Bathroom Scene - A Different Perspective

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 165156

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> 
> Carol:
> No, no, no! Of course I'm not saying that Snape and/or McGonnagall
> thought Harry deserved to be expelled for lying to a teacher. I'm
> saying that he could have been expelled for using a curse that 
> nearly killed another student, but Snape apparently didn't even 
> raise the possibility, at least not to Harry. He punished Harry for 
> lying to him, not for defending himself or even for thoughtlessly 
> using a curse he didn't know would nearly kill the other student. 
> McGonagall says that Harry could have been expelled and that she 
> approves of the detentions. She doesn't say why. <snip>

Mike:
I guess we're at another one of those agree to disagree times. I 
think McGonnagall as much as confirms Harry is being punished for the 
Sectumsempra when she tells Harry "he was lucky not have been 
expelled" (p. 529). Because I don't think McG thought Harry was lucky 
to not have been expelled for lying to Snape and the context of this 
narrative passage is Harry's punishment from Snape that 
McG "wholeheartedly" supports.


> Carol:
> There's no question that Harry was punished for being "a liar and a
> cheat," primarily for not telling Snape where he found the curse,
> which Snape knows perfectly well was in his own Potions book labeled
> "for enemies." 

Mike:
Sorry, I'm not trying to be ornery, but I don't agree with this 
analysis. As I said in the titled post, I think the "liar and a 
cheat" comment was a gratuitous dig against Harry when he couldn't 
get Harry to produce the book. Also, I don't think Snapes 
Legilimencing of Harry qualifies as evidence for the rest of the 
staff, however much both Snape and Harry know the true story. But 
utmost in my opinion is the obvious; Harry is being punished for 
slicing Draco open, not for lying about where he learned a spell.


> Carol:
> I personally believe that he's protecting both Harry and Draco.
> He doesn't want either of them expelled because they'd both be 
> in terrible danger from the Dark Lord. But I could be wrong.
<snip>

Mike:
I don't think you're wrong. I agree with your interpretation here.

<snipping the analysis of priorities, with which I concur>

> 
> Carol, who understands that you're worried about the self-defense
> angle not being investigated and has wondered about it herself but 
> is more concerned about Harry not retaining his sense of horror at 
> what he's done, as he'll need to do to avoid Dark magic in future 
> and defeat Voldemort through Love

Mike:
Once again, poignant remarks in your sign-off. Part of my concern was 
the lack of follow through from the staff, that is true. But I also 
positioned myself on the side of 'Harry showed the proper remorse for 
using the spell and shouldn't dwell on it any more'. Avoiding Dark 
Magic, yes, it won't work for Harry in the long run. But if Harry is 
going to be effective in the coming battles, he best not be caught 
dwelling on the past. Learning from it, yes, dwelling on it, no.

BTW, I read your remarks on counter-curse canon and you were right. 
Even if it is coming from the unreliable narrator, it's still canon 
and I bow to your expertise.

Mike