Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 176825

> Prep0strus:

> buckbeak is not a sentient being, or simply smacking down draco 
for an
> insulting remark.
> 
> "Now, firs' thing yeh gotta know abou' hippogriffs is, they're 
proud,"
> said Hagrid.  "Easily offended, hippogriffs are.  Don't never 
insult
> one, 'cause it might be the last thing yeh do."
> 
> "yeh always wait fer the hippogriff ter make the firs' move," 
Hagrid
> continued.  "it's polite, see?  Yeh walk toward him, and yeh bow, 
an'
> yeh wait.  if he bows back, hey're allowed ter touch him.  If he
> doesn' bow, then get away from him sharpish, 'cause those talons 
hurt."
> 
> I know it's silly, because it's assuming they understand human 
words,
> but there is often a much more muddled view of sentience vs
> nonsentience in fantasy.  

Magpie:
By "muddling" the view of sentience JKR gets to have it both ways. 
Animals can't understand an insult. Buckbeak is anthropomorphized in 
order to have him react to an insult *exactly* the way any human 
would--only with greater strength because he's an animal. Further 
stacking the deck, this is described as being an "instinct" for the 
animal. 

So we get this highly satisfying mixture where Draco's behavior--
which is perfectly acceptable in dealing with an animal, actually, 
so much so that I believe in the movie it's *Hagrid* who calls 
Buckbeak some kind of brute while Draco is made to do things that 
would actually provoke an animal--gets him a smackdown from an 
animal. It's a comment on his personality and his rudeness, just 
like it is when Hermione smacks him later. How can the scene be read 
any other way than a "ha ha" when Draco's insult earns him a smack? 

Iow, Buckbeak is an animal in his own universe, but his "instincts" 
recreate the same behavior we would see in people. With the added 
perk that "even animals" can see how much Draco sucks. And yet far 
from that being that, a tit for tat, it's the start of a 
second "Draco is a monstrous child!" storyline with even more 
Gryffindor victims, with Buckbeak now sliding easily into the role 
of Petey the Pup Who Never Hurt Nobody, Mister while Draco cackles 
over slitting his throat.

prep0sterous:
> If I were working with a dangerous animal, and told go slow, speak
> softly, and watch them carefully for signs of aggression, I would 
do
> so.  If I were warned that loud noises or fast movements could 
agitate
> the animal, I would avoid them.  I pay attention when I know I 
will be
> working with something that could hurt me.
 Draco's behavior is sheer
> stupidity.  

Magpie:
Well, so is Hagrid's. I've had this argument many times, and I will 
never understand see Hagrid as anything like these hypothetical 
teachers who run incredibly responsible classes. There's no 
indication that Draco isn't watching the animal for signs of 
aggression. He hasn't been warned about loud noises or fast 
movements. He's been taught to bow etc., which he does, and he quite 
possibly didn't hear the line "Hyppogriffs are proud so don't 
insult 'em or it's the last thing you'll do." (Obviously a 
ridiculous way of introducing the danger to a class full of kids.) 
With all the attention paid to Draco's cowardice, how is it that 
he's also reckless enough to tease a wild animal? Or is it just that 
he can be self-contradictory as long as he's bad in every way?

prep0sterous:

And then, it's not just carelessness.  JKR makes it clear
> by not having him mistakenly break a rule - he deliberately aims an
> insult at him.  Knowing human behavior, and animal behavior, I 
think
> it's quite likely that a real life animal might respond the same 
way -
> as the body posture and tone of Draco's voice would likely incur 
the
> same result, even without the meaning of the words. 

Magpie:
Actually, JKR has Harry look over and see Draco whispering after 
Hagrid says the thing about insults, which absolutely indicates that 
he might not be breaking that rule on purpose. Which I'll give her 
credit for, because like I said above, it makes far less sense to 
suggest that the kid she loves to show as a big coward has just 
decided to pick a fight with a wild animal. He's cockily showing off 
once he's done what he thinks he's supposed to do--"knew this 
couldn't be hard if Potter could do it." D'oh!


prep0sterous:
> And for all the Slytherin supporters out there... why don't you try
> imagining what would happen if someone deliberately and maliciously
> ignored instructions in Snape's class?  Would they not be expected 
to
> suffer the consequences?  

