muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 155390

Alla wrote:
>
> <snip> In the books I am reading yes, the murder of his parents
brought Harry to this fight. But in the books I am reading Harry
fights for protection, for protection of those he loves **and** for
self-protection too of course.
>
> Although yes, of course vengeance plays a role too, although i would
> call it justice, not vengeance.

Carol responds:
I would love to agree with you, but his conversation with Dumbledore
about why he should fight Voldemort seems to indicate otherwise.
Self-protection I can see--after all, Voldemort has been after him for
six books, not to mention the attack at Godric's Hollow. But I don't
recall Harry expressing a desire to protect his friends, or the WW,
from Voldemort since SS/PS (before he entered the third-floor to save
the stone from "Snape"), back when he was an innocent child of eleven.
And at the moment, he's certainly intent on vengeance against Snape.
While he is certainly the Chosen One when it comes to Voldemort, I
don't think it's his job, or his destiny, to take vengeance on Snape,
not would it be justice if he did so, even if Snape is evil (which, of
course, you think he is and I don't).


Alla:

Whether Harry expresses the desire to protect his friends or not, he 
**does** protect them IMO. He went to Chamber of Secrets to save 
Ginny. What **is** it if not protection?

He went to save Sirius for the same reason IMO. So, no, I disagree. 
Of course the fact that evil touched Harry directly is what brought 
him into this fight, but I absolutely stand by my argument that Harry 
stays in it to protect his loved ones and **of course** to defend 
himself.

And I was not talking about Snape at all, I thought Betsy's argument 
touched Harry reasons to fight Voldemort as vengeance, which I 
disagree that it is his primary reason.

I mean, I am sure that right now Harry also wants vengeance for the 
death of his loved ones, but that is IMO not the main reason he 
fights.



Alla wrote:
>
> Not to me. Hermione IMO was right ( although as I said, not
> perfectly executed too), because the reason she casted that hex was
> protection, protection of fellow DA members from treachery. I **so**
> don't see any vengeance here, but that is JMO.

Carol responds:
Punishing a person for snitching by "horribly disfigur[ing]" her with
the word "SNEAK" across her face, perhaps permanently, isn't
vengeance? How are you defining "vengeance," then?


Alla:

We disagree on how we name what Marietta did. I call it betrayal, not 
snitching.

As to how I define vengeance – it is very simple. If Hermione 
**started** to think of the ways to punish Marietta **after** the 
fact, after she betrayed DA, then absolutely I would call it 
vengeance.

I would still understand it, but **that** is what vengeance is to me. 
When you want to punish somebody for the wrong that is done *after 
the fact*, I call it vengeance. Just as what Harry wants to do to 
Snape, **that ** to me is vengeance. 

When somebody plans the protection of the group, not even knowing 
whether the betrayal will happens, I call it the **protection 
plans**. It could have been better executed protection plans, but 
IMO  what Hermione came up does not even come close to vengeance.


Alla:
<snip>
> To me there is a huge difference between villains getting their
dues, by any means author thinks possible within the plot and 
vengeance.
>
Carol:
I see no difference.

Alla:

The first is justice, the second is vengeance. IMO of course.

JMO,

Alla