Bathroom scene again WAS: Re:Weasley Family Dynamics/To the Extreme

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 164968


> Alla:
> 
> Well, I would hope that Minerva is the kind of character who does 
> think that **that sort of thing** as you call it or **self-defense 
> from unforgivable curse** as I call it, is Okay indeed. Otherwise 
I 
> would be very dissapointed, personally :)
> 
Magpie:
I'm saying that I think Minerva, as a teacher, would make a 
distinction between the general question of Unforgivables being 
something to defend yourself from and students opening each other up 
in bathroom brawls. I can imagine her acknowledging that Harry was 
acting in self defense but have a harder time imagining her going 
from that to, "Nothing else you could have done, Harry. It's great 
you did that." I think she'd want to deal with things beyond making 
sure there was self-defense involved.

  
> > Magpie:
> > Whatever Snape's reasons for talking or not talking about 
> > Sectumsempra, the detentions are not specifically linked to 
Harry 
> > hurting Draco and using Sectumsempra. Snape always wants to 
punish 
> > Harry and give him detention, and when he gives him detention he 
> > says, "I think you are a liar and a cheat and you deserve to be 
in 
> > detention with me every Saturday." They've moved on to the 
question 
> > of the book by then, which Harry is lying about. So Harry's 
getting 
> > what's being asked for anyway--no one is on his case for hurting 
> > someone else without acknowledging it was self-defense. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Not sure I understand, you are saying that Snape does not punish 
him 
> for that? How so? Without Harry doing sectusemptra Snape would 
have 
> no reason to give him detentions at all, book or no book IMO of 
> course.

Magpie:
And you think Snape shares your view of when he's got reason to give 
Harry detention? I don't. But regardless, even if Sectumsempra was 
the event that led to the detentions it is not what the detentions 
are *about,* which is important. Neither Harry nor Snape associates 
the detentions with Draco's injury, not even at the moment the 
detentions are given. The detention as a punishment for hurting 
Draco is intentionally not given by Snape, Harry or the narrator, 
any more than is the idea that Harry's in detention for messing up 
the bathroom.


> Magpie: 
> > So Harry's not in a situation where he's being punished for 
hurting 
> > Draco for no reason and if only people knew what really happened 
> > things would be different.  Nothing about Harry's punishment 
hinges 
> > on Draco's innocence. On the contrary, the whole detention 
shifts 
> > quickly to Snape being a jerk and wanting an opportunity to 
tease 
> > Harry because of his own issues--Snape, Sirius, etc. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Sure, he is a jerk, but I am just talking how it started, hehe.

Magpie:
Right, but that's the thing--it's just "how it started." It was the 
incident that gave Snape and opening to make Harry's life miserable 
but it's in the past even before they leave the bathroom when the 
book has become of primary importance.

 
> > Magpie:
> > I don't think anyone, least of all Harry, forgets that Malfoy 
> > started it (when does he ever forget that?), and Malfoy was in a 
> > state of mind where he was fighting like a desperate person. But 
> > this issue doesn't really effect anything in canon because 
Harry's 
> > *not* be accused of not having a reason to cast his curse or 
being 
> > much criticized for hurting Malfoy. Ginny backs him up on that, 
Ron 
> > brushes the injury aside, Hermione just thinks it's proving her 
> > opinion of the Prince and cautions him about Quidditch. The only 
> > person we actually hear has actually villified him is Pansy, 
> because 
> > she's Draco's girlfriend. Even when we're told the Slytherins 
are 
> > jeering at him it's just described as general jeering.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, I am not sure I follow again. Yes, Harry does not get 
> criticized that he had no reason for hurting Malfoy, so maybe that 
is 
> because he indeed had a reason to do so? Self defense, I mean?
> 
> I am not sure what your point here is, sorry.

Magpie:
I mean the OP was about how it wasn't fair that Harry hurt Malfoy in 
self-defense and no one ever found out the facts, as if Harry was 
suffering from being falsely accused of hurting Malfoy offensively. 
But Harry's acting in self-defense ins't a secret and his suffering 
has nothing to do with the false idea that he wasn't acting in self-
defense.

 
> > Magpie:
> < BIG SNIP>
> >I think JKR very deliberately makes any issues 
> > about Harry's use of the curse between Harry and himself (or 
Harry 
> > and God, or however one sees that sort of thing). He's free to 
take 
> > Ginny's attitude and justify himself completely through self-
> defense 
> > while Draco pays the price for his daring to use Crucio in the 
> > hospital wing. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, I just think that the fact that JKR makes Harry having any 
> issues about that scene does not mean that Harry **has to** have 
> issues about this scene, besides the fact that he used the weapon 
> that he had no clue how it works.
> 
> But what else would one use against the one who attepts to cause 
you 
> horrible pain but the curse marked for enemies?
> 
> As I said, I think Harry was stupid for thinking about 
Sectusemptra, 
> Draco was something else IMO and I absolutely resist the argument 
> that their responsibilities in this scene are even **close** to 
one 
> another.

Magpie:
They don't have to be close to one another. Harry certainly isn't 
comparing them. He doesn't *have to* feel anything--nobody does. 
Like I said, he's free to take Ginny's attitude that it was good he 
had something up his sleeve. Harry isn't able to make that leap, 
completely. He feels twinges of conscience. Some people think it's 
right for him to feel that, some people think it's wussy, some thing 
it's a sign that Harry's an extraordinary person.

Alla: 
> Imagine if Harry used I don't know, stupefy and Draco hit his head 
on 
> the bathroom floor and died. Would you begrudge Harry for using 
that 
> curse as well?

Magpie:
I wonder why you would make that comparison, actually. In this 
scenario Harry is using a non-hurtful spell that due to bizarre 
circumstances led to a death, as opposed to an offensive spell he 
only knew was to be used again enemies that was, unsurprisingly, 
potentially deadly in itself. I would certainly feel differently 
about Harry's using stupefy and I would guess Harry would also (even 
if he regretted being involved in anyone else's death, even 
tangentially). Obviously there's never any question that it was 
wrong of Harry to do *something* in the scene. That's part of what I 
think is carefully put into the scene. It would be such a different 
scene if Harry had done what he does in this scenario. But he 
didn't. 

Alla: 
> Because I would not see any issues then whatsoever, Harry would 
use 
> the curse he knows works well and he was up against one of the 
most 
> dangerous curses in the WW. And he was down on the floor himself.
> 
> But Malfoy would you know, still be dead. I am guessing that Harry 
> would be a bit upset even in that event. Any normal human IMO 
would 
> be upset after killed someone even in self defense, but should 
such 
> human be upset for the longest time?
> 
> IMO no, it is just in this situation Harry used curse that made 
> Malfoy bleed a lot. Would it been better if by complete accident 
> Malfoy died painlessly?

Magpie:
I think there is an element of intent to Harry's use of Sectumsempra 
that is part of that niggling conscience. As to how long one should 
feel badly about killing someone accidentally, I don't know. Some 
people feel guilty about that the rest of their lives, probably 
depending on what kind of accident it was. But if Harry had killed 
or hurt Malfoy that way I think it would be a different scene, so 
he'd probably think about it differently anyway. 


> Ken:
> 
> Of course it is not the real world. It's just a game we play with
> ourselves while waiting for DH. Who can guess where the author is
> going? There are no Nobel prizes, the revolution will not be
> televised. A few people *might* win the respect of their peers by
> outguessing the rest of us. A *few*. Science has to deal with
> apparently contradictory facts and incomplete evidence. We have the
> same situation here. I don't care that much about this particular
> theory although I think it is imaginative and interesting. But I do
> think that some non-literary techniques can be valuable at this 
point
> in the game of guessing the conclusion.

