muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 155368

> Betsy Hp:
> I guess I don't understand what else there is.  I mean, I don't 
like 
> what Hermione did to Marietta, not because Marietta is good or 
> innocent or anything other than a snitch, but because what 
Hermione 
> did was cruel.  I don't care if Hermione had tricked Umbridge 
> herself (nasty, horrible Umbridge) into tripping a disfigurement 
hex 
> that appears to be uncurable.  I would still worry about 
Hermione's 
> behavior for *Hermione's* sake.  Because I really don't see where 
> it's about anything *more* than vengeance.

Alla:

I am so very puzzled. We discussed it for several days and I am 
puzzled all over again.

Where do you find vengeance in what Hermione did? I see protection 
of DA members from horrible fate as the only reason for Hermione's 
actions.

I can see the argument of them being cruel, but **vengeance** as 
motive?

She did not set the hex after the fact, to go after Marietta after 
she did the deed, she set the hex **in case** treachery happens.

I don't see vengeance here at all. Sorry.


Umbridge - well, anything that can happen to her, I will be only 
happy.

And here again, I go back to JKR saying that Umbridge is fun to 
torture. I hopefully see the hint that JKR is really not shy of 
giving justice to those who deserve it. IMO of course.

She used the word "torture", no less, I doubt we will see the real 
torture, but hopefully Dolores dear will get her dues.


Betsy Hp: 
> I just feel like, if you're (and I'm using universal "you" here, 
not 
> speaking directly to Alla) going to explain (for example) why 
> letting someone die of thirst is proper behavior against prefects 
> who support a headmaster you dislike you're really explaining why 
> vengeance is a good thing.  The twins weren't saving their lives, 
or 
> the lives of anyone else.  They weren't even slowing Umbridge down.

Alla:

Yes, of course. Just a bit of vicarious retribution for Montague for 
sigting with monster.

To me Twins are not even fully developed characters - to me they are 
funny and tools of justice, that is why I evaluate his actions 
differently from the way I evaluate Trio and some other characters. 
Does it make sense?

As I mentioned earlier - I think JKR uses them often when she cannot 
punish bad guys in any other ways and for humor of course.


Betsy Hp:
> The DA, on the other hand, *did* have a noble purpose and 
*actually* 
> did something to fight Umbridge's reign.  Attacking Montague does 
> nothing.  It just made the twins feel better because they got a 
bit 
> of rage worked off.  And Harry and Ron lived a little vicariously 
> through them.  But it didn't help anyone at all.  There was no 
> positive effect.  Once again, Lucius Malfoy would have approved.  
> (Heck *Voldemort* would have approved.)

Alla:

Yes, I think it was not supposed to help anybody. I think it was 
supposed to show us that bad guys in one way or another will get 
from fate what they deserved.

Of course it backfired  too.


Betsy Hp: 
> I'm very interested to see what JKR does in the last book.  How 
> interesting will it be if Marietta and Zacharius and Draco are 
> needed to take down Voldemort?  It would force the trio to 
confront 
> some of their past wrongs, and it'll give Ginny some page time 
too! 
> <g>

Alla:
I will make you another prediction - if they are needed, then before 
trio will confront their wrongs, those will confront their wrongs 
first .

The list of Draco's wrongs is too long for me to put here, Marietta 
will have to confront what she was ready to condemn fellow students 
too and Zacharius, well, Okay, I let him off :)

Then Trio may confront their wrongs, whatever they are ;)

JMO,

Alla