemort. Dumbledore mentioned that after Voldemort disappeared, some of the DE were pretty ruthless and Harry was still in danger. No one was sure if Voldemort was dead or not. The DE's continued with their torturing and killing until they were eith captured by aurors or killed. Some did pretend to repent their ways by saying they were under the Imperius Curse.
Some continued - like Bellatrix and her crew of thugs. Most scattered after Voldemort fell - they didn't dare to carry out their crimes without their master to hide behind. That's why they went about pleading Imperius. They were easier to track down with their master gone. They did not function as a unit without him. Dumbledore said that some were still ruthless - indeed, like Bellatrix. However, he also said that the attack on the Longbottoms came just when people were starting to feel safe - which implies that when Voldemort fell, most of the DEs ran and hid or started lying through their teeth about the Imperius curse.


__________________

Pic by julvett at deviantart http://julvett.deviantart.com/gallery/2984632
"Relationships are like glass; sometimes it's better to leave them broken than to hurt yourself trying to put them back together." Anonymous
"Like this one time I sort of ran over this girl on her bike. It was the most traumatising event of my life and she’s trying to make it about her leg. Like my pain meant nothing." - Cordelia; Buffy the Vampire Slayer S1Ep11.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old July 16th, 2012, 5:25 pm
Sereena's Avatar
Sereena  Female.gif Sereena is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 2409 days
Age: 32
Posts: 599
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by FurryDice View Post
I think therein lies the weakness of the DEs as a group - they are self-serving, above all. While most of them believe in the blood purity, there are few of them for whom that is the only motivation. Even Bellatrix relishes the opportunity to torture and maim as well as promote her extreme bigotry. They all have selfish motivations, like torture and murder, like ill-gotten power, control, delusions of grandeur, self-preservation at any cost. This selfishness makes them weaker as a unit - their fellow branded terrorist is a threat as much as s/he is an ally.
I would agree with this. The Death Eaters certainly competed with each other when it came to Voldemort's good graces, as everyone wanted to be "his most loyal" or his favorite. However, I thought they demonstrated some team spirit during their attacks. When one of them got injured, the others tried to help him/her out. IIRC, in the Seven Potters, one DE is Stunned and falls off his broom and another quickly flies after him to save him. In the DoM, all DEs attempt to help Nott who had been injured when Lucius Malfoy tells them to cut it out and focus on getting the Prophecy. I thought that showed they helped each other out if the situation called for it.


Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old July 16th, 2012, 6:16 pm
eatus_Benevol1  Female.gif eatus_Benevol1 is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 4464 days
Location: betw Rivendell & the Shire
Posts: 175
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

originally posted by Silver Ink Pot: "
Quote:
always wonder when reading DH whether the white peacock at Malfoy Manor might have actually been a patronus, or was meant to remind us of a patronus. I see it as symbolizing the fact that Draco and his family were not all bad and were basically being held hostage in their own home. If it is a patronus, then it strikes me almost as a cry for help, which I think is why Snape stares at it. And of course when he goes in, Charity Burbage is being tortured over the dining room table
." Wow - I just looked up the symbolism of peacocks in general - they represent immortality (like a phoenix?), and are able to eat poisonous snakes without harm. They also represent compassion and goodness - are we talking about the Malfoy's here? Obviously, the Death Eaters ( and DE in chief - Voldemort) didn't know the symbolism or I doubt they would have allowed a snake killing, compassionate peacock to be around. Of course, Lucious Malfoy probably didn't know the symbolism either - he just thought he had a rare albino peacock that only a lot of money could buy.


__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old March 21st, 2013, 2:51 pm
FurryDice's Avatar
FurryDice  Female.gif FurryDice is offline
Hogwarts Graduate
 
Joined: 3924 days
Location: Ireland
Age: 34
Posts: 2,591
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

On reflection, and looking at discussion of individual DE characters, I think they're divided into the true believers and the truly selfish, IMO. With some overlap, of course.


__________________

Pic by julvett at deviantart http://julvett.deviantart.com/gallery/2984632
"Relationships are like glass; sometimes it's better to leave them broken than to hurt yourself trying to put them back together." Anonymous
"Like this one time I sort of ran over this girl on her bike. It was the most traumatising event of my life and she’s trying to make it about her leg. Like my pain meant nothing." - Cordelia; Buffy the Vampire Slayer S1Ep11.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old March 22nd, 2013, 4:54 am
merrymarge's Avatar
merrymarge  Female.gif merrymarge is offline
Hogwarts Graduate
 
Joined: 3540 days
Posts: 2,159
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

But where do Snape and Regulus Black fit in? They were Death Eaters. I think Snape started having doubts way before Lily and James died.


Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old March 22nd, 2013, 2:03 pm
ArwenBlue  Undisclosed.gif ArwenBlue is offline
Banned
 
Joined: 2195 days
Posts: 87
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Regelus certanly was having second thoughts, but Snape according to his creator was not. She has stated that if Voldemort had not targetted Lily he would never stopped following Voldemort. I believe her because she is the one who put all of Snape's beliefs into him. Snape only worked for Dumbledore because Lily was killed, the famous 'Always' rather confirms this IMO. As FurryDice says, Death Eaters are by and large selfish beings, again IMO.


Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old March 24th, 2013, 2:19 pm
FurryDice's Avatar
FurryDice  Female.gif FurryDice is offline
Hogwarts Graduate
 
Joined: 3924 days
Location: Ireland
Age: 34
Posts: 2,591
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by merrymarge View Post
But where do Snape and Regulus Black fit in? They were Death Eaters. I think Snape started having doubts way before Lily and James died.
Yes, they were Death Eaters. In other words, members of a genocidal hate group. Dangerous criminals who were trying to overthrow the government and impose a twisted version of authority. As shown in canon.

Selfish or true believers? There was certainly selfishness IMO - there is quite a lot of selfishness in anyone who sees torture, bigotry and murder as an opportunity for personal gain. Who sees participating in such evil as an opportunity for personal gain. And sees the suffering of the victims as a minor detail. Because if they were not true believers, they were in it for themselves and the murder and torture of innocents did not matter as long as they got what they wanted. Lucius Malfoy, Snape, Regulus - selfish, like all their fellow DEs, IMO, because they were willing to destroy innocent lives for personal gain.
I say selfish. And I would say there was an element of belief in the tripe of pureblood supremacy, too. Moreso on Regulus' part, I think he believed more strongly in it. I think for Snape, it was more that he liked the instant superiority that came from telling himself he was better than Muggles and Muggleborns.

Also, I see no evidence that Snape was having second thoughts. Not until karma bit him on the backside when Lily was targetted. And that is not second thoughts, IMO. I don't see it as second thoughts about the evil he was involved in. I don't see it as any kind of moral development. That is simply not wanting to experience for himself the pain he was willing to cause others. Again, selfishness. Just as with Regulus - he didn't want to experience the suffering he was willing to cause others.


__________________

Pic by julvett at deviantart http://julvett.deviantart.com/gallery/2984632
"Relationships are like glass; sometimes it's better to leave them broken than to hurt yourself trying to put them back together." Anonymous
"Like this one time I sort of ran over this girl on her bike. It was the most traumatising event of my life and she’s trying to make it about her leg. Like my pain meant nothing." - Cordelia; Buffy the Vampire Slayer S1Ep11.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old March 24th, 2013, 3:16 pm
Sereena's Avatar
Sereena  Female.gif Sereena is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 2409 days
Age: 32
Posts: 599
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by FurryDice View Post
Also, I see no evidence that Snape was having second thoughts. Not until karma bit him on the backside when Lily was targetted. And that is not second thoughts, IMO. I don't see it as second thoughts about the evil he was involved in. I don't see it as any kind of moral development. That is simply not wanting to experience for himself the pain he was willing to cause others. Again, selfishness. Just as with Regulus - he didn't want to experience the suffering he was willing to cause others.
Not to make this about Snape but I'm not sure the reasons for someone's redemption are all that relevant. I agree with you that there was selfishness involved and that both Regulus and Snape only cared about the victims when they were attached to them but I'm not sure we can say that there is no moral development here. Perhaps you only realize the evil you are doing to others when it is done to you. I think many of us gain more insight into a problem/situation when it is happening to us. Both Snape and Regulus had idealized Voldemort but quickly saw him for what he really was. It's bad that they didn't see his evilness from the beginning but they did so eventually, IMO. I wouldn't say this doesn't count at all.


__________________
avatar by makani
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old March 24th, 2013, 6:20 pm
LilyDreamsOn's Avatar
LilyDreamsOn  Female.gif LilyDreamsOn is offline
Ordo Lebes
 
Joined: 4050 days
Location: Godric's Hollow
Posts: 1,029
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sereena View Post
I never really understood that one to be honest. Surely if they were ever taught how to cast a Patronus then that would have happened while they were students at Hogwarts, like Harry. None of them were Death Eaters when they were students so I don't see why they wouldn't have been taught how to cast one just like everybody else. Also, like someone else mentioned, only Voldemort himself was incapable of love but I don't see why Lucius for example wouldn't have been able to cast one by thinking of his wife and son. And even Voldemort-there must have been some things which made him happy and filled him with positive feelings (otherwise why bother to live forever, right?).
Exactly. Plus, it just doesn't really make any sense. Umbridge was a vile human being but she was capable of producing a patronus. Peter was a branded Death Eater but he surely had to use patronuses in the Order for communication. So clearly it has nothing to do with goodness. Someone experiencing joy is not unilaterally a good thing--Umbridge's joy was strengthened by the evil of Voldemort's locket, allowing her to keep her patronus going around all those Dementors. An evil intention and emotion was capable of producing a patronus.

