Bathroom scene /Free passes to characters

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 165163

> > >>Alla:
> > Yeah, and I keep asking for some support of Harry wanting to 
hurt 
> > Draco rather than to stop him :)
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Support one: Harry *does* hurt Draco, nearly kills him.  

Alla:

In response to Draco trying to Crucio him, sure. Just as one can 
hurt an attacker to defend himself, even kill that attacker.

Betsy Hp:
Support two: 
> Harry *never* uses the "he was going to *Crucio* me!" excuse.  So 
> pure self-defense doesn't seem to have been on his mind.  In fact, 
> most of what he says (or tries to say) is more along the lines 
of "I 
> didn't mean to!".  So there you are. :)

Alla:

Sure, Harry feels guilty, yes, but does he feel guilty for using the 
weapon he did not know what would happen or for having those 
thoughts of hurting Draco beyond self-defense.

See, just as Mike does I am **very** glad that Harry feels guilty, I 
am just not sure how that translates the scene in something else.

Thanks anyways :)

  
> > >>Alla:
> > Well, where? Where does it say that Harry wants Draco to hurt 
just 
> > for the sake of hurting him?
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> It doesn't.  But it's not like Harry misses an opportunity.  Draco 
> and Harry do have a history, one that includes Harry hurting 
Draco. 
> (Which is why, I'm sure, the staff don't question the whys and 
> wherefores.  This is nothing new.)  Just as Draco is interested in 
> making Harry suffer, Harry is interested in seeing Draco suffer.  
> They both pull spells for enemies as taught to them by their 
mentors.

Alla:

Misses what opportunity? He is wet and on the floor, and IMO loses 
the fight at this moment completely but for Sectumseptra.

 
> Betsy Hp:
> If Harry *just* wanted to stop Draco, he'd have used a familiar 
> defensive spell.  Instead he goes for the "enemies" spell.  Part 
of 
> it was to use as a counter, I agree.  But part of him must have 
> wanted Draco to suffer as an enemy should suffer.  Otherwise, why 
the 
> guilt?  Why not point out the self-defense reason?

Alla:

Maybe because self-defense or not he is horrified that Draco is 
almost bled to death?
 And what Mike said too

> > 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.
>

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.

Alla:

I thought that you were saying that Draco will not completed the 
Crucio, no matter what, not that he would have said something else. 
Sorry if I misunderstood. But yes, sure we do not see the effect, I 
was just disagreeing that Crucio would not have been completed.


Juli17 at ... wrote:
>
> I'm been thinking, what if Snape HADN'T been lurking nearby  when
> Harry used the Sectumsempra on Draco? What if Draco had bled
> to death  on that bathroom floor before Harry could find help?
> What would this  mean for Harry, and for the story?
> <SNIP>> And what of the story? Dumbledore said Harry has the 
ability to
> win against Voldemort because he has remained pure at heart. 
> Could a Harry who has killed, if unintentionally and regretfully,  
still
> face down Voldemort? Even if he wasn't expelled from Hogwarts,
> could he remain there as if nothing had changed?  (Of course  it 
> would also mean Dumbledore would live and Snape would be free
> of the UV--I think--but I'm focusing on Harry right now.)
>  <SNIP>
>> Julie, who can't imagine what Harry's future would be like if  
Draco
> had died on that floor, and who thinks Snape did Harry his greatest
> favor yet when he saved Draco's life. 


Alla:

Oh, with this I agree completely, well maybe not completely but a 
lot.

Yes, sure there is a reason why JKR did not let Draco die on the 
bathroom floor. I do agree that she does not want Harry to kill 
anybody, etc. I agree that she wants Harry to remain horrifying even 
if he hurt somebody in self-defense. 

Of course I do think that Snape's favor was rather unintentional and 
done because Snape was concerned for himself and Draco, not Harry :)

But sure it is much better for Harry to not have Draco's death on 
his conscience.

But you know, I still think that even though it is my hunch that 
Harry would get rid of Voldemort by some other means than direct 
killing, JKR may go for self-defense at the end and not make Harry 
feel to guilty for the long time.




> Julie:
> I also agree the amount of scrutiny the good guys get over their  
actions
> is much higher than the amount of scrutiny the bad (or "grey") 
guys  get
> over the same or even worse actions. And there is a reason for 
that. 
> The good guys are the better people, hence their assignation 
as  "good."
> At least they're supposed to be better. Which is why I hold them  
to a
> HIGHER standard.
>  <SNIP>
>> So, with Harry and Snape, it doesn't really *matter* who is more 
at
> fault. It doesn't matter if Snape is twenty, thirty or  fifty 
times more
> at fault. What matters is who has the integrity, the maturity, 
and  the
> strength of character to halt the hostilities. Maybe in the end 
Snape 
> will recognize his own mistakes and misjudgements, or maybe he
> won't. But Harry *must* recognize his. Because that's what makes 
> him the Hero.
>  
> Julie, who hopes she explained her position  coherently.

Alla:


Oh, that I can understand sort of, but only sort of. Because if you 
are saying that you hold the good guys to higher standards because 
they should be better people, become better people, and you care 
about that more than you care about bad guys' mistakes, that you 
just do not care to discuss them, I guess I understand that POV.


But that still means to me ( if that is my correct understanding of 
your POV) that you would call bad guys misgivings as such, you just 
do not want to talk about them.

Like Snape/Harry, you seem to be saying that you care more for Harry 
recognising his own mistakes and changing than for Snape doing so, 
yes? Because this is Harry story, etc. I get it.

But I would call your analysis incomplete and disagree with it, if 
that really means that Snape does not make mistakes, you know?

I mean, you may want to wish fiercely that Harry should change more 
than Snape, but that does not mean that Snape's mistakes are more 
horrifying, etc, whether one wishes to talk to them or not.

Because eleven year old Harry would have **never** developed hatred 
of his thirty five year old teacher, if that teacher did not attack 
him, no?

Along the road, sure Harry blames Snape where blame is completely 
due and not due, but for Snape that would have never started, so as 
long as we acknowledge it, I understand your POV. I mean, you do say 
that it matters to you who has maturity, etc, so I think that 
teacher should have more of such maturity, but I understand from 
that angle if you want to give Harry higher scrutinity.