[HPforGrownups] Re: Bathroom Scene - A Different Perspective

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 165161


Magpie:
>> 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?!

Magpie:
I was trying to avoid somebody taking my side statement about Draco's curse 
not being completed (so we don't know how it would have gone and he is in no 
danger of Azkaban) as something Harry should have taken into consideration 
himself. Like you, I thought it was obvious that the reason Draco never 
completed his attempt was because Harry zapped him.

Mike:
> 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:
But Harry hardly thinks about how likely it is he'll get caught when he 
throws a Crucio. He's gotten in trouble for use of magic without witnesses 
before. I'm saying that Unforgiveables are presented in canon as bad more 
than they are a way to get yourself in jail.

This is probably another side issue I should never introduced. It's just a 
random thing I notice a lot, that fandom tends to bring this up more than it 
is in canon.

> 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:
I'm sorry for the snippy name-calling. That was an unfair way to talk about 
my frustration with myself. It's just, I feel like I agree with people, and 
say so, and somehow am not taken at my word, as if I can't agree with them 
and also have these other concerns. It's not that I'm being kept from saying 
what or having the conversation that I want, it's more that I feel like I've 
said this stuff over and over and it's not believed or something.

I really have no problems with Harry's state of mind as you've described it 
here . So what am I doing wrong? Not for you personally--I'm talking about 
the thread in general, since you were reading it.Why is it that when you 
describe Harry's pov this way you get "I agree completely" where I get "But 
Harry was acting in self-defense and wanted to hurt Malfoy to stop him."

The only difference I can really see is where we think Harry is and should 
be feeling about the incident now. Which is fine--except that it seems like 
that difference of opinion seems to keep getting translated into "I think 
it's Harry's fault" as if making me see it was self-defense will take care 
of my feelings about Harry's state of mind after the incident and I don't 
know how more clearly I can say that it won't, because I already see that. 
Harry *isn't* angry at Malfoy in this scene the way he is on, say, the 
Quidditch Pitch. If we talked about *that* disagreement instead we still 
might reach an agree to disagree conclusion, but at least we'd both be 
heard. My disagreement on the second thing wouldn't be assumed to be 
disagreement on the first thing.

>> 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:
I like it best when Harry does it.:-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:
I don't think it's an undercurrent of emotion. I think the emotion you have 
described here is enough for what Harry is feeling--which, after all, is not 
a nervous breakdown. It's just a feeling like his conscience isn't 
completely at rest about the matter.

I don't think it's stifling my discussion--if nobody wants to discuss an 
issue that's not their fault. Nobody has to be interested in something just 
because I am. What frustrates me isn't the stifling of discussion--and maybe 
I'm just unfair to think it's got to do with anyone else at all. What's 
really frustrating me is my apparent inability to put my point across in any 
way--not only am I not able to make what I'm *trying* to say plain, but even 
the parts where I agree seem to be taken as something else.

>> 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:
Yes, I do get the impression that Harry's side is known, actually, but I 
could be wrong. More importantly, I definitely got the impression that the 
issue of Harry's side not being known was not an issue at all in the story, 
as it often is. So it seems like this particular oversight, as Carol said, 
is an issue with where JKR went rather than something that's illustrating an 
unfairness in the teachers to Harry (except Snape, whose unfairness is 
unique and consistent). So if this is one of those places where again we're 
just talking about different things and not interested much in participating 
in the other's discussion that's fine--but it's not really a disagreement.

>> 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:
>From other people knowing the story from Myrtle, I suppose. But I'm not 
claiming to have proof that this is what happened--I'd have no problem with 
lines like you described. I think that also would have changed Harry's 
reaction to the incident, though, and so JKR didn't put it in for a reason. 
But as I said, it's not for me about knowing for sure that McGonagall knows 
all this. It just wasn't something that was brought up, so it didn't feel 
like something that needed to be addressed.

> 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.

Magpie:
It's possible. Perhaps Harry's using and having a Dark Curse like that 
trumps anything and there was no room for him to point the finger at Malfoy 
for his Crucio as well, at least to McGonagall.

Mike:
> 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?

Magpie:
No, they don't. I agree. They only want to hear what a defendent has to say 
when they want to get him off themselves.

Alla:
What is **wrong** with saying that Harry thought it was true Crucio? Um, 
nothing, but by the same token there is nothing wrong with challenging that.

To me it looks as true Crucio, pure and simple and I see no signs that Draco 
would have not be able to complete it.

Magpie:
Yes, it looks like a true Crucio--so did Harry's in OotP. But since it's not 
completed and we've never seen Draco cast one, Harry can't know for sure. It 
just doesn't matter from his pov. It's like if somebody threatens you with 
an unloaded gun. Maybe it was unloaded, but you would have no way of knowing 
it and would react to it as a loaded gun.

