The Twins are bad, Harry is bad, but Draco is good and so is Snape...?

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 136831

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" 

<snip>

> Del replies:
> Just because Percy is not helping the Order (does he even know about
> them?), doesn't mean he's not helping in the war efforts.

I don't have too much hope on that front, given the state of the 
Ministry as presented in HBP.  Different leader, still fairly 
ineffective.

<snip>

> Del replies:
> What about the Twins deliberately walking on the unsconscious 
> Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle?

After those three instigated the situation, one is more tempted to 
read it as JKR writing comeuppance.

> What about James and Sirius attacking Snape when he's already down?
> 
> As usual, it's awful when Draco does it, but the good guys always 
> have a good excuse, huh? And the fact that Harry was *spying* on 
> Draco is not a good excuse, I suppose?

Del, if you want to argue that spying or skulking around is a good 
enough reason to get someone beat up, then your argument can actually 
be used to endorse the ways that the Marauders treated Snape.  Black 
tells us that Snape was always skulking around, trying to find out 
what they were doing (just as Harry was with Draco?): does that make 
their actions justified?  By your argument, it does.

> Vmonte wrote:
> "This is not a fair fight, and it shows Draco's real nature IMO."
> 
> Del replies:
> If an unfair fight at 15/16 shows Draco's real nature, I wonder what
> an unfair fight at the same age shows about James' and Sirius's real
> nature?

We've seen Draco and Harry for six years now.  We have hints that 
Draco/Harry was rather like Snape/James, but we have other factors 
that are complicating unknowns, such as history, setting, whatever.  
This isn't an excuse--it's wariness out of lack of knowledge.

> Vmonte wrote:
> "Still, there is a difference between Harry's horror at what he has
> done (probably the same horror that motivated James into saving 
> Snape) and Draco's reaction to what he himself has done, no?"
> 
> Del replies:
> Draco broke Harry's nose. Harry cut Draco's face and chest open. Not
> exactly on the same plane, I'd say.

I think the fact that Draco was about to cast Cruciatus upon Harry is 
well-worth considering here.  It doesn't make Harry's actions any 
less stupid, but it does provide a fully understandable motivation.  
Harry knows what that spell does first-hand in a way that sheltered 
Draco probably actually does not.  That is to say, I bet Draco had 
cast it before, but I doubt he'd genuinely been in the other 
position.  Draco's rather like that.

And the issue is also one's reactions after it.  Harry is genuinely 
horrified after he does these Bad Things.  Draco's remorse for his 
actions is more subtly drawn if even there.  Sure, he's crying in the 
bathroom and he does not have the will to actually kill Dumbledore--
this speaks of him not actually being a killer.  On the other hand, 
he has two attempted murders on his hands--any remorse for that?  No 
clue.

-Nora takes a temporary sojourn on-list...