[HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid the animal abuser/The uses of beasts in fables
Magpie
belviso at attglobal.net
Sun Mar 18 02:05:32 UTC 2007
No: HPFGUIDX 166208
> Alla:
>
> Yes, more experienced teacher would have repeated, probably. But
> even with what Hagrid said, all kids understood clear enough, no?
>
> And I am really not sure how more specific Hagrid could have been.
> Do not insult them or you get hurt, for example sounds to me less
> specific than what he said, because he pretty much IMO implied that
> you get hurt badly
Magpie:
But that's not specific. "...or it's the last thing you'll do" is commonly
used as an exaggeration and empty threat. More importantly, he's not
specific about insults, especially since we're talking about an animal. In
the movie, I believe, Draco's big insult is given to Hagrid as a term of
affection, which is the way a line like that would usually be spoken to an
animal. You pointed out that if we knew an animal would attack in response
to the things we say to it (like affectionately calling your bulldog a
drooling mutt) you wouldn't do it. But most people wouldn't know it straight
off that the animal doesn't like it. I could easily imagine that Hagrid
himself may have learned from his own experience what hippogriffs considered
an insult when he tried to call him something affectionately.
If we're looking at the line in retrospect sure, we can see what it means.
But when you're talking about something as vague as not insulting something
that has a serious effect? You'd go over it, make it very clear,. I would
imagine a serious teacher would specifically say that includes joke insults,
or things you don't mean in a bad way--I always imagine Draco is crooning
when he insults Buckbeak the same way I'd be in that situation. Let's face
it, the kids would probably be told to keep their mouth shuts period if they
could possibly offend the creature.You might then explain in detail how this
animal responds when insulted in graphic detail. Of course that wouldn't be
as good for the story. But I really do think JKR set up Hagrid as a bit of a
menace on purpose. I think she used it to create the conflict as much as
much as she used Draco's own charming personality.
> Alla:
>
> I disagree. Draco to me does not **want** to follow the instructions
> and Neville wants, but cannot, so to me Draco's not following is
> much more deliberate than Neville. You big ugly brute to me sounds
> like wanting to insult Buckbeak.
Magpie:
I don't think he wants to be attacked. If he didn't hear Hagrid's
instructions he can't be consciously disobeying them. He is shown following
some directions.
Alla:
> But I am glad we agree that Draco was at fault. :)
Magpie:
Draco and Hagrid, yes. Draco's obviously the one who makes the mistake of
insulting the hippogriff.
> Magpie:
> That
>> happens in classes. (And if any kid is going to be insulting it's
> obviously
>> Draco--if hippogriffs attacked upon being corrected I would have
> been
>> hovering over Hermione knowing her nature.)
>
> Alla;
>
> LOLOLOL. That happens yes, but indeed it happened only to Draco,
> everybody else listened and managed okay, no?
Magpie:
Draco happens to be the person who got hurt and then the class ends and it's
no longer an issue. Perhaps nobody else would have gotten hurt. But it seems
like some kind of logical loop to say that Hagrid's instructions were clear
because no one got hurt, and when faced with someone who did get hurt, he
doesn't count because he was the only one. Even if Draco didn't get hurt I'd
consider Hagrid's first class amateurishly handled, an accident waiting to
happen. If I were there I probably would have been more worried about
Neville, who was having trouble. Draco was at particular risk in this lesson
because he's so often insulting, but if the lesson had called for not
showing fear to a hippogriff I think Neville would have been attacked.
>
>> Magpie:
>> I based my idea on being told, iirc, that Malfoy was talking to
> someone else
>> when Hagrid said the thing about insulting. Many people take it as
> a fact
>> that Malfoy did not hear him because of that. I can take it as
> ambiguous,
>> though, that maybe it was as you describe here. As is mentioned
> above
>> regarding Neville, it's not unusual for kids in a class to not
> follow
>> directions.
>
> Alla:
>
> Ambiguous? Malfoy was talking to someone else, so he did not hear.
> How can it be ambiguous description? You mean he was listening to
> Hagrid and talking at the same time? I guess that can be, but from
> my experiences personally if I am talking to someone else, I am very
> unlikely to hear teacher's instructions. IMO of course.
Magpie:
That's the way I read it too. The other poster felt that Draco's line about
Buckbeak not being dangerous meant that he thought Hagrid was exaggerating.
So I was allowing that interpretation--though I mentioned that many people
do consider that line to make it a fact that Draco wasn't listening. If he
wasn't listening, then his disobeying is just as unconscious as Neville's
not following directions in Snape's class. He's trying to follow
directions--he's bowed etc.--but he misses one.
