On the trivial and the profound/Dumbledore's attitude

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 165499


> > Valky (prviously):
> > "For the Last Time" said Harry, speaking in a slightly hoarse
> > whisper after three quarters of an hour silence, "I am not giving
> > back this book, I've learned more from the Half-Blood Prince than
> > Snape or Slughorn have taught me in -"
> > **Harry is cut off by Hermione**
> > --Ch 15 HBP--
> >
> > Which clearly demonstrates Harry's concious intent to learn, not
> > merely copy for the sake of academic credit, from the notes in 
the
> > book.
> 
> > Magpie:
> > I think everyone acknowledges that Harry wants the book to learn
> > from--
> 
> Valky:
> So why draw the line at acknoweldging that this is why he hides 
the 
> book and covers up the reason why he is doing so well at potions ? 
> Rather than assuming that he is doing it for the purpose of 
protecting 
> his reputation.

Magpie:
I don't think it is "drawing the line." I think it's describing what 
Harry is doing. If you mean that Harry hides the book after 
Sectumsempra in order to protect his reputation, I never said that 
he did. I think he hides the book so that Snape won't take it away. 
Once he hides the book he no longer uses it in class. Having the 
book was never dependent on faking his reputation in Potions or 
covering it up.  When push came to shove he chose protecting the 
book over doing better than everyone else in class. Harry's never 
forced to accept specific praise he himself knows is undeserved. 

I have acknowledged that Harry has an intent to learn from the book. 
That says nothing about reputations false or otherwise.


> > Magpie:
> > he's just not interested in learning Potions theory from it.

Valky:
> 
> If that's true then why is he comparing it to his *Potions* 
teachers?

Magpie:
Because it's a Potions book and Snape and Slughorn are his Potions 
teachers and he's making the point that he learns more from the book 
than he does from awful Snape, setting up the irony that the book is 
Snape, and that some of the stuff he credits the Prince he's learned 
in Potions class. Harry talks about what he's learned from the book 
a lot, and it doesn't seem to ever have anything to do with Potions 
theory. Rather he's mostly talking about the spells he's learned 
spells from it. And the bezoars which, ironically, he had already 
been taught and he learned finally in sixth year instead of the more 
advanced thing he was supposed to be studying. It's not like the 
book makes him understand Galpalott's Law.

In that quote to Hermione I don't see Harry denying this. In fact, 
if Harry had learned from the book without putting Hermione's nose 
out of joint by taking the top spot in class she feels she earned 
more honestly and accepting praise for being better at something 
than she is when he isn't (Hermione has no problem acknowledging 
that Harry truly is better in DADA), he might not be having to have 
this argument with her anyway. Regardless, his point here is "Shut 
up Hermione, I want my book" not "Shut up, Hermione, you're just 
jealous that I'm better at Potions than you are because the Prince 
has taught me so well."

 
> Magpie:
> > He's learning lots of spells and other things. The book is very
> > valuable. Harry's experience in Potions class is just a side-
effect
> > of that.

Valky: 
> I'm not sure about that, by the read of the above quote it does 
seem
> to be that as far as Harry is concerned he *has* _learned_ things
> about Potions, retained the information from HBP's notes and 
possibly
> even independently applied it in study and that at least some of 
his
> performance in Potions class is a direct effect of his effort in
> studying the Snape's margins. Of course if that's true I don't 
think
> we see a precise canon example, I am speculating. That said, I 
don't
> see this flat out contradicted in canon either, and In Chapter 11 
we
> are told that the HRH are "studying as though they had exams every 
day".

Magpie:
Harry still knows that he's lying by ommission whenever Slughorn 
says exactly what Harry is doing and what Harry is demonstrating. 
And that's not some huge crime that's worse than murder. But I don't 
understand why it's being denied as if it's insulting to Harry crazy 
talk either. That's what I don't get. I've agreed that there's 
nothing wrong in Harry studying the book, I've never suggested his 
main reason for wanting to keep the book is to advance his academic 
reputation. I've said that that's a side-product. He even gives it 
up when he thinks using it to do better in class might put the book 
itself in danger (suggesting keeping the book isn't dependent on 
keeping up his performance). But when Slughorn gushes over what a 
natural he is at Potions, how he understands Potions so well and 
gets great ideas based on his own knowledge of Potions, perhaps 
inherited from his mother, when he praises Harry to the other 
students as being better than they are on an even playing field, 
Harry knows that's not true and let's Slughorn think that. That's 
the part I don't understand denying or being defensive about.


> > Valky:
> > Another benefit of Harry using the HBP's notes which hasn't been
> > noted before is that it prevented Draco the only major contender
> > besides Hermione, from winning the Felix elicis at his first 
Potions
> > lesson, imbibing the lot and managing to kill Dumbledore before
> > Harry had even heard of Merope Gaunt, let alone a Horcrux. FWIW.
> >
> > Magpie:
> > Ah, but who's to say that wouldn't have been better for Draco if 
he
> > won it? "Luck" would not necessarily have led him to killing
> > Dumbledore, especially since his heart wasn't in the task.
> 
> 
> Valky:
> In the end when he faced Dumbledore one on one, yes, his heart 
wasn't
> in doing the task in cold blood, but he *was* up to sending the 
Opal
> necklace, Poisoning the drink, fixing the wardrobe to allow the 
DE's
> into Hogwarts. These were all things he might have applied Luck to
> while his heart *was* in saving his parents lives however he could;
> using unforgivables, putting the deadly necklace into unsuspecting
> hands; Don't forget how much Harry likened himself to Voldemort 
when
> he was using the FF to get a memory from Slughorn, surely that 
shows
> that Luck doesn't care if your steps are morally justified, it
> wouldn't have changed the things Draco was willing to do.

Magpie:
When Dumbledore says Draco's heart wasn't in the task he is 
referring to the necklace and the poison. He was not suggesting  
that Draco's heart was fine until he had to kill Dumbledore face to 
face.

Of course I see your point in saying that the Luck Potion might have 
worked out in a bad way for our guys if Draco was using it. I'm 
saying that the nature of Luck is far too slippery to assume we 
could apply it this way. If Draco's heart was really in saving his 
parents but not in murdering Dumbledore fantastic "luck" might have 
solved both those for him. He might not have to do what he didn't 
want to do, and yet find a way to do what he did want to do. (Pippin 
gives a good example in Draco's fixing the Cabinet earlier.) The 
nature of luck is you can't always tell what was lucky until later. 
You might think it was unlucky that you missed your bus, and then 
later found out the bus crashed. 

-m