The Evil Trio deserved hexes [was The Train Stomp vs. Dumbledore, etc.]

[marinafrants <rusalka@ix.netcom.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51468

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214 
<dumbledore11214 at y...>" <dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:

<snip my discussion of Shrieking Shack confrontation, and how its 
message might apply to the Train Stomp scene>

> Yes, I agree that Harry's choice in the Shriecking Shack is 
presented 
> as the right one. But I refuse to see both scenes in the same 
light. 
> Maybe, if HRH and twins tried to kill Draco and his chronies or 
even 
> hexed them with more serious curses I would be bothered. Maybe,I 
> don't know.

There is certainly a large difference of degree between the two 
scenes.  If Sirius and Remus had actually killed Pettigrew and then 
everyone went and stepped on the corpse, I would've found it vastly 
more disturbing that the scene in the train.  But I think that the 
moral message of the Shrieking Shack scene was not meant to apply 
only to extreme life-and-death confrontations.  I think it's meant 
to apply to smaller-scale conflicts like the one in the train also.

> 
> Please, don't get me wrong. I do not advocate violence. I guess I 
see 
> why people are bothered by this scene, but I have a question - how 
> would you want them to react at Drago's provocative and hateful 
> words? Should they just ignore him? Would that be OK? It is 
possible 
> that Draco and Co would continue with hexes and cursing.It is pure 
> speculation, of course, but based on Draco's past behaviour, I 
think 
> it is reasonable enough. Should HRH continue ignoring them?

I think that merely drawing their wands and presenting a united 
front stood a good chance of doing the trick.  Draco is a coward, 
he's not likely to launch a physical attack when the target is 
obviously armed and ready to retaliate.  He'd probably retreat. And, 
of course, if he did go for his wand, HRH would've been perfectly 
justified in defending themselves.

> 
> 
> I very strongly feel that Trios' reaction (especially Harry's 
> reaction) was justified. They did not attack first, they reacted 
to 
> provocation. "Justified and unjustified rage" may feel the same 
when 
> you are actually feeling it, but the first one makes your 
behaviour 
> understandable afterwards.
> 
> Alla

Actually, the second one makes your behavior understandable 
afterwards, too.  Unjustified rage is not the same as 
incomprehensible rage. But that's the problem, see?  *Afterwards*.  
You feel justified rage, you lash out, afterwards everyone 
says, "Great! That's exactly what you should've done," and you 
accept that.  So next time you feel rage, you lash out in the exact 
same way, because you're feeling the exact same emotion, and 
*afterwards* everyone says, "Hey! You shouldn't have done that, your 
rage wasn't justified this time."  But it's a bit too late, 'cause 
you've already done it.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com