Bang! You're dead.

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 86404

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Cawte" <kcawte at n...> wrote:
> 
> "The Loudest Noise Comes From The Electric Minerva."
>
Kneasy:
What's an Electric  Minerva? Or am I going to  regret asking?

 
> > Be warned; Kneasy is only happy when he causes other fans to fly to
> > their keyboards in a "We'll soon see about that!" frame of mind.

K: 
> Which is a pity, because I think I'm generally about to agree with you on
> most things, albeit with some conditions.
> 
> Actually it sounds like you probably do subscribe to Machiavelli's original
> meaning there though. The quote was originally something like (Sorry don't
> have a copy of The Prince to hand, didn't expect to be using it in an HP
> discussion, silly me) in certain circumstances the ends can justify the
> means. He was talking about pretty much the type of situation we have in the
> WW at the time - ie war and the survival of one's society. (The Prince is an
> instruction manual for the potential ruler of a City)
> 
Kneasy:
Ah! Old Nicks Handbook of Practical Politics. Love it. He doesn't seem to have
much truck with morality, does he? He goes for what he terms 'virtue', which
seems to be a meld of pragmatism and just rule. His 'Discourses' are good, too.
What do you think he would recommend in the circumstances? Death for Voldy,
Malfoy, plus the other DEs and their children of course, with permanent exile 
for all who dissent.
Seems reasonable.
 
K:
> I agree that JKR seems to be showing that morally (although not necessarily
> legally) when and why we make certain choices ie killing someone, are very
> important, in fact possibly more important than the decision in the first
> place. Although other times it seems that the choice is important rather
> than the reasoning behind it 

>
Kneasy:
JKR is undoubtedly a moral person, but I question whether morality is the
most  important criterium in the prevailing circumstances. OK, she may be
trying to make her views evident, but she may be using a sledgehammer to
miss a nut.
Given Harry's situation - a homicidal, paranoid megolamanic is trying to
blow his head off - would the morality of what he (Harry) does be at the 
fore-front of his thinking? Very unlikely. And then for DD to come out with
"It's either you or him; best of luck." doesn't exactly offer many options.
   
> K
> I'm not so sure about that. I think the key question is "Are you willing to
> kill *if necessary"? or was that what you were saying and I am
> misunderstanding you?


Kneasy:
I'd go a bit further. Voldy is *the* menace. He's not going to reform and
take up knitting. While he's around he is a permanent and continuing
danger. That being so, the needs of Harry and those of the wider WW are
the same. His death is necessary, no matter how, when or with what.
And Harry has  been volunteered via the Prophecy. DD may  burble on
about "choices defining us", but Harry doesn't have a choice. He's stuck
with it.
 
> K
> I think that the whole system surrounding the unforgivables is idiotic
> anyway. Cruciatus I can understand being illegal, regardless of
> circumstances. It is there only to cause pain and while one could use it to
> distract/disable an opponent there are other equally effective spells.
> However Imperius and AK have their uses. 

Kneasy:
Makes you wonder why they're described and circumscribed in the way
they  are. Back to the old argument that a gun is not evil of itself, only
the way that it is used. 
  
K:
> Although on the subject of Bellatrix I wonder why Harry
> didn't try and kill her rather than just hurting her - not that I'm saying
> he necessarily *should* have tried to kill her, I'm just wondering why he
> chose to try and cause her as much pain as he could (which turned out to be
> pretty much none - but the intention was there, even if his subconscious and
> his nature wouldn't let him follow it up)but not kill her.
> 

Kneasy:
Too many wimps around. I've complained before about the totally unsatisfactory
body count in the Ministry 'battle'. (This was in the original Bang! You're dead'
posted months ago.) How credible  is it  that a  bunch of desperate killers only
manage one (presumed) corpse. And it's not certain he went down by enemy
action. Not good enough. I'dve got rid of that idiot Lovegood child for a start; 
she'd make a very good blackened husk. She reminds me of the Madelaine
Bassett character  from Wodehouse - the one that thinks the "stars are God's
daisy chain." Can't think of a more damning condemnation. 

 
> K (with  snips)
> As I was saying earlier he (DD) does seem to like to abdicate responsibility.
> When he stands up to Fudge in OoP it's the only time I've really seen him
> take action of any kind. Throughout PS he seems to allow Snape and Harry to
> do all the work 
> He seems in fact to give Harry all the clues for how to get to the Stone in
> case it was necessary but not done anything himself about it. In CoS other
> than warning the students he doesn't seem to do much even when students are
> dropping like flies. The extent of his standing up for Hagrid seems to have
> been telling Fudge that he didn't agree with him, 
> In PoA he does nothing that we can see to try and
> head off the inevitable confrontation between Lupin and Snape, apparently
> choosing to let them settle it themselves. Knowing as he does at the end
> that Sirius (one of the members of his Order, who obviously risked their
> lives against Voldemort) is innocent but doesn't try and help him instead
> seeming to let him survive on his own with no help from anyone, but then at
> the end of GoF jumps back into giving him orders 
> He seems to agree somewhat with
> Hermione about the House Elves (although possibly not with her methods) and
> to agree that there is a problem with the way the other races interact with
> wizards - but we've never seen him say anything publically. 
> 
> It seems to me Dumbledore is full of pretty words but precious few actions.
> 
Kneasy:
You  missed one out.
The Ministry battle again. Just how hard was he trying against Voldy?
"There are worse  things than death, Tom, so I'll let you off this time."
Ha! If he is the most powerful wizard in the world, he's yet to prove it.
Mind you, it does fit my theory  that Dumbledore is the puppetmaster, 
making sure the cast stick to a pre-ordained script. Nobody seemed to like 
that theory much, either. But I can't come up with anything else that fits
the facts as presented. 