Magpie:
And it's a perfectly fine game to be playing--I think it's just more 
an issue of knowing which game we are playing. If one is actually 
trying to guess what's going to happen using canon, one generally 
wants to stick as close to canon as possible. If one is honestly 
trying to guess what's going to happen one will probably be stricter 
about things in canon that show that one is wrong. If it's more 
about just having fun with how different theories could be true 
until they're not, there's different ways you're going to approach 
things--and people often get testy when they two get mixed. 
> 
> > Magpie:
> > The good reason for not considering the possibility that Merope 
> > could have passed her powers to Lily is that *there is nothing 
in 
> > canon telling me to consider it.* That's not closed mindedness, 
it's 
> > understanding that the story consists of the words on the page 
and 
> > that's it. 
> 
> Ken:
> 
> The words on the page say that Tom Riddle passed some of his power 
to
> Harry. We all agree. So is it inconceivable that Merope passed 
(and I
> agree not her powers directly) *something* to Lily's mother? I'd 
have
> to say no, it is not inconceivable. 

Magpie:
It's not being inconceivable puts the burden of proof on other 
people to prove it didn't happen rather than finding any evidence 
that it *did* happen, which is what's needed for a theory to hold 
any water, imo. I could just as easily say, "Tom Riddle passed some 
of his power to Harry. So is it inconceivable that Luna Lovegood 
passed her powers to Morphin Gaunt?" The two things have nothing to 
do with each other.  Luna passing something to Morphin probably 
seems less likely because I'm saying it sarcastically, but it's 
actually not any more or less against what we've seen.

Ken:
We have canon proof that some
> kinds of magical power can be passed between wizards. Perhaps only
> Slytherin's heirs can do this, speculation on my part. The notion 
that
> Merope might have passed *something magical* to Lily's mother is a
> simple (but speculative, I agree) extension of that "known fact". 

Magpie:
Lily's mother is canonically a Muggle--one who probably was also not 
born at the time of Merope Riddle's death. It's an extension of a 
known fact that's so tenuous I don't see how it has any meaning. The 
one bit that's canon is the passing of a magical power. Mrs. Evans 
and Merope having any contact, Muggles being gifted magic by 
Wizards, Tom's passing Harry power being related to his being 
Slytherin's Heir (as opposed to the strange occurrance at Godric's 
Hollow) is all invented and isn't tied to the story so far at all 
that I can see.

I still can't prove it didn't happen, no. But that's what makes it a 
different kind of theory than, say, RAB being Regulus. Talking about 
the RAB theory gets us right into canon, answers questions already 
asked and leads to discussions about central themes. This theory 
just kind of hangs out there as an extra complication weakening some 
of the things we already know.

Ken:
Do
> we have any evidence that these two people were ever in close
> proximity. NO! The only thing we can say about that is that Merope 
was
> in London and London is one place in England that many residents of
> England will visit during their lifetimes. It is plausible that 
they
> could have been near each other at some point.

Magpie:
But is the fact that they both lived in the same country, possibly 
not even at the same time, really enough reason to consider this 
possibility if we are really looking at whether something might 
happen? It seems more like a way keep this outside narrative 
attached to the canonical one than an extension of the canon 
narrative or a prediction of where the narrative is going.

> > Magpie:
> > 
> > The trouble with this and other backwards theories is that there 
is 
> > no literary reason in canon to begin considering the idea--even 
if 
> > it turned out to be true a good case wasn't made for it. 
> 
> Ken:
> 
> But we've given you some. They are the barest traces of clues but 
they
> really are in canon. They might not be clues to anything as it 
turns
> out. They are some things that one of us noticed that look 
interesting.

Magpie:
It seems like the only reason I honestly recall being given is that 
I can't say it didn't happen and that the theory features some 
characters from canon, and some ideas that resemble some other ideas 
in canon.