> Alla:
>
> Here I agree. As I keep repeating I believe Hagrid is a very flawed
> teacher, I am just rather convinced that whatever potential he may
> have had, was killed rather nicely by Malfoy behaviour during that
> lesson and afterwards.
>
> Maybe that means that potential was not that high in the first
> place, if that took one little bastard to do that, but given
> Hagrid's history I am not surprised that it did happen ( IMO of
> course).
Magpie:
Right, and I disagree because I see Hagrid being the same teacher three
years later that he was that first day. I think we see how Hagrid acts when
he's effected badly by something else.
> Alla:
>
> Malfoy had the bad attitude towards Hagrid since his first year IMO.
> I find it hard to believe that his attitude on that lesson was due
> to inexperience. I think it was malicious through and through, not
> just in part. IMO of course.
Magpie:
I didn't say his attitude was due to inexperience--he already had reason to
dislike Hagrid and Hagrid didn't like him either. The inexperience I
referred to was experience with animals and the dangers involved. He learned
from his experience that way.
> Magpie:
>> Hagrid needed to learn to make the danger a priority, and he
> doesn't really
>> do that because, as others have pointed out, he just doesn't
> understand the
>> pov of people who have this problem. He's not very able to adjust,
> so the
>> kids adjust to him.
>
> Alla:
>
> True, he did not learn that. I believe it was in part because he was
> hurt too deeply that year, that is all.
Magpie:
And I don't buy that. Hagrid's inability to adjust to others and understand
the dangers of animals is part of his core personality laid out since Book
I. I don't see any evidence that he was on the verge of learning anything
before he was just hurt too deeply. If anything, one might think that kind
of deep hurt ought to have gotten through to him, as Draco's physical hurt
did to him. We see Hagrid bounce right back to the way he was before. Why
would he have had to learn if his first lesson hadn't had someone hurt and
he hadn't had the stress that followed? It seems like he'd have even less
reason to learn that.
Hagrid has plenty of classes where he's teaching things that are not
dangerous, of course. Carol's done an overview of the animals he
teaches--the one addition I would make is that while he does save Thestrals
for fifth year he also gets caught dismissing their danger when he dismisses
their danger and then allows that they'll "take a piece out of you if you
annoy 'em."
Alla:
But again, I think Hypoggrifs are exhibiting humanlike reaction here, for
sure and I think in that case Draco's words are incredibly disgusting.
Magpie:
Well, there's the problem of human/animal again. Buckbeak certainly hasn't
been acting like a human up until this point, so one wouldn't expect
humanlike reactions from him. And if his reaction is supposed to be a human
one than he deserves to be punished (but not executed). Instead he seems to
exist in a grey area where he's human in that Draco's insult is offensive,
but he's an animal so he was just acting on instinct and isn't responsible.
Alla:
And Draco **laughs** when he talks about his upcoming execution. I cannot
express how very disgusting I find it and I also can tell you that it was no
surprise to me that Draco graduated from helping the attempts to execute a
hypoggrifs to the preparing the execution of the human being in HBP. That
was very natural progression for me.
Magpie:
Yes, it is a progression, but one that's as much about ignorance as cruelty.
Every book has some reference to death being not real to Draco, making it
easier to say horrible things about it. (Though people who are attacked by
animals often do demand it be put to sleep, even if they are usually not
people like Draco.)
Sherry:
I've always thought it was the same with Draco and Buckbeak. Buckbeak
probably wouldn't have attacked if the tone was whatever he understood to be
respectful. yeah, I realize he's a fictitious animal, so I don't understand
how he understands respect and attitude, but I've always assumed that was
the case. Buckbeak *knew* that Draco's motives and attitude were insulting,
and didn't go on the exact words. Of course, in a world where owls
understand language and know where to go with only a name, nothing surprises
me.
Magpie:
Your experience, like mine, is that it's all in the tone. Yet Buckbeak, imo,
is reacting the opposite way. Draco is, iirc, petting him as he says this. I
always assumed he was, as I said above, speaking in a sort of crooning way.
There's definitely no indication that Draco's words suddenly sound
threatening. But Buckbeak attacks him because he reacts to the words. Which
is why I've always assumed Draco was surprised and possibly feels like he
really was attacked by an animal without deserving it.
As I said above, it puts Buckbeak in a comfortable grey area for himself,
because if he's reacting to the words and therefore as a human than he
intentionally hurt a person because he felt insulted. What makes him
innocent is that he's supposed to be an animal acting on instinct, more like
a horse who kicked someone who walked behind him or a dog reacting to a
physical gesture that it read as threatening.
-m
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive