Story analysis (Was: Whose side are we on?)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 156135

Alla wrote:
> 
> Yes, sure this is again just different levels of analysing the story. 
> For myself I call it analysing on "feelings"" level and
"intellectual" level. This is strictly how I classify it. I found 
long time ago that for myself to be able to argue effectively turning>
off my emotions completely never works. :)
> 
> I certainly have to care about what I am arguing or for the
character I am defending, but of course turning off the intellectual
part is  also not good, so for me mix works the best, when I am
analysing developed characters. <snip>
> 

> Some people argue by completely turning off their emotions and that 
> works for them. Not me.
> 
> Sometimes though I don't feel a need to go any further than trusting 
> my emotions and the Toffee incident is probably one of them.
<snip>

Carol responds:
Although I respect your feelings here, I can't agree that there's such
a thing as "emotional analysis." Analysis is a purely intellectual
exercise and emotions get in the way of it (just as they get in the
way of Occlumency for Harry). I realize that none of us can completely
set aside our feelings about a particular character (unless it's
someone we don't care one way or the other about like, say, Rufus
Scrimgeour), but I think it's important to at least make the effort to
examine the canon evidence objectively. (I wonder, for example, how
differently we would see Snape if the entire series were written using
a third-person dramatic narrator like the one in "Spinner's End"--then
again, it probably wouldn't engage the reader's emotions as
effectively because he or she wouldn't empathize so extensively with
Harry.)

But the point I'm trying to make is that one person's emotions have no
influence on the way another person reads a particular scene. I can't
laugh at the toffee scene (though I confess to laughing at the movie
version of Aunt Marge being "blown up"--a diffferent matter altogether
since it's accidental magic resulting from Harry's anger at insults to
his dead parents, not a deliberate prank played for laughs against a
helpless if unlikeable Muggle by two older wizards) and no one else's
emotional reaction can convince me that they're right and I'm wrong.
Only logical arguments backed by canon evidence can convince me to
rethink my position. 

Let me reverse the equation for a moment. My emotional reaction to the
Twins' actions is sympathy for Dudley and for Petunia, who thinks her
son is dying, combined with a kind of horror/disgust/embarrassed
amusement at the irony of poor Petunia trying to yank out Dudley's
tongue and increasing her son's agony as she tries to save him. I
can't convince anyone else to feel that way because our emotional
reactions, like our tastes and prejudices, are our own.

I would argue, however, that just as it doesn't matter what Severus
has done to James and Sirius in the past--it's bullying to attack him
two-on-one when he's preoccupied by his DADA exam--it's wrong for the
Twins to tempt a Muggle, regardless of what he's done to Harry or
anyone else in the past, with a candy that they know he'll eat and
that they know will cause his tongue to expand in a terrifying way
that he'll be helpless to undo.

Look at Bob Ogden's reasoning when Morfin hexes Tom Riddle. He doesn't
care about Morfin's motivation (Morfin is punishing the Muggle for
being attractive to his sister, apparently); he only cares that the
Muggle is defenseless against Morfin's magic. 

"'. . . Morfin gave a Muggle a bit of what was coming to him' [snapped
Gaunt]. What about it, then?'

"'Morfin has broken Wizarding law,' said Ogden sternly.

"'"Morfin has broken Wizarding law."' Gaunt imitated Ogden's voice,
making it pompous and singsong. 'He taught a filthy Muggle a lesson,
that's illegal now, is it?'

"'Yes,' said Ogden. 'I'm afraid it is'" (HBP Am. ed. 206).

Later, Ogden makes the point more explicitly: "this was an unprovoked
attack on a defenseless Muggle" (208).

Morfin goes to Azkaban for using magic on a Muggle, a particular
Muggle whom he's taken it upon himself to punish. And, as Ogden points
out, it's illegal to do so regardless of Morfin's motive.

The Twins, though they don't directly perform an Engorgement Charm and
so avoid the letter of the law (both the restriction of underage magic
and the Statute of Secrecy), they are still, like Morfin, using magic
on a defenseless Muggle to punish him, with no authority to do so.
(Surely if anyone has the right to carry out revenge against Dudley,
it's Harry, yet Harry saves Dudley from the Dementors in the next
book.) It doesn't matter what Dudley has done in the past; he has done
nothing to the Twins, or to Harry at that moment, to provoke the
Twins' attack.

None of this has anything to do with my personal feelings about the
Twins. I rather like them, particularly George, who seems to be a bit
more sensitive and a bit less the instigator than Fred (though he
claims equal credit for the toffee prank and seems to have been in on
the planning of it). I will be sad if the Twins are killed in Book 7,
and will cry for Mrs. Weasley's loss if they are, just as I cried for
Mrs. Diggory's loss of Cedric. But that doesn't mean that I have to
interpret canon to see them as being in the right because they're
Harry's friends and on the side of good. They make mistakes and so
does Harry (and Ron and Hermione and Dumbledore and Lupin and Hagrid
and even Ernie Macmillan, who thinks that Harry is the Heir of
Slytherin in CoS).

It seems to me that the Morfin/Gaunt/Ogden scene is intended to
illustrate the view of the situation that JKR wants the reader to
take. Yes, even the good Wizards like Mr. Weasley and Mr. Ogden are
condescending toward Muggles, and, yes, it's disturbing that they
would resort to Obliviating Muggles to maintain the WW's secrecy. But
nevertheless, Ogden is pointing out to Gaunt (and Morfin) that it's
wrong to use magic on a defenseless Muggle regardless of what the
Muggle has done to deserve it.

IMO, the Twins, like Harry, must learn that actions have consequences
and that it is not their place to punish wrongdoers. They didn't learn
from the toffee incident, but perhaps they'll learn from the Vanishing
Cabinet. The good guys can't mistake vengeance for justice and remain
good guys.

Carol, who wants the Twins to become *responsible* adults, not just
pranksters who consider themselves adults because they're of age