Bathroom Scene - A Different Perspective

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 165147

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
> > Mike previously:
> > Again, not my choice, it's canon.
> 
> Magpie:
> <snip>
> Of course, any trip to Azkaban depends on actually completing it,
> which Draco didn't do, and it's possible he wouldn't have been 
> any more able to complete it than Harry.
> 
> However that is *not* a statement that's supposed to mean that 
> Harry's own curse is less appropriate. Harry thought he was having  
> one thrown at him, so his reaction counts as a reaction to true 
> Crucio regardless.

Mike:
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Draco didn't get to 
complete his curse but that didn't obviate Harry's response? Of 
course, Harry's curse was the reason Draco didn't get to complete the 
Crucio. Still not sure what your point is?!

As to the degree of "hard and fast" rule, like I said previously, not 
my choice, it's canon. And who was going to turn in Harry on his 
Crucio attempts? Bella? Snape, after AKing Dumbledore? 


> Magpie:
> Wizards bring everything--guns, knives, canons, bombs--to every 
> fight. <snip>

Mike:
It was an analogy, and I thought rather appropriate considering the 
effects of Sectumsempra. I was commenting on which spells they 
attempted, not on which ones they *might* have tried.


> Magpie:
> But again, it's still understood that Harry pulled out his own gun 
> in response to Draco pulling his out and starting to fire first.

Mike:
Yep.


> Magpie:
> But this is still where the thread runs around in circles, because 
> those of us who are interested in Harry's state of mind really 
> don't care who anyone apportions blame to in the situation. If you 
> see the scene as just Draco getting himself sliced up to the point 
> where Harry might as well be a mirror that Draco stupidly fired 
> Sectumsempra into himself so that it backfired on him, that's fine. 
> We get it. <snip>

> Harry didn't know that when he cast it, of course. But some of us  
> are still interested in how Harry deals with the intent he *did* 
> have ("I need a serious curse to use against Draco") coupled with 
> the results that spell turned out to have. And it's frustrating 
> that when we try to talk about this area it's like the Blame Police 
> show up and say, "Hold on, you're talking about the bathroom scene! 
> That means saying it's Malfoy's fault and Harry acted in self- 
> defense and the detentions are unfair and anything other than that 
> is disagreeing with me."


Mike:
Sorry, I don't think I was ignoring Harry's state of mind. This part 
was on the dynamics of the fight, Harry's split-second choice to fire 
off Sectumsempra. But I expected too much, thinking my point was 
clear. It was fine in my head. :D

First off, I agree that Harry was probably not fearing permanent 
damage a la the Longbottoms. I think Harry has made it clear that he 
didn't fear Draco. 

Secondly, I also think the enmity Harry has for the whole Malfoy 
family was abundantly clear. The raw hatred exhibited after the 
Quidditch match in OoP spoke volumns to me. The confirmation of 
Harry's hatred for the Malfoys in Madam Malkin's shop sealed the deal 
for me. I never thought there was any question that Harry would like 
nothing more than for the entire Malfoy family to be eradicated. And 
he wouldn't mind being the impetus for that eradication if the 
circumstances presented. But Harry is not a vigilante with respect to 
the Malfoys, he isn't going to be the instigator. So that's the 
mindset I see Harry having walking into the loo.

Once the fight starts, I thought Harry was exhibiting measured 
responses, like I said before. He may hate Draco, but he didn't have 
any intent to kill or permanently disfigure. And when Draco begins 
his Crucio, he has defined himself as an "enemy". As Eggplant pointed 
out, Harry calls upon the correct spell for the situation, the one 
marked "for enemies". To me his intent was pure and simple; stop 
Draco's Crucio. And after rereading his description of the effects of 
LV's Crucio in GoF, I can see why he would want to avoid that 
experience at all costs. 

Harry's mindset has always been transparent, not just for the readers 
but also for the other characters in the story, imo. It never 
occurred to me that anyone would have to question where Harry stood. 
What seemed to be in question in this thread was whether Harry was 
justified in using Sectumsempra. And I titled it "A Different 
Perspective".

And quite frankly, I resent being referred to as the "Blame Police". 
I don't think my post, nor anyone elses, is stopping you from framing 
your discussion in any way that you choose. Nor are you required to 
join every thread or counter every argument. And if you don't like my 
conclusions/analysis you are free to respond as you wish, or not 
respond if you so wish. My choice to focus on different aspects of 
the discussion does not preclude you from focusing on other aspects.


> Magpie:
> Hey, I'm "okay with it" too. I'm not horrified by Harry in the 
> scene. I liked Draco being sliced up (we Draco fans often love our  
> hurt/comfort).

Mike: LOL, can I get you a razor blade? :D

> Magpie:
> But I still think there's more to this for Harry's character than 
> that he was justified. In fact, I think the justification he felt 
> and still feels is partly what makes the result of the spell so 
> icky for him. If it was all he needed to feel was justified, Harry 
> would be a lot more like Tom Riddle. Maybe I want to analyze that a 
> bit beyond "Harry's a great kid so of course he feels badly at 
> hurting someone...even if he was totally justified and it was all 
> Malfoy's fault and the detentions are totally unfair!"