I think the only 100% evil character was Voldemort, because he had damaged himself beyond redemption. So I could see the argument that, without a whole soul, he could not feel true happiness, and therefore could not produce a patronus. But everyone else was still capable of regular human emotions, no matter how terrible a person they were.

Quote:
Samantha: Was snape the only death eater who could produce a full patronus?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, because a Patronus is used against things that the Death Eaters generally generate, or fight alongside. They would not need Patronuses.
It's a bit confusing, because at first she agrees, but then she contradicts herself and explains that they did not need patronuses. That makes far more sense.


__________________


Believe me. I never betrayed James and Lily. I would have died before I betrayed them.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old March 24th, 2013, 7:37 pm
FurryDice's Avatar
FurryDice  Female.gif FurryDice is offline
Hogwarts Graduate
 
Joined: 3924 days
Location: Ireland
Age: 34
Posts: 2,591
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sereena View Post
Not to make this about Snape but I'm not sure the reasons for someone's redemption are all that relevant. I agree with you that there was selfishness involved and that both Regulus and Snape only cared about the victims when they were attached to them but I'm not sure we can say that there is no moral development here. Perhaps you only realize the evil you are doing to others when it is done to you. I think many of us gain more insight into a problem/situation when it is happening to us. Both Snape and Regulus had idealized Voldemort but quickly saw him for what he really was. It's bad that they didn't see his evilness from the beginning but they did so eventually, IMO. I wouldn't say this doesn't count at all.
I think the character's reasons are relevant. I think a character's motivations give us an insight into what they are truly like. Yes, Snape and Regulus only realised the evil when it was done to them - but they did not realise that it was evil no matter who suffered. They were only against experiencing a taste of their own medicine. They did not recognise the evils of what they were doing. So, I do say there is no moral development. Where is the moral development in not wanting to feel grief, if one is willing and actively causing grief to others? There's no moral development, only a wish to preserve one's own feelings.

IMO, that can also be considered a lack of empathy. Another trait common among the Death Eaters, IMO. They lacked empathy, did not care who they hurt, as long as it was not themselves. And then thought it was grossly wrong when they got a taste of their own medicine. IMO, they were selfish in their reasons for joining Voldemort and selfish in their reasons for leaving him.

IMO, anyone willing to destroy innocent lives for personal gain is selfish. IMO, there is immense selfishness and egocentrism to the Death Eaters -all of them. These people inflict torture, death and grief on innocent people - for personal gain. IMO, that is selfish, no matter what the "personal gain" is. I don't see why it "doesn't count". Snape and Regulus did join the Death Eaters, a group of murdering bigots. Snape and Regulus did cause suffering, for personal gain. Snape and Regulus did care not one jot who they hurt until their misdeeds came back to bite them. So yes, I say selfish.


__________________

Pic by julvett at deviantart http://julvett.deviantart.com/gallery/2984632
"Relationships are like glass; sometimes it's better to leave them broken than to hurt yourself trying to put them back together." Anonymous
"Like this one time I sort of ran over this girl on her bike. It was the most traumatising event of my life and she’s trying to make it about her leg. Like my pain meant nothing." - Cordelia; Buffy the Vampire Slayer S1Ep11.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old March 24th, 2013, 10:19 pm
Sereena's Avatar
Sereena  Female.gif Sereena is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 2409 days
Age: 32
Posts: 599
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by FurryDice View Post
I think the character's reasons are relevant. I think a character's motivations give us an insight into what they are truly like. Yes, Snape and Regulus only realised the evil when it was done to them - but they did not realise that it was evil no matter who suffered. They were only against experiencing a taste of their own medicine. They did not recognise the evils of what they were doing. So, I do say there is no moral development. Where is the moral development in not wanting to feel grief, if one is willing and actively causing grief to others? There's no moral development, only a wish to preserve one's own feelings.
I think this might be true in the case of the Malfoys but it's not true in the case of Snape and Regulus. They did recognize the evil they were doing- but didn't do so until it was done to them. After they realized what Voldemort was, they stopped supporting him. Both of them fought against him and were committed to seeing him defeated. It's not just that they disliked his actions in one case, they started to dislike everything he stood for. As for the Malfoys, I would agree that there is no moral development there. They were never on the good side, they just stopped being on Voldemort's side when he turned on them but there is no indication that they ever realized they were evil.