Magpie:
Gee, you mean like throwing a firecracker in a cauldron? I believe 
it was Crabbe and Goyle that suffered the consequences then. No big 
deal. But to answer your question, of course they'd suffer the 
consequences. Draco does here. I didn't disagree that Draco suffered 
the consequences of his own actions-that's why Buckbeak slashed him. 
That's also why he actually learns to listen in class later--listen 
very carefully because he knows not to trust Hagrid to really put 
across the danger accurately.

I'm also saying that so did Hagrid--only his mistakes, carelessness 
and recklessness are palmed onto Draco as well. Who can bear to 
criticize Hagrid when he's so sad over Buckbeak? And Draco's just so 
dreadful how could any teacher possibly handle him? A 13-year-old 
boy with 10 minutes worth of CoMC behind him who's known to insult 
people constantly? And meanwhile here's Hagrid, any of whose 
mistakes a Slytherin-supporter could possibly see is totally 
explained by the fact it was his first day and he wasn't totally 
experienced and he was so enthusiastic! It's not his job to pre-empt 
adolescent cockiness and stupidity, you know. He's just a teacher!

prep0sterous:
But if Snape had told the kids to talk kindly to
> the potion, and harry was in a foul mood and muttered insults into
> his, and wound up disfigured, I think we'd see quite a defense of
> harry the impetuous ignoring Professor Snape.

Magpie:
Nope, if it were me I'd hope I'd merely describe what I saw. If 
Harry were muttering insults into his potion after not listening 
much to Snape I'd say--well, Harry muttered insults after not 
listening, which is exactly what I say for Draco. Only I'd be in 
Harry's pov and that would be sympathetic to Harry, wouldn't it? 
There's plenty of times Harry gets potions wrong, and I can't 
remember a single time the narrator seemed to encourage me to get 
satisfaction at Harry getting it wrong. No, Harry's quite frequent 
times of not listening in class or being careless are portrayed as 
normal teenaged behavior. (Even when he goes through the year giving 
himself an unfair advantage I'm kind of rooting for him and he 
suffers nothing like this kind of results from it.) In my experience 
it's really only in discussing this incident that not listening in 
class or doing something wrong is *deserving* of excessive 
punishment. With Neville, for instance, he gets stuff wrong and 
stuff blows up, but I would say it's portrayed as an honest mistake. 
Neville's own mistake for which he suffers, but Snape's yelling at 
him about it is I think portrayed (though not judged by some 
readers) as overkill in ways Draco's injury is not. Draco deserves 
it. Neville deserves a little patience. Draco made a deliberate 
mistake. Neville made an honest mistake. Even though they both could 
have basically done the same thing. Kids make mistakes.

prep0sterous:
> The entire episode is one of the more sickening in the HP books,
> especially seeing the sick pleasure the Slytherins get out of the 
idea
> that buckbeak will be put down.

Magpie:
Funny, because I also find it one of the more sickening in the HP 
books, but for a slightly different reason. The Slytherins getting 
pleasure in Buckbeak being put down is one, but I'm also creeped out 
by Slytherin's being set up to do that in the first place. The 
author uses an animal created for the purpose of attacking him 
because he "deserves it" and then uses it as a springboard 
for "Please Don't Shoot My Dog!" casting the equally irresponsible 
teacher as the victim. Because Hagrid's not giving a damn about 
people getting hurt is kind of cute while the Slytherin's is clearly 
sick. It's all about whipping up that feeling about the Slytherins, 
isn't it. It's like the exact kind of sadistic attitude so 
disgusting in the Slytherins permeates the book and is given a 
totally righteous spin, which is why PoA is one of my least favorite 
books despite the great revelations in the Shack.

-m