Vengeance

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

No: HPFGUIDX 51781

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C. <cindysphynx at c...>" 
<cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> Anyway, I'm not entirely sure what to make of JKR's treatment of 
> vengeance.  For instance, we are meant to enjoy Harry's throwing 
mud 
> at Malfoy from the cover of the cloak.  Come-uppance humor, once 
> again.  Harry gets to take vengeance upon his tormentor without 
> consequence.  I read JKR as signaling that we are not to be 
bothered 
> by what Harry does.  
> 
> Similarly, there's Hermione's slap of Draco.  That one struck me 
as 
> another moment when a character is allowed a bit of vengeance 
> without author condemnation.  
> 
> I do have to say that I sense a double-standard.  Vengeance from 
an 
> Evil character is bad; vengeance from a Good character is OK, so 
> long as no one gets hurt.  And maybe sometimes even if someone 
gets 
> hurt.  Ton Tongue Toffee, anywone?
> 
> And vengeance by an Evil character against an Evil character 
> (Voldemort torturing Wormtail as punishment for letting Crouch Sr. 
> escape)?  I get no sense that JKR wishes the reader to disapprove.
> 
> Cindy

I think you're using the term "vengeance" a bit too broadly here.  
Or maybe you're conflating the readers' reactions with the 
characters' motives.  Just because the reader is encouraged (or at 
least allowed) to feel some satisfaction at a when one character 
mistreats another, it doesn't mean that the character doing the 
mistreatment is motivated by vengeance.

Punishment is not the same as vengeance.  McGonagall is not taking 
vengeance when she assigns detention to the Trio. This is 
illustrated particularly well in the ferret-bouncing scene in GoF.  
CrouchMoody *pretends* to be punishing Draco for an infraction of 
the rules, but as we later discover, he was in fact taking vicarious 
vengeance on Lucius Malfoy by targeting the man's son.  This 
discovery puts the scene in a completely new light, which it 
wouldn't have if the two concepts were essentially the same.  
Voldemort's punishment of Wormtail isn't really vengeance from *his* 
perspective, even if the readers are encouraged to enjoy it as a 
nice case of just desserts.

Anger is also not vengeance.  Hermione didn't slap Draco to take 
revenge, she slapped him in a spontaneous, uncontrolled display of 
emotion.  If she ambushed him in the corridor and slapped him an 
hour later -- *that* would be vengeance.

The humorous come-uppance scenes you mention, OTOH, *are* a form of 
vengeance, so it does seem like there's a certain double-standard 
between good-guy vengeance and bad-guy vengeance.  Then again, bad 
guys are seldom shown trying to take vengeance in humorous, light-
hearted ways that do no permanent harm.  The only bad guy who's done 
it is Crouch Jr., and he was pretending to be a good guy at the 
time.  I suspect that if our pal Barty had gotten Draco alone in a 
situation where the consequences couldn't possibly be traced to him, 
he would've done a whole lot worse than just turn the kid into a 
ferret and bounce him around.

Oh, I've just remembered the most glaring case of "approved 
vengeance" in the books: the Dueling Club scene in CoS.  It's quite 
obvious that Snape knocks Lockhart around as payback for his general 
annoyingness, and *everybody* approves (well, except Lockhart 
himself, I suppose).  Even the assembled students, most of whom hate 
Snape, seem glad to see Lockhart brought down.  It's gotta be the 
most popular moment of Snape's teaching career.

Of course, it's probably no coincidence that this display is 
assigned to the most morally ambiguous character in the series. :-)

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com