Bathroom Scene - A Different Perspective

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 165120

I'd like to approach this discussion in the chronology of the book 
instead of trying to follow the chronology of the various threads.


1. Harry's consideration and eventual use of Sectumsempra. Let's 
start with Wynnleafs points:
*****************************************************************
In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165014

wynnleaf:
Whatever Harry *thought* he was doing, let's get a couple of things
straight.

1. If Harry thought Sectumsempra was likely to be a powerful curse to
use on real-for-sure, dangerous and deadly enemies, then his recent
intention to use it on McClaggen when his back is turned was
absolutely horrible, showing all manner of evil intent.

2. If Harry thought Sectumsempra wasn't all that bad, and something
he could safely use on someone for whom he had mostly petty
irritations (McClaggen), then he was being rather stupid to use it to
defend against a crucio.
*****************************************************************

Mike:
I think you may be ascribing an intent that was not really there. 
What Harry thinks to himself: "He had still not found out what it 
did, ... but he was considering trying it out on McLaggen next time 
he came up behind him unawares." (HBP p.518, US) seems to me to be 
more of an internal joke than any real intent. I don't think Harry 
looks upon McLaggen as a real enemy, nor do I think Harry ever 
intended to try out the spell on him. It doesn't come across to me 
that Harry was serious, just annoyed with McLaggen. I believe that 
Harry is well equipped to discern who qualifies as an enemy. I also 
think that Harry would not be so irresponsible as to use an unknown 
curse, marked with an ominous note, in a cavalier fashion.

I do think that Harry thought the curse was "all that bad" and that 
he would only use it against a *real* enemy. Although I do agree that 
the first time to use an unknown curse is not in the middle of a 
battle. He really should have tried it out on some inanimate object 
first to see what it did. But, alas, that's not the story JKR wrote.



2. The Battle in the Bathroom < Carol, should we start a campaign to 
get it renamed the washroom, toilet, restroom, or lavatory ;-)>

I'd like to point out some ground rules that JKR has saddled us with 
in the Potterverse. There are three unforgivable curses, any of which 
will land you a life term in Azkaban if you are caught using it on a 
human. Personally, I would have liked to see AKers receive a stiffer 
sentence than Crucio or Imperio practitioners, but I wasn't asked. 
Therefore we must assume that *any* of the three are considered the 
most vile things in the WW and their use marks one as irredeemable. 
Again, not my choice, it's canon.

There's an old joke whose punchline is "Stupid Redneck brings a knife 
to a gunfight". In this case, the stupid Redneck was Harry. Draco is 
the one who pulled out the gun, Draco is the one who escalated the 
fight into the unforgivable curse territory. The punishment for 
Crutiatus is the same as for killing someone with an Arvada Kedavra 
in the WW. In this fight I think Alla has it right:

*****************************************************************
In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165004

Alla:
To me the implications of these arguments is that Draco suffered
undeservingly from Harry's curse and that to me means that he is a
victim. And if I saw it as anything other than self-defense, then
sure Draco would be a victim, I mean he almost bled to death. When
it is self defense, then attacker can still be a victim, but a
victim of his own actions and that is what Draco to me in this scene.
*****************************************************************


Mike:
Victim of his own action is exactly right. Draco is the instigator 
and the elevator of the fight. Any results are on his head, 
regardless of how bad those results turn out to be.

I'll go even further than Alla and step into Eggplant's realm: I have 
no problem with what Harry did to Draco in this scene. I'm 100% 
behind her comment:

*****************************************************************
In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165024

Eggplant:
> Sectusemptra is not the best choice, sure

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.
*****************************************************************

Mike:
Draco started the fight, Draco escalated the fight to an unwarranted 
level. Two boys trying to Stupefy each other or land a Leg-Locker 
curse is one thing. To attempt a Crucio is all out of proportion to 
the situation at hand, as well as being criminal in intent. *Any* 
curse that Harry chose at this moment, short of an unforgivable, is 
entirely justified and well within his right of self defense.

As to the degree of Harry's response, let Betsy wiegh in:

*****************************************************************
In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165082

Betsy Hp:
Instead of agreeing that, yes slicing someone open is not a good 
thing to do, folks are trying to say "well it's a bad thing, but 
since it's Harry I'm cool with it".
*****************************************************************

Mike:
I guess I'm one of those "cool with it" guys. <g> I believe in 
measured response. If one has to do a "bad thing" to stop an even 
worse thing ... so be it. As Alla has said, Harry wasn't going to 
stop Draco by hugging him. Quite frankly, I'm indifferent about Draco 
getting cut up. I take the position of 'He got what he deserved', 
despite what people think is too much retribution.

And Harry is horrified at what he has done. Good, I would have 
expected nothing less from our teenage hero. If I shot and killed 
someone in self defense I'd imagine that I too would be distraught. 
But I would much rather be distraught than dead. Does that mean using 
Sectumsempra wasn't justified? I don't think one follows the other. I 
much prefer that Harry thwarted Draco's Crucio. Some folks <not me 
and Eggplant> think it was the wrong curse to use. That is a matter 
for opinion, but does not negate Harry's right to use it. Once Draco 
brought out his gun, it is not unreasonable for Harry to reach for 
his knife.