> K
> A very good question. I'd like to know more about how fixed in stone
> prophecies are - did Dumbledore even try and actually defeat Voldemort
> (rather than just defeating his individual attacks and such) or did he just
> put all that responsibility onto Harry's shoulders when the kid was born?
> And if so how justifiable was that - can prophecies ever be changed?

Kneasy:
Sorry to keep  harping on about  previous postings, but I had a go at
this as well (Prophets without honour). Anyone can make a 'prophecy' - but 
only *after* the event can the accuracy be determined. Even then rationalising
of the events may occur. It's probably a  red herring concocted by JKR to keep
us  from digging into more potentially productive seams.
 
> K
> Understanding *why* something happens doesn't make it right however - do we
> have any evidence that adopting these draconian measures actually did any
> good? Or did they merely encourage more people to join the DEs? 
> .... Regulus for example
> seems to have drawn the line at some of Voldemort's actions and tried to
> leave, would he have done so I wonder *after* the authorities had imprisoned
> his brother without a trial (he might not have liked the guy but he *was*
> family, and that does seem fairly important to a family like the Blacks)
>

Kneasy:
Not certain that the DE Popular Front was all  that popular. If it was why did
they need to Imperio! so many in the WW? True, there'll be a small sympathy
vote from those who take the elimination of loved ones as a personal affront,
but how many were actually killed by Aurors? Not many, maybe half a dozen,
so far as I can determine. Potential supporters (like Regulus) soon realise the
difference between a glorious principle and dirty reality. They'd need to be
committed hard-core to stay the course.

K: 
> I do agree with the quote but the WW doesn't seem to have bothered to define
> 'necessary' when allowing the Aurors to use Unforgivables, the practice if
> not the actual law seems to have gone from - no, under no circumstances, not
> even in self-defence, to, as long as it's a DE and you can get away with it.
> 

Kneasy:
We're a bit in the dark over that. Obviously, there must have been rules,
guidelines, whatever; we just don't know what they were. How would a DE
be identified, anyway? Or were any mistakes explained as 'the worst case
of suicide this week'?

> K
> 
> Actually a judge is there to pronounce on the law and nothing else - no
> matter how much he may agree or disagree with the law. I'm sure most of the
> pure-blood supremacists would argue that upholding the 'rights' of
> muggle-borns is contrary to the good of wizarding society as they are, as a
> group, the biggest threat to it. That's why human rights cover *all* humans,
> regardless of whether they 'deserve' them, and why the law aplies equally to
> all regardless of who they are, to protect everyone in the case that you
> suddenly become part of a group that is seen as a 'threat'
> 
> 
Kneasy:
Normally I'd agree. But Barty was a hanging judge. Wheel 'em in -  "Have you
anything to say before sentence is passed?" -  wheel 'em out to Azkaban.
Effective, you must admit. Another theory (!) of mine is that old Barty was
brought down by disgruntled Voldy supporters -  young Barty was deliberately
set up to be caught, putting his father in a cleft stick; nepotism or public 
disgust. And so enters Fudge -  friend of many of Voldy's supporters.
Suddenly, not so many DEs  go to the slammer any more. Not so keen to
find any, either.

You  may have the traditional view of human rights; all very noble.
But our glorious leader, T Blair Esq., with the help of his little friends, is in
the process of revising their applicability. Aren't we lucky! Star Chamber
revisited.


> > Kneasy:
> > I prefer to believe that DD did know about it, and approved. How else
> > could he get Harry protected against the Imperio! curse? No way could
> > such a lesson be  kept secret from the rest of the school; it'd be all
> > round the common-rooms by that evening.
> >
> K
> 
> Um, how do you back that statement up? Harry's Occulomancy lessons don't
> seem to have become common school gossip so why would anti-Imperious lessons
> (and you can't tell me Snape wouldn't have *loved* a chance to use it on
> Harry, and Dumbledore had no problems with him humiliating him with the
> Occulomancy lessons so I don't see him objecting too much)
>
Kneasy:
Evidence? You  want evidence? How unreasonable can you get? Only logic.
OK. Just a bit. DADA has been a disaster for Harry's year. Bits and pieces and
all over the place. No continuity or logical progression. Dark curses *are* part
of the curriculum, but not normally until the sixth year. Moody comes in and
tells them they are way behind with curses, and as a specialist (who is only here
for one year), and as a special treat this is what we'll cover now. After all, who 
knows if you'll have a decent teacher available in the sixth  year. OK, he was a
fake, but why did  DD  get the real Moody out of retirement? A star Auror -
very  useful if you want young Potter to have some real protection.
Occlumancy, on the other hand, is not on the curriculum, hence private lessons.