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

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 165076

> > Magpie:
> > I'm equally impressed with the tenacity that the issue keeps 
getting
> > changed.
> > 
> > The actual issue is, if you *did* say the wrong thing in a split
> > second decision, would you be able to consider that you said the 
> > wrong thing? Or would you insist you must have done the right 
> thing, 
> > or the best thing you could do, because you did it. Or can your 
> > actions not be spoken about at all because of what somebody else 
did
> > or what the situation was? Because if Harry didn't make the best
> > decision here you'd think it wouldn't be so shocking that anyone 
> > would actually say that.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Um, I think you are changing it a bit as well, frankly. And I do 
not 
> see anything wrong with it :)
> 
> I thought that you were arguing that there is an element of intent 
in 
> Harry using Sectusemptra, if you did, that is for me quite 
different 
> from what you wrote in this paragraph.

Magpie:
Probably we're all just trying to yank the conversation back to what 
we want to talk about, and we all keep having somebody else fit our 
words into their framework.:-)

I did say there is an element of intent and I'm always going to say 
that--I have a hard time allowing people to do things with no intent 
unless they're possessed or under Imperio or something like that. 
But also one of the things I don't get is wanting to take an 
memorable moment in canon and explain it away so it doesn't mean 
anything more than what it means that Neville occasionally flings 
Flitwick across the room because he doesn't do Charms well. If Harry 
does something, I'm going to look at why Harry does it and part of 
why Harry does this is asking "Why does Harry choose this particular 
spell in this extreme moment?" I don't think the answer is that it 
happened to be in his brain (he gets through most of the fight 
without it--there's not even a note saying Harry's mind went blank 
and all that was there was that stupid spell he kept thinking 
about). I think it's a combination of things including, of course, 
the Prince's important explanation of "for enemies." 

Alla: 
> Because to realise and acknowledge that you chose the wrong spell 
is 
> quite different from acknowledging that Harry wanted to hurt Draco 
in 
> that scene. You see it ( intent I mean), I do not, I mean, I see 
him 
> wanting to hurt to the extent of defending himself ( how else you 
can 
> stop the attacker, except by hurting him?)

Magpie:
I am acknowledging Harry that hurting Draco is quite possibly 
something Harry wanted to do (definitely not something Harry is or 
should be sure he did not want to do), and that "for enemies" 
suggests an understanding between Harry and the Prince about what 
enemies get. Harry wanted to hurt McLaggen too, for annoying him. He 
didn't want to go so far as to split him open and almost kill him, 
but there's a reason he's not eager to try the spell out on Ron. 
Harry's problem is that he did not want to hurt Draco that much, not 
that he would never want to hurt Draco. Wanting to hurt Draco is not 
unusual for Harry.

Alla:
> But I do not see intent to hurt for the sake of hurt, if that 
makes 
> sense. 

Magpie:
I think he wanted to hurt for the sake of winning the fight, mostly.

Alla: 
> And I am still trying to figure out how is it wrong to argue self 
> defense if it is to answer to people who argue that it was not 
self 
> defense?

Magpie:
It's wrong to argue it was self-defense when the other person isn't 
arguing that it wasn't self-defense. Harry can be acting in self-
defense *and also* want to lash out at a person for putting them in 
that position. When I hear someone say "If you try to shoot me I'm 
not going to care about your well-being. I'm going to blow your head 
off!" That, imo, is not "not caring" about the other person's well-
being, it's wanting to obliterate that person. And in the heat of 
the moment (or just in the heat of thinking about such a moment) 
that's a common, natural desire to have. But there is an intent 
there that you're feeling. Sometimes you might need a little actual 
anger and hatred to get you to blow that head off--and it's going to 
*feel* differently than it would feel if the gun just went off in 
your hand. It might still get you the same verdict of self-defense, 
but we're dissecting the moment and character here, not deciding 
whether to sentence Harry or not.

Alla:
> 
> It seems to be obvious for the canon characters, but the issue 
gets 
> raised that it was not clear self defense, so it is not **my** 
issue, 
> it is an objection against classifying this scene differently, 
that 
> is all.

Magpie:
But I think what others of us are saying is that nobody has ever 
said anything close to Draco being the one on the defensive. They 
just don't consider that acting in self-defense is all there is to 
it. Remember that doesn't have to mean they're looking at it as if 
it's a crime and Harry's guilty. It's not like this is about saying 
Harry got away with something, it's specifically about Harry knowing 
his own state of mind. This isn't an uncommon thing in things like 
this, for the person to wonder about what they were really acting on 
in that moment, particularly if it was a violent moment. Being 
interested in examining that moment isn't about ignoring that that 
Harry had somebody coming at him with a potential Crucio. 
 
> 
> Magpie:
>  Rather than justifying Harry's decision at 
> > every turn and answering any disagreements anyone might have 
with 
> > those justifications with accusations that the person's 
expecting 
> > Harry to be perfect or has never made a mistake themselves--so 
> let's 
> > get back to talking about how Harry is being unfairly treated 
> again. 
> > I would guess many people who point out that Harry didn't *have 
to* 
> > use this spell and is somewhat responsible for casting it have 
> > probably made plenty of mistakes themselves and might even be 
> > thinking about them and identifying with Harry in that 
situation. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> And some people ( or me :)) point out that under circumstances 
Harry 
> was in, he may not have chosen the best spell, but the mistake he 
> made was still while acting in self-defense.
> 
> I do not see **intent** in that scene at all, except as I said 
above 
> the intent one would have to stop the attacker. You cannot do it 
by 
> hugging him IMO.

Magpie:
So we all agree that Harry was acting in self-defense. We disagree 
on how he came upon "the wrong spell." You think it was just a case 
of hearing a word at the wrong time, like hitting the wrong button, 
and that Harry has nothing to be sorry for. Other people think the 
wrong spell had something more to do with understanding that this 
was the correct place to use the spell, and believing in the Prince 
to give him what he needed just as the Prince always had, but not 
realizing how extreme the spell was, and weilding it with too much 
force, having never used it before--and that this is something the 
character would feel uncomfortable about later. So we should move on 
from thinking it's got to do with self-defense and just concentrate 
on "Why did Harry pick that spell?" understanding that question does 
not have to imply that Harry wasn't acting in self-defense.
 
> Magpie: 
> > I think Harry's longtime relationship with Draco, and his being 
> drawn
> > to the "for enemies" idea of the spell, and the power that he
> > unleashed in himself without consciously wanting to are part of 
the
> > story and Harry too. Harry doesn't always have to be the biggest
> > victim in the scene.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> No, Harry does not have to be the biggest victim in every scene 
and 
> he was not, but he IMO absolutely could have been. But neither 
would 
> I agree to Draco being the victim in this scene, except of his own 
> actions.

Magpie:
Sure he could have been the bigger victim in the scene, though he 
wasn't. But I would never say that Draco was only the victim of his 
own actions in the scene--iow, that he is responsible for Harry's 
actions as well as his own--as long as Harry's there as a separate 
human being acting on his own behalf. He's responsible for his own 
actions and certainly has responsibility for the consequences of his 
own actions...but that's why Harry does too. He's still a character 
in the scene.

> Alla:
> 
> LOLOLOLOL. I find this kind of logic to be truly fascinating. So, 
> what I hear you saying that it is all **Harry's fault** for 
walking 
> in the bathroom and he should have expected to find Malfoy there 
and 
> be greeted with unforgivable? Got it.

Magpie:
I thought she was mocking that kind of logic. 

-m