Bathroom scene again WAS: Re:Weasley Family Dynamics/To t...

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 165028


> wynnleaf
> I have no problem addressing the issue of Harry actually 
> understanding that Sectumsempra really was a spell to be used on 
> *true* enemies -- people who really are a threat.
> 
> But if we're going to do that, then we have to look seriously at 
> what that means for Harry to intend to use it on McLaggen.  
> 
> If Harry sees Sectumsempra as something at least as powerful as 
say, 
> Stupify, would he then consider it okay to stupify McLaggen?  Is 
> this what JKR wants us to consider?
> 
> I'm not sure exactly which way she wants us to view it.  I think 
> it's somewhat ambiguous.  But once again, it can't fall both 
ways.  
> If Harry really thought that spell was something you use against a 
> *real* threat, and yet was willing to use it on McLaggen, then 
Harry 
> is not by any means the "good guy" he'd like to consider himself.  
> 
> Of course, I tend to see some other past actions of Harry to be 
> extremely questionable, but at least most of those are against 
> people (Draco and Co.) that Harry at least really thinks support 
> Voldemort.  But McLaggen is just an irritating guy who is causing 
> Harry a few headaches in the Quidditch and romance departments.  
So 
> this becomes a far more serious problem if Harry is willing to 
toss 
> out a spell at McLaggen that he truly considers in a different 
> realm -- that of spells for true enemies and dire threat.

<snip>

> When I said he used it because he had it on his mind, I didn't 
mean 
> that he was thinking of it in that immediate context, but that 
he'd 
> been considering its use for some time.
> 
> If, as you say, Harry really didn't think of this as a spell for 
> annoying people, but truly for enemies, then why plan to use it on 
> McLaggan?  And when his back is *turned* no less!  
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with you, Magpie.  I'm just asking what you 
> think this really means about Harry.

Magpie:
Ah! I see what you mean now--and I agree completely. I think the key 
here is ambiguity, and the slipperiness of emotions and motivations 
and things like that. As confusing as it is, it nonetheless makes 
perfect sense as you're reading (or at least as I was) for Harry to 
go from regarding Sectumsempra as a sort of naughty thrill 
(something interesting in itself) that he can try out on McLaggen to 
something he uses at a desperate moment in a fight. There's also the 
nice ambiguity introduced by spells themselves, and the way they are 
often linked to emotion. Had Harry zapped McLaggen when his back was 
turned, he probably would have given him a vicious but possibly 
small cut, perhaps similar to the one James got in the Pensieve 
(whether or not one thinks Snape is using Sectumsempra in its final 
form there or not). He may have later seen that the cut didn't heal, 
perhaps, and then we would have to see if he came forward to help 
people try to cure it (as the Trio doesn't go to anyone with what 
they know about Montague's injuries).

Part of what's intersting to me is that connection and development. 
Is JKR linking the kind of fun Harry indulges in with Snape's 
lighter hexes to the petty nastiness he seems to plan towards 
McLaggen (who is more an annoyance than an enemy) to going overboard 
in lashing out against a real enemy? I don't know that she'd have an 
easy explanation for one linking to another. I don't think she's 
writing Star Wars where Harry's being turned to the Dark Side or 
seduced to the Dark Side by teen!Snape. It seems more like 
a "submitted for your approval, make of it what you will" thing so 
far. Harry isn't completely comfortable with his own actions, but 
isn't analyzing why either. Nor does he analyze his feelings towards 
the Prince, before and after he knows he's Snape. 

Eggplant:
If someone is shooting a gun at me the well being of my attacker 
would be the very last thing on my mind. All I'd be interested in is
stopping him, and if that involved blowing his head off before he got
a chance to blow off mine then so be it. I mean, would you really
enjoy reading about the further adventures of Mr. Politically 
Correct?

Magpie:
Depends on the characterization of Mr. Politically Correct. But 
regardless, whether or not people would want Harry to not blow the 
head off somebody who was shooting a gun at him (which has never 
happened in canon) or whether they wish he had done something 
differently in this scene has nothing to do with it. I'm certainly 
glad Harry threw Sectumsempra in the bathroom. It was one of my 
favorite scenes in the book. Feeling righteous on Harry's behalf 
isn't the only way to enjoy the scene. I would have been a lot less 
interested in a Harry who thought to throw stupefy and walked out. I 
immensely enjoyed Draco getting ripped open--if for different 
reasons than you did.

Eggplant:
> I don't see why you say that, it seemed to work just fine. One of
> Harry's greatest strengths is that he seems to know instinctively
what
> to do in a emergency situation when there is no time to think about
> it. Harry did precisely the right thing, and it's an injustice he
was
> punished for it.

Magpie:
To be honest, it seems like when you use the word "justice" 
or "injustice" it almost always means that it meets your immediate 
desires in the scene. I mean, above you claim that according to "the 
law" Draco deserves to be in Azkaban for the rest of his life for, 
as I understood it in context, starting to throw a Crucio. Only 
that's untrue. People get thrown into Azkaban for casting them on 
people (so we hear--it's not actually ever happened in canon that I 
remember, and Harry certainly doesn't seem to worry about it). Since 
Draco never actually cast anything, "the law" doesn't have much to 
say about it. Yet I have a hard time believing you would be invoking 
the law against Harry when he himself tries to throw a Crucio at 
Bellatrix or Snape. It doesn't seem Wizarding Law is the real 
concern.

Besides which, Harry is not punished for using Dark Magic or hurting 
Draco. Snape says he is a liar and a cheat and deserves detention 
all year. They're talking about the book at the point. 

Now, whether everyone would want to read about Harry not ever 
hurting anybody, I don't know. Harry does hurt people and people 
like him that way. But I think just as people would be bored by 
angel Harry who didn't ever commit violence, I think they would be 
equally bored by a Harry who moved through the story like an action 
figure controlled by a small boy, getting cheered by everyone as he 
knocks down anybody who makes him angry or opposes him with no 
consequences at all and calls it justice. Gary Stu heroes always 
have to be right (even if it seems like they're wrong it will turn 
out they were right) and all punishments inflicted on them are 
unjust. That's not always interesting to read about.

-m