Quote:
IMO, anyone willing to destroy innocent lives for personal gain is selfish. IMO, there is immense selfishness and egocentrism to the Death Eaters -all of them. These people inflict torture, death and grief on innocent people - for personal gain. IMO, that is selfish, no matter what the "personal gain" is. I don't see why it "doesn't count". Snape and Regulus did join the Death Eaters, a group of murdering bigots. Snape and Regulus did cause suffering, for personal gain. Snape and Regulus did care not one jot who they hurt until their misdeeds came back to bite them. So yes, I say selfish.
Of course they were selfish, I've never argued to the contrary. I was simply disagreeing that their reasons for redemption were "not good enough" or that it somehow diminishes the good they did on the right side just because their reasons for leaving Voldemort were selfish. I don't think it matters why people redeem themselves, just that they do.


Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old March 25th, 2013, 1:30 am
MerryLore's Avatar
MerryLore  Female.gif MerryLore is offline
Seventh Year
 
Joined: 2669 days
Location: catagorizing Sev's books
Posts: 1,627
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sereena View Post
Of course they were selfish, I've never argued to the contrary. I was simply disagreeing that their reasons for redemption were "not good enough" or that it somehow diminishes the good they did on the right side just because their reasons for leaving Voldemort were selfish. I don't think it matters why people redeem themselves, just that they do.
I agree. Snape left for love. It was love of one person, but that doesn't make it any less worthy than if he left for love of mankind, IMHO. And he kept loving her, even though she chose another.

The way I see the DEs, the one thing they had in common was an interest in power. Power can be a good thing - but it's based on where your focus is. If you look to master yourself, or set your career goal as Healer, Head Librarian, or Minister of Magic, it can be a very good thing. Almost everyone wants some degree of power of the world and power in their own lives, and many people see the world and the people in it based on where they rank. They spend time comparing themselves with other people on a wide assortment of things.

People who are interested in power often see things in terms of a hierarchy and their place in it. If you look at things in terms of a power hierarchy, and you want to be at the top, you have to place people below you. You can do that by becoming President, or college Professor, Hogwarts Headmaster, or Minister of Magic (JKR said that most Ministers of Magic were Slytherins, if I remember correctly). One way the DEs sorted people was based on blood purity. They convinced themselves that this in and of itself made them superior. Discrimination in any form is usually nothing more than a person wanting to feel superior to another person because they feel powerless in some way and they don't like it. It's taking the easy way out - rather than working your butt off, you choose to subjugate other people based on something which, on the face of it, is really petty.

Not all Slytherins were DEs, but most DEs were Slytherins, I believe JKR said. I think most Slytherins find healthy ways to excel, while those who joined the DEs chose a much more evil path. The Malfoys as a family, based on what i read on Pottermore, were always interested in power for the family. One Malfoy even tried to win the hand of Queen Elizabeth 1st.

Regulus, I suspect, also came from an old and once very powerful family which didn't want to lose its status, and his mother expected him to join the DEs and he simply never questioned it, until he was confronted with how evil it was.

Snape felt powerless growing up, and unfortunately life at Hogwarts wasn't much better, IMHO. I think he mistakenly thought he could gain power and respect by joining the DEs, and he ignored quite a lot.

I think Peter also felt weak and powerless and made the same mistake, thinking the DEs would protect him and raise his stature.

Voldemort himself wanted the ultimate power - power over death. He wanted to live forever.


__________________
avatar by me and WB, banner by Dark_Disciple

When I'm 80 years old and sitting in my rocking chair, I'll be reading Harry Potter.
My family will say to me, “After all this time?
And I will say, “Always.
- source unknown
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old March 25th, 2013, 3:23 am
asdfasdf17  Undisclosed.gif asdfasdf17 is offline
Third Year
 
Joined: 2446 days
Posts: 440
Re: The Death Eaters: Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by MerryLore View Post

I think Peter also felt weak and powerless and made the same mistake, thinking the DEs would protect him and raise his stature.
I think he only joined the DeathEaters because as Sirius put it, they were the biggest bullies on the playground and he was too scared to defy them. It was a selfish and cowardly decision but I don't know if he cared much for the power/status he'd gain like it seems the other Deatheaters did (ex. Lucius, Barty jr, Bella).


Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back  Chamber of Secrets > Harry Potter > The Stone > Legilimency Studies

Bookmarks

Tags
character analysis, death eaters


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 am.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Original content is Copyright © MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright © its respective owners.