Hagrid, Moody and Violent Responses (WAS What Does It Mean To "Like" )

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 34082

What a great thought-provoking post, Elkins!  I would have responded 
long ago, but my modem was unplugged, and I couldn't figure that out 
for six hours.  Doh!

*********

Elkins wrote (about my defense of Moody and condemnation of Hagrid):

> I found this very funny when I read it, largely because it appeared 
on
> the very same day that, elsewhere, Cindy had defended Moody (or, 
> rather, Crouch/Moody) to me for his behavior during the Bouncing
> Ferret Incident -- a scenario that seemed to me to share many of the
> same dynamics.  
> 
> In both scenarios, the actor is responding with an excessive degree 
> of force to a not-very-nice action taken by a not-terribly-
> sympathetic antagonist character.  In both scenarios, the attacker 
is 
> *vastly* more powerful than his victim.  In both scenarios, by the 
> time the act of violence takes place, the victim is really no 
longer 
> in any way a threat to the person who is supposedly being "defended 
> against."  (Karkaroff, while rude, was never really any physical 
> threat to Dumbledore in the first place; Draco, while angry, was 
> certainly not going to continue to fire off curses at Harry once a 
> teacher had arrived on the scene.)  Although in neither scenario
> does the victim of the violence suffer any permanent damage, in 
both 
> cases, the degree of violence used *was* sufficient to cause real 
> injury (a subject which has been under some debate, I know, but I 
am 
> firmly of the opinion, that being bounced onto a floor from ten 
feet 
> in the air while in the form of a ferret would leave bruises at the 
> very *least;* frankly, I'm surprised that Draco didn't break any 
> bones).  And in both scenarios, the reader is supposed to be 
> impressed (at least, with Crouch/Moody, until we learn better) with 
> the actor's loyalty to one of the protagonists -- Dumbledore in 
> Hagrid's case, Harry in the case of Crouch/Moody.
> 
> Now admittedly, the two situations are not *identical.*  But they
> are sufficiently analagous that I feel compelled to ask: Cindy, do
> you think that your willingness to forgive Moody for Bouncing Ferret
> might not have quite a bit to do with the fact that you just plain 
> *like* the guy, and so find yourself willing to cut him more slack 
> than you're willing to cut for somebody you don't like, ie Hagrid?
 
Am I forgiving Moody just because I like him?  Uh, this is the part 
where I'm supposed to come up with all kinds of impressive reasons 
why Moody can be forgiven a violent response, but Hagrid cannot.

This is going to be tough.  I think there are a few fact differences 
that make Moody's conduct OK but Hagrid's not OK.  I am in the camp 
that says that Moody didn't hurt Draco, as that is a very important 
factor.

I also think that Moody had authority over Draco that Hagrid does not 
have over Karkaroff.  A teacher who disciplines a student and acts to 
protect another student from the offending student is entitled to 
some leeway.  

Also, by the time Karkaroff is slammed into the tree and Draco is 
bounced, we have very different amounts of information about these 
two antagonists.  First, Karkaroff at this point isn't really an 
antagonist.  Karkaroff's only crime up to that point was showing up 
wearing fur.  :-)  Draco, on the other hand, has had three books 
worth of efforts to undermine the trio and torment people for no good 
reason.  So yes, it did feel good to finally see him get what is 
coming to him.  (Note:  the ferret bouncing is the first time we see 
Draco singled out for discipline for wrongdoing. It was long overdue, 
of course.

I also think Moody's actions were legally justified (er, under U.S. 
law in the muggle world) because Moody had no idea whether Draco 
planned to continue to fire on Harry or what kind of spell Draco had 
fired.  Moody acted to protect Harry from a real, demonstrated 
threat, whereas Karkaroff never posed a threat to Dumbledore.  Moody 
was also acting to enforce a school rule that had been violated in 
his presence.  Hagrid enjoyed no such justification.

To be fair, though, I suppose Moody could have just transfigured 
Draco without bouncing him in the air.  Yeah, OK, that part wasn't 
justified.  But it was very, very funny.

So why am I still cutting Moody a break?  Because Moody made one 
mistake, and Hagrid made a whole bunch of mistakes.  I didn't care 
for Hagrid giving Dudley the pig tail, but I was willing to look the 
other way in the early part of PS/SS.  But Hagrid just kept on doing 
nutty things.  If in OoP, Moody proves himself to be a loose cannon, 
I will probably change my mind.

While we are on the subject of violent responses, there is another 
scene that really bothered me.  I didn't like it all in CoS when 
Arthur Weasley and Lucius Malfoy fought each other with fists.  Aside 
from the fact that it didn't seem believable that two wizards would 
use their fists to fight instead of wands, I wasn't plesed that 
Arthur would lunge at Lucius over a petty insult.  I guess that 
reaction makes me a pacifist, unless of course 14 year old boys are 
being attacked by fully grown men. :-)

I think I will have to adopt a new rule for myself that each beloved 
character is allowed one hideous mistake, and after that, I will 
cross them off my list.  Lupin and Black have used their quota.  
Snape probably has used his quota.  Hagrid is way past the limit.

Cindy