3. The bleeding starts, enter the mean Professor.

Let's get one thing out of the way first. Here's Carol:

*****************************************************************
In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165011

Carol:
Snape is the inventor of the spell that Harry used. He recognized it 
instantly and knew the counterspell. <snip> I doubt that anyone else, 
including Madam Pomfrey and even Dumbledore himself, could have saved 
Draco.
*****************************************************************

Mike:
I firmly believe that Snape used a healing charm not the counter-
curse. Once the cuts had occured he had to heal them, he couldn't 
undo them. That's why he went over them three times, a little more 
healing with each pass. Dumbledore used the same healing charm in the 
cave. So I also think that most if not all of the staff could perform 
this healing charm, most certainly Madam Pomfrey. IOW, I think it was 
unfortunate for Harry that Snape was the one that turned up, but like 
you, I don't think it was coincidental. I think Snape had been 
shadowing Draco one way or the other, all year.

After Snape takes care of Draco the interrogation of Harry begins. 
Let me point out that Snape may have an extra emotion in play here 
because of the UV. If Draco had died would the second clause of the 
UV have kicked in and killed Snape? We'll never know, but I tend to 
think it might have. I'm thinking that Snape is thinking 'Potter, you 
almost killed two of us'. This might make Snape even more pissed off, 
if that's possible. ;-)

As to Harry's punishment from Snape, let's go to Magpie:

*****************************************************************
In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164947

Magpie:
I really don't think Harry was so hard done by after Sectumsempra.
Draco got sliced up as a result of his attempted Crucio, so he
didn't get off easy.   <snip>

Ironically, Snape doesn't even punish Harry at all for the
Sectumsempra, exactly. He says he thinks Harry is a liar and a cheat
and deserves detention every Saturday--for his year-long use of the
book.
*****************************************************************

Mike:
Actually, I think that Harry was punished for Sectumsempra, exactly. 
Oh, he tries to add on to the punishment by forcing Harry to reveal 
the book. But it didn't work and Snape has no proof other than what 
he Legilimenced out of Harry, which he can't exactly show to anyone. 
Had he been able to get the book into play, who knows, he may have 
pushed for expulsion.

The whole thing with the book is to set up an AHA moment for the 
reader, IMO. Snape, suspecting something since Slughorn's Christmas 
comments, now knows that Harry has his old book. And Harry now knows 
that Snape knows, even though Harry doesn't yet know it was Snape's. 
<whew> But the "liar and a cheat" comment is more of a dig, something 
that Snape can't resist, that confirms that Snape knows about the 
book, imo. It comes out the same way Snape refers to "your filthy 
father" when revealing himself as the HBP and inventer of the spells.

My reason for this perspective is McGonnagall. Carol brought it up:

*****************************************************************
In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165011

Carol:
McGonagall makes it clear that she approves of Snape's detentions and 
that Harry should consider himself lucky that he wasn't expelled.

<I bet you retrieved that from memory. Your recall is amazing :-)>
*****************************************************************

Mike:
To be clear, McGonnagall told Harry "he was lucky not to have been 
expelled and that she supported wholeheartedly Snape's punishment". 
(HBP p.529, US)  <yeah folks, how close was Carol? I'm impressed> 

Would McGonnagall consider the use of an unauthorized book as grounds 
for expulsion? Especially when that book is not in evidence? I don't 
see it. Would McGonnagall consider the near death of another student 
as grounds? Most certainly. Which story do you think Snape gave the 
staff as the reason for his assigned punishment?


4. Follow through, or rather the lack thereof, by the "adults".

It was at this point of the book that I felt, as Magpie puts 
it, "hard done by" for Harry. The entire staff seems to accept Snapes 
charges without bothering to find out the "why". Did Harry have some 
history of greviously injuring other students, even Malfoy? Did that 
bathroom look like Sectumsempra was the only spell fired off? Who 
started the festivities?

I return to Wynnleaf's capable words:

*****************************************************************
In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165014

Whether anyone might have thought Harry was justified in using
Sectumsempra against a crucio makes no difference whatsoever, because
no one other than Draco and Harry know about the crucio, nor *can*
they know. Why -- if Harry himself isn't offering the defence of "he
tried to crucio me!" or any defense at all for that matter -- should
Snape or anyone else try to "get to the bottom" of the situation and
find out what evil thing Draco was doing that would exonnerate Harry?

If Harry had been saying he only did it in self-defence, then sure
perhaps Snape should have investigated more. But without Harry saying
anything, there's no reason to assume it was anything more than a
school fight that only turned ugly when Harry used the Sectumsempra.
*****************************************************************

Mike:
I'm not sure if you are being facetious, but I'll proceed as if 
you're not. Your point is dead on while at the same time bringing up 
the question: Why didn't they "get to the bottom" of the matter? Is 
it Harry's duty to claim self defense to McGonnagall, or is it 
McGonnagall's duty to make Harry tell his side of the story? Who are 
the "adults" here? If McGonnagall believed Harry was lucky to have 
not been expelled, shouldn't she at least have found out if there 
were mitigating circumstances? Does McGonnagall really believe that 
Harry was capable of nearly killing someone without justification?

It's not my story, so I have no say. But this lack of interest in a 
reasonable justice system that permeates the WW is very frustrating 
to me. From the big injustices (Sirius Black's sentence, or rather 
his internment without a trial) to the little ones like this one for 
Harry, tend to take away from the credibility of the story for me. 
Specifically, a society that functions like this couldn't survive in 
this state for very long much less for a thousand years or more.

As Alla says, JMO

Mike