Imperius-ed Lucius/ Law&Order&Aurors/ Harry's Choices/ Student Discipline

Wed Jan 23 09:39:44 UTC 2002

No: HPFGUIDX 33947

Mahoney wrote:

<<I agree with Eileen, that Snape could very likely have believed that 
Malfoy, and probably others, were converted away from Voldemort, and 
possibly believed that they had been Imperius'd by Voldemort in the 
past.  I would guess that while Voldemort seemed defeated, confirmed 
Death Eaters wouldn't talk about their continued alignment with 
Voldy's tenets to any but their closest friends.  And I think that 
Malfoy Sr. would be smart enough to keep quiet on the subject to a 
Hogwarts professor, Slytherin/former DE or no, just on the basis that 
the more who know a secret, the more chance it could make it to the 
wrong ears.  And with Dumbledore's presence so strong at Hogwarts, 
telling Snape about his [Malfoy's] true beliefs would be very 
stupid.  And Snape is not All-Seeing and Perfect.  He can be duped, 
just like anyone.>>

To which Rebecca Allen responded:

<<But in CoS, Dumbledore is completely unsurprised to
discover that Lucius masterminded the whole evil diary plot. How could Dumby
not mention this to Snape? I'm quite sure that Snape's "sudden movement" at
the mention of Lucius' name is more one of fury than surprise.>>

Here, I completely agree with Rebecca. Even if Snape had believed that Lucius had really been put under the Imperius Curse, he must know better now, after the end of CoS. But I sincerely doubt that he bought the Imperius excuse even for a moment. After all, Snape has known Lucius for many years, even assuming that they were not at school at the same time, as Lucius seems to be some years older. (I just had a look at Steve’s lexicon, but couldn’t find a time line for Malfoy) What I’m going to say now is mere speculation: I think that those people who claimed to have been under the influence of the Imperius Curse only got away with it because those questioning and trying them for their crimes didn’t have sufficient insight. A person, like Snape, who had participated in meetings and eventually also taken an active part in the DEs’ evil deeds, IMO was able to distinguish curse-induced from authentic behaviour. If Lucius really is the sadistic pervert most of us seem to think he is (and Muggle-torturing certainly qualifies for labelling him thus), he did enjoy torturing and killing. Whereas I imagine that the curse can make people do what they are told, but is it possible to make them enjoy it? So I suppose that, if there really were followers of Voldemort who had been cursed into obeying him, Snape would have known exactly who they were- remember Fake!Moody’s “You see it in the eyes”?

Elkins wrote:

<<Sirius -- no bleeding-heart himself -- says that many of 
the Aurors descended to the level of the Death Eaters.
We've heard about the licence to kill; we've heard about
the licence to use the Unforgivables.  God only knows how
many innocent people were interrogated under Cruciatus
in those dark days before Voldemort's defeat.  Or, for
that matter, how many other "special powers" Crouch invested
in his jackbooted thu...er, excuse me, I mean Protectors of
the People, before he was done.  Search and seizure, anyone?
Surveillance without warrant?  Indefinite detention without
arrest?>>

This ties in nicely with the topic I raised some time ago, about human rights in the wizarding world: For even if we concede that during the last months of Voldemort’s reign of terror there was some kind of martial law, so as to allow the Aurors to defend themselves properly, even martial law is always LAW. There are courts, to begin with, and trials. It may permit greater efficiency for those who are presumed to be the Good Guys, but a minimum of rules has to be respected. Considering the rather gruesome situation Sirius depicts, it seems, though, that Crouch Sr. simply let loose the bloodhounds, more or less explicitly giving them permission to live out all their nastier instincts and desires of revenge on a “legal” basis. 

What I find interesting in this whole good Auror- bad Auror discussion is that JKR seems to be more inclined to convey the message “Just because somebody is an Auror that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily good persons”, than “Just because somebody’s a Slytherin that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily bad persons”. Take “bad” at face value, but be suspicious of “good”? At least that is the impression I get.

Alexander wrote:

<<I didn't mean the choice of the House here - only his
instinctive rejection of prejudice and minority harassment.
And THAT is a conscious choice, and not a bad one (I'm not
saying that it's a good one... it still wasn't proved by
anybody... does anybody want to flame me?) 8-P>>

Nope, all flames already used to light countless cigarettes. Of course, Harry instinctively shies away from harassment and prejudice, because that’s exactly what he has been confronted with all the time he lived with the Dursleys. Bullying the weaker is Dudley’s favourite pastime, anyway. And there’s no need to go into further detail about Vernon and Petunia’s being prejudiced. So I’d rather suggest that Harry’s main reason for refusing Slytherin was the perspective of Crabbe and Goyle, who appear to be built along Dudley’s lines both physically and mentally, continuing what his cousin had been doing for the past eleven years.

One more word about prejudice: That is a game in which Gryffindors and Slytherins have an equal score. Not only are they prejudiced against each other, but their feelings about werewolves aren’t that much different (Ron’s “Get your hands off me, filthy werewolf!”), members of both houses firmly believe that House Elves are happy when enslaved- I suppose I could cite some more examples. And the Gryffindors also have their fare share of bullying. These are certainly not the main differences between these two houses who believe to be so very much opposed, but have a lot more in common than they’d like to.

Still Alexander:

<<From my ex-Soviet point of view, Hogwarts is an example of
pure anarchy (though it's the Order itself compared to
Russia of early 90'ies :). Even those of you who are of
Western origin and grown up in much more liberal environment
find Hogwarts extremely "unregulated". And still some
resemblance of order exists in the school. With minimum of
280 students of various ages, families, upbringings,
nationalities, heritage and genders, and only 12 professors,
1 director and 1 Filch to control them, such order can only
be imposed by students themselves. And for that to do, they
must have much more responsibility than their age would
suggest.>>

Don’t forget the prefects and the Head Boy and Girl. They don’t have as many disciplinary possibilities as the teachers (e.g. I’m not sure whether they can give detentions), but their main duty is to help keep up order.

The 15 YO daughter of a friend of mine started at a boarding school near London last fall, and from what she tells me and from the pictures I saw, I get the idea that Hogwarts, as far as discipline is concerned, is pretty similar to other British boarding schools. Students are without supervision when in their dormitories, and unless they get into fights or set the school on fire, they’re left in relative peace. What’s more, I believe that at Hogwarts the staff might have better possibilities of controlling what’s going on once the students have retired to their respective common rooms, so if a situation tends to get out of hand, the Head of House or another staff member is able to get there immediately.

Susanna/pigwidgeon37 

"And how come those portraits seem to be alive?"

"What'ya mean? All paintings move."

"No, they don't. We have lots of paintings in our villa, among them a real Chagall, and none of them..."

"And d'ya expect that something painted by a jackal will move? Now really..."

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalised at My Yahoo!.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]