Alla:
But Harry shuts Draco up right in the middle of him saying the curse, so I 
am disagreeing with **Harry thought it was a true Crucio**, yes. I am saying 
that it  **was** true Crucio and Harry did not let him finish.

Magpie:
You seem to be thinking when I say it might not have been a "true Crucio" 
that I mean maybe Draco was really going to say something else. I'm not. I 
assume Draco was going to bellow "Crucio!" Then we'd see if he had similar 
problems to Harry in the MoM who also bellowed "Crucio!" in a similar 
situation. That difference makes no difference to Harry on the floor 
reacting with Sectumsempra, obviously. Unloaded gun vs. loaded gun again. 
You can't say it was a true Crucio in that sense. You can only tell that by 
seeing the effects.

> Magpie:
>> What's the matter with saying Harry thought he had one being thrown
> at him?  I said, quite reasonably imo, that we have seen a teenaged
> boy try to throw Crucio and apparently not really "mean it" in the
> correct way to throw one for real.
>
> Ceridwen:
> *ducking and donning MOPP suit*  I tend to look at the difference
> between effective and ineffective Cruciatus curses a little
> differently than I've read elsewhere.  To me, when Harry attempts his
> two Crucios, and when Draco attempts it in the bathroom (why, oh why,
> couldn't he have chosen the Quidditch pitch???), their tempers are
> Hot:  Quick flare-ups, quick cool-downs.  When Bellatrix and other
> seasoned Cruciatus throwers do them, their tempers are Cold.  They
> mean to inflict pain, so they don't need the heat of anger to do
> them, they just need the cool of deliberate malice.  Draco was
> already heating up - crying, upset, afraid for himself and his
> family, and discovered crying by a fellow student.  He was too Hot to
> be cool enough to cast an effective Crucio, in my opinion.  Just as
> Harry was upset and grieving and angry when he attempted to give
> Bellatrix the same pain he was feeling for Sirius.

Magpie:
That's the distinction I make as well. I don't think Harry understands what 
a Crucio truly is, because the only time he wants to cause pain is when he's
feeling angry or in pain himself and wants to throw it at someone else. 
That's why a kid who's killed a cat is one people would worry about in a 
different way than they'd worry about a kid who punched another kid out when 
he made him angry.

If you're angry at someone you might get to the point where you want to hit 
them--and that's still something to control--but that's different from being 
a sadist who coolly inflicts pain for pleasure. Both Harry and Draco have 
shown the ability to take pleasure in someone else's suffering when it 
satisfies them (I think most characters have--it's a fairly common human
feeling), but neither of them is about pure sadism--even Draco, who can be 
rather squeamish, it seems to me.

Ceridwen:
And, I don't think it could have lasted nearly long enough, even if Draco 
had been able to cast a successful Cruciatus (which I doubt, see above),
because Moaning Myrtle would have had her ten-conniption fit then, too. Even 
without Myrtle, Harry's own screams would have brought Snape, who
seemed to be nearby, running.  And even if you
think Snape is the king of ESE, he would have to have stopped the casting of 
an Unforgivable in that setting, or Moaning Myrtle would have broadcast
*that* all over the school.

Magpie:
Yes, this kind of Crucio seems like it requires not only a mastery and 
pleasure of torture on level with Bellatrix and Barty, it also requires time 
and privacy Draco doesn't have. He's throwing it the same way Harry does at 
the MoM.

More importantly is what Harry would think in the scene, and I just think to 
him Crucio means what it's always meant to him: what he felt when Voldemort
did it to him, what he thinks when he wants to do it to Snape. I don't even 
think insanity was his fear when Umbridge was going to do it to him--and the
Umbridge situation actually *was* one that had something in common with the 
Longbottoms. Umbridge was in a cool state of mind and was planning to 
torture Harry in order to get him to talk--like the Longbottoms

Julie:
Draco did use an Unforgivable, and even if Harry's word  wouldn't be enough, 
surely a Pensieve could be used to verify  Draco's attack with a Crucio. So 
I think Harry would be acquitted of  any actual crime since he can claim 
self-defense, even if the spell
he  used was an offensive one. Though he might still be expelled from 
Hogwarts, if we go by McGonagall's canon comments.

Magpie:
As Mike said, the Wizarding Justice system tends to be amazingly 
uninterested in the truth. Not sure if self-defense from Crucio (a 
non-killing curse) is considered something that justifies killing, though 
Harry would have to explain that he didn't know he was using anything that 
would kill.

Frankly, he might not have had to. Harry's popular with the Ministry at the 
moment, he's the Chosen One. Draco's father is in Azkaban and connected with 
Voldemort. I think Harry might have had one of his "better" experiences with 
the law on this one.

-m