Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 154714

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip> 
> > I do agree that Harry is on the right side.  But that doesn't    
> > give him (or his friends) a free pass.  And Draco is on the     
> > wrong side, but it's asking too much of him, IMO, to magically   
> > realize it. Especially if the "good" side is engaged in the same 
> > sort of behavior.

> >>Alla:
> NO, I meant that Harry is on the right side and he is not supposed 
> to have crisis of faith, not specifically in relation to this 
> accident.
> I was trying to avoid discussing it,honestly. I love Twins to     
> death, but even if one does not, IMO ( I understand you disagree, 
> but that is how I feel) that first they are supposed to be funny   
> and second they turned on on BAD guys only.
> To me Dursleys are bad guys, whether they are Muggles or not does 
> not matter.
> Twins to me are the tools of carmical justice. Are they sometimes 
> over the top?
> Yes, sure, but I find it hysterical. I think that JKR is not 
> intending her bad guys to get away , so she cannot call social 
> services on Dursleys, instead we get Twins and later Dumbledore.
> I cheer them up, again specifically in book context, of course I 
> would not advocate that in RL, but in Potterverse, comparing them 
> with DE?
> I just don't see it at all. Sorry.

Betsy Hp:
If that is the case, if JKR is trying to write a story in which one 
person baiting muggles is bad, but another person baiting muggles is 
*not* bad, then she's not writing a morally informed book.  She's 
writing a comedy, I suppose.  But not something children can learn 
from.  Because then it's not about good vs. evil, it's about winners 
vs. losers.

In which case hating Draco or even judging him because of his "moral 
choices" is a waste of time and effort.  He's not evil, he's a 
foil.  And children shouldn't look at him as an example of how *not* 
to act, just as they shouldn't look to Harry as an example of how 
*to* act.  Because Harry isn't "morally" good either.  He's just as 
much a foil.

However, I really, really, really doubt this is what JKR is doing.  
For one thing, it's too conventient that we've got two examples of 
muggle-baiting in the same book.  And it's too convenient that we've 
got two examples of disfigurement as punishment in the same book.

Honestly, I strongly suspect JKR *is* expecting us to laugh at the 
twins, but then get pulled up with the realization that they're 
behaving exactly as the Death Eaters are.  There's a reason she 
shows Arthur (laid back Arthur) in a fit of utter rage over his 
sons' actions, even though the rest of his family blows him off.

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> I just think that JKR's books are not the once where author is shy 
> of giving out moral judgments sometimes. IMO of course.

Betsy Hp:
If muggle baiting is both a good and a bad thing, and it merely 
depends on the emotional attachment we have to the ones doing the 
baiting and the ones being baited, morality has nothing to do with 
it, IMO.

Because I don't think ethics work that way, one set of rules for one 
type of people and another set of rules for another.  And neither 
does Karmic justice for that matter.  I think the Dursleys are 
karmically punished by just being the Dursleys.  Having wizards 
torture them only goes to prove their fears as being well grounded.

And the bizarre expectation that Draco is supposed to figure out 
that his father is bad because he baites muggles, but should realize 
that the twins are on the right side because *they* bait muggles...  
It doesn't make any sense.

> >>Alla:
> But JKR did not show us anything of the kind and that is why I    
> think that Muggles who were baited by DE are innocent people, who 
> did NOT deserve what was done to them and Dursleys deserved       
> everything they got and more.

Betsy Hp:
That's what you think.  And Draco's father thinks (and Draco follows 
his lead) that the muggles at the quidditch cup deserved everything 
*they* got and more.  Why are you right?  Why is Lucius wrong?  
Since muggle baiting is purely a neutral act that says nothing about 
the folks doing the baiting you'll have to prove that the muggles 
*don't* deserve it, and you'll have to prove that the ones doing the 
baiting weren't doing it for a laugh.

> >>Alla: 
> Right. I do fault him for agreeing to assasinate Dumbledore, I    
> fault him a lot. :)
> <snip>
> As I said earlier wouldn't you agree that Snape's betrayal of     
> Voldemort and Peter betrayal of Potters should be judged          
> differently precisely of WHOM they betrayed?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think it's dangerous to make those sort of decisions based on 
personal attachment.  There *must* be something more, some sort of 
solid principle that you can turn too.  Otherwise it's just a battle 
of the charismas.

Voldemort is okay with killing children, his supporters, innocent 
bystanders, basically anyone who gets in his way.  When Peter 
betrays the Potters to Voldemort he knows he's betraying them to 
their deaths.  And Peter is doing it not because he thinks Voldemort 
is in the right, but because he thinks Voldemort is the most likely 
to win.

When Snape betrays his friends to Dumbledore (and spies are, by 
definition, betrayers) he's betraying them to the law, not the whim 
of one man.  We see that those turned in Death Eaters were given 
trials and I can't think of any who were executed.  And DDM!Snape 
didn't choose Dumbledore's side because Dumbledore was winning 
(quite the contrary, per canon).  Therefore I believe he must have 
chosen it because he agrees with Dumbledore's principles.

When Draco agrees to assassinate Dumbledore he thinks he's doing a 
good thing.  (Or at least, he's made himself think that way because 
facing the suggestion that his beloved father is wrong is so very 
painful.)  Just as Harry agreeing to kill Voldemort (walk willingly 
into the arena) believes he is doing so for a higher good.

Obviously Draco is wrong, and he starts to figure that out 
throughout HBP.  I think he first realizes that he's not all that 
thrilled with killing in general, and then he starts to realize that 
Voldemort isn't the great saviour of the WW that Draco was raised to 
think he was.  And he figures that out by Voldemort's actions.

If actions within Potterverse are really as neutral as you seem to 
be positing then it would have been impossible for Draco to come to 
the realizations he comes to.  He'd have had to base his thinking 
(as Harry still does) on how much he likes the people involved.  
Draco doesn't like the Trio, the Weasleys, Gryffindors or 
Dumbledore. But he's still able to figure out that what Voldemort 
(and his family) is asking of him is wrong.

Harry needs to realize the same thing.  He likes the twins, he likes 
Hermione, but he needs to be able to recognize that some of the 
actions they took are wrong.  Otherwise, his thinking will remain 
childish, based on his own immediate emotional reactions and not on 
any set principles.  And that way lies danger.  It's the same path 
Tom Riddle walked.  (He knew the muggles he killed deserved it.  And 
more.)

Betsy Hp