Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 176826

> Magpie:
> The 
> best he can do to help himself is not actually identify the Trio 
> when they're in front of him (he doesn't even lie and say it isn't 
> them). Yet he somehow can still wander into the RoR at the end when 
> he's needed for the plot, on a mission to do the very thing we were 
> shown earlier he didn't want to do--did he just stay behind to hide 
> and when Crabbe and Goyle saw the Trio in front of them he went 
> along? Who knows? The main point is there's only so much Draco can 
> change from his essential repulsiveness. (And I think he's like all 
> Slytherins in this. We can squint and hope for more in them, but 
> it's not played out for us dramatically.)

zgirnius:
Apparently your idea of dramatic, and mine, differ...dramatically. <g>
In "The Battle of Hogwarts", the images of Draco dragging the 
unconscious Goyle away from the oncoming fire, and later, sitting 
high on the pile of desks with his arms wrapped protectively around 
his friend, were plenty dramatic enough for me. And the actions thus 
dramatically described, were good. They just weren't 'for the good 
side', which is a totally different thing. Goyle may be an idiot, he 
may be a Dark Wizard and Death Eater (unclear), but he is also a 
human being anbd Draco's friend, and trying to rescue him was an 
unambiguously good action.

You thought, and I did too, that Rowling might bring Draco over 
to 'the good guys'. She didn't, apparently her plan was more to just 
show the goodness and humanity in Draco, which she did do. I actually 
like that just fine, it is very real to me. Even on the 'bad side' of 
RL conflicts, there are people capable of good, and switching sides 
is not their only way of showing it.

She also provided excellent plot reasons which excuse 
Draco's 'failure' to switch sides openly and dramatically. His 
parents were, essentially, hostages. I thought this was made quite 
plain. (For example, by the conversation of Lucius and Voldemort 
in "The Elder Wand"). That any actions he did take for the 'good 
side' were ambiguous makes perfect sense in light of that fact. (Like 
the failure to recognize Ron and Hermione you mention, or his 
attempts to talk Crabbe out of killing Harry in the RoR). 

She did not set up the same dilemma for any of the 'good guys' 
(unless you count Xenophilius, a guy we first met in the course of 
DH, so I would not say he is one). And Xenophilius's choice is to 
cave to pressue in the hopes that Luna will live and be returned to 
him. Harry understands Xenophilius's action and even tries to keep 
him out of trouble with the Death Eaters. No 'good guy' of long 
standing is forced to sacrifice the life of a loved one for the 
cause, and the impossible situation this would be is highlighted by 
at least two additional relationships I can think of. This is why 
Harry has to give up Ginny, that is the fear he has, that she would 
be used against him. And this is why Rowling has Augusta Longbottom 
escape the Death Eaters - she does not want to put Neville in that 
bind, because she has heroic plans for him. I think, to her, choosing 
something over a loved one is nearly unthinkable, not something she 
would require of anyone, including Draco. (I would point out, much 
the same applies to many of the Slytherin students who have been 
criticized for leaving the battle. Aberforth points out that they 
could have been held hostage. The logical turnaround, is that their 
parents *were* hostage, because it is clear that *Voldemort* would 
punish parents for the actions of their children.)