> > Magpie:
> > And if the turning of Muggle to Wizard via the "gifting" of 
one's 
> > status to another were included in canon we'd have some reason 
to 
> > consider at least something like this. JKR always introduces a 
> > magical concept before it becomes important. My problem isn't 
that I 
> > can't explain this transfer through magical theory, since 
magical 
> > theory isn't a real field of study, it's that it's not ever in 
> > canon. In fact, it rather destroys one of the main points of 
canon, 
> > the Muggle/Wizard separation. That's a major thing to introduce 
into 
> > your magical system.
> > 
> 
> Ken:
> 
> We have seen the magical gifting from Tom to Harry so it is in 
canon.
> The separation between Muggle and Wizard is not absolute, Lily and
> Hermione are both proof of that. So there is nothing to destroy on
> that front. If this notion turns out to be true it is both in canon
> and introduced before it was important. So, what's your real 
complaint
> here?

Magpie:
The separation between Muggle and Wizard is absolute on the 
individual leavel--if a Muggle can become a Wizard, that's a big 
deal given the lines drawn in this universe that I can see. Rowling 
herself refers to magic as genetic. That is the basic law that this 
theory is violating, one that we've been given no reason whatsoever 
to break except for the fact that if we don't break it the theory 
doesn't work. 

My complaint about this kind of thing when I have one is not that I 
don't think people should do it if they enjoy doing it. But it is 
understandably frustrating when one person is trying to talk about 
what's reasonably there in canon and it feels like the other 
person's goal is to keep the theory afloat. That's when it begins to 
feel like hijacking a discussion about HP canon to talk about a 
fanfic someone would like to write.  There's nothing wrong with this 
as an idea, but it's weird when it leads to talking about Muggles 
becoming Wizards and a character long-dead having important 
interaction with a character never even introduced it doesn't seem 
to say much about canon.

 
> > Magpie:
> > 
> > Sure the theory being given here will either turn out to have 
> > happened or not in DH. The same could be said for a theory that 
> > Harry and Hermione are really the same person, that Snape is 
really 
> > a woman, that Harry and Ron are really twins separated at birth 
and 
> > born in Wisconsin. 
> 
> Ken:
> 
> I think this notion is a *little* more tightly linked to canon than
> those! ;-)

Magpie:
I wouldn't be so sure these kinds of theories couldn't be argued the 
same way if someone really liked them, actually! We don't know these 
things won't be true, so they could happen. We've seen a woman who 
was really a man, why not a man who was really a woman? Molly treats 
Harry like a son--maybe he really is her son. Perhaps this is why 
Harry/Hermione shippers were so off. (We've gotten Ron=Dumbledore!)


> > Magpie:
> > It does 
> > frustrate me when people think that stuff they made up is canon, 
or 
> > that being able to make a theory fit canon is the same as 
proving it 
> > to be true. I'm not at all unhappy at people doing this kind of 
> > speculating; I think the only time it causes any problems is 
when it 
> > claims to be something else. 
> 
> Ken:
> 
> Am I making stuff up and calling it canon? Maybe others were, if 
you
> think I was I can assure you it is only because I can't remember 
canon
> with the laser-like accuracy that some of you can. There is no
> "proving" these theories in the scientific sense. All I am saying 
is
> that some scientific methods can be used to generate ideas. When 
you
> are brainstorming ideas you are lucky to get one in a hundred that 
is
> worth anything. If you don't brainstorm you won't get that one. I
> agree that the ideas do have to find support in canon and I think 
this
> one can claim *some*. I don't expect it to be confirmed in DH, but 
it
> could be and if it were I think Rowling has laid the groundwork for
> our acceptance of it. 

Magpie:
It may be relevent here that as you're coming at this from a 
scientific method due to what you do in real life, professionally 
I'm a writer and an editor, so I'm probably more used to analyzing 
this kind of stuff, predicting, and groundwork and all of that 
quickly. Obviously that doesn't make my opinion more valid or 
anything, I just think it really may make the way we look at stories 
really different. It's hard for me to not look at the canon as 
seriously limiting possibilities (even while I have mostly no idea 
what will happen).

-m