Mike:
I thought you were against setting up Straw Men? Your perspective and 
mine do not coincide. Your choice for in-depth discussion and mine do 
not coincide. I find Harry's intent and the after-effects on him to 
be transparent and rather simple, so I choose not to go there. If you 
think there is more to the story, if you detect some deep 
undercurrent of emotion not revealed, go ahead, speak your mind. I 
don't see it, so I'm not going to. I'm sorry if you feel I'm stifling 
your discussion.


> Magpie:
> Okay, I'm sorry that JKR did not write the book with the aftermath 
> to Sectumsempra being about Harry's being vindicated and apologized 
> to for having to miss a Quidditch game because he was in detention 
> for almost killing that guy when that guy started it and was going  
> to throw a Crucio. And that the response to the scene from the 
> teachers (since the "justice system" never gets involved) is not to 
> launch an investigation into why he did it.  <snip>

Mike:
Wow, two Straw Men in one response. Launch an investigation? How 
about "Why did you do it?" Did you get the impression that 
McGonnagall even asked for Harry's side? I didn't get that. And I 
know Snape didn't bother with Harry's story. BTW, "justice system" is 
not confined to the "court system". There is such a thing as an 
informal justice system and I believe the detention system at 
Hogwarts qualifies.


> Magpie:
> That could be why for me, the bathroom scene does not automatically 
> lead to the injustice of Harry having to miss a Quidditch game for 
> slicing Draco up. And perhaps also because from what I've read of 
> McGonagall I think she could very well know that Harry thought he 
> was going to be Crucio'd and still feel she ought to back up 
> Saturday detentions just to make it clear exsanguinations are not 
> approved of by the faculty. <snip>

Mike:
This is what I would have expected from McGonnagall's character, but 
I didn't see it. JKR could have added the lines "Harry tried to tell 
McGonnagall about Draco trying to use Crucio, but she stopped him. 
She told him that she knew what Malfoy tried and it doesn't matter." 
But she didn't. So what makes you think that McGonnagall made any 
inquiries? Where in canon do you get the impression that anybody 
asked Harry for his side, other than Ron, Hermione, and Ginny? As you 
said above, that's not the story that JKR wrote.


> Magpie:
> The "official" rule for Harry's use of Dark Magic could quite 
> possibly have been expulsion. I assume that's why McGonagall refers 
> to it. Yet Harry's never in danger of being expelled. McG makes a 
> point of saying that he's not going to be. Might that not be 
> because she actually does know Draco after all these years and 
> knows his relationship with Harry and *does* have an idea about 
> self-defense? Or at least feels that there had to be some  
> provocation involved? McG makes a point of how easily Harry's 
> getting off. It's fandom who thinks he's being punished as if 
> he's a murderer.

Mike:
McG made a point of telling Harry he was "lucky not to have been 
expelled". And I'm sure she is aware of the state of the Potter-
Malfoy relationship. But, both the self-defense angle and that there 
is some "official" rule are conjecture not evident in canon. I 
propose that canon suggests no chance for Harry to plead self-
defense. 

Might Harry had to serve detention anyway? Not the point. The point 
was that the staff, and specifically McG, don't give Harry the chance 
to explain himself. The greater point is that the entire WW does not 
seem to think the accused has the right to present a defense, 
regardless of whether that defense would exonerate themselves. Think 
about Harry's trial at the Wizengamut. What chance would a fifteen 
year old Harry have had if Dumbledore had not been there and arranged 
for Figgy to present evidence?

> Carol:
And Eggplant, a "he", I believe, is wrong in saying that Harry was 
punished for using Sectumsempra. He was punished for lying to Snape, 
who could have asked for his expulsion for using dangerous Dark magic 
but did not.

Mike:
So you think that Snape and McGonnagall both think lying to a teacher 
is grounds for expulsion? Or rather, do you think the lying offense 
was the predominant reason for the punishment, taking precedence over 
causing the near death of another student? Or are you saying that 
Harry was punished for lying but let off for almost killing Draco? 
Man, do these people have their priorities screwed up! 

But Snape has no proof that Harry was lying, and all he would be 
lying about is his ownership of a book. Does this strike you as 
grounds McGonnagall would endorse "wholeheartedly" for detention and 
near expulsion? Sorry, I think McG does not care a whit for the lying 
part, if she was even told about it, which I'm not sure Snape did. I 
think McG puts her wholehearted support behind punishment for Harry's 
near evisceration of Draco.

BTW, agree to disagree on the Sectumsempra counter-curse subject. You 
stated your opinion, I stated mine, and it's not that important to 
the story. OK :-)

Mike, who presented an alternative perspective to give voice to 
uninvestigated sides of the story.