Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 176848


> Magpie:

> 
> It is stacking the deck for the reader, imo, because of how it 
> works. "The world" most certainly is conspiring against Draco just 
> as it often conspires against and then for Harry--Buckbeak has that 
> particular instinct to put him on a collision course with this 
> character. I'm talking here about the way the scene is set up, not 
> Draco's own pov of his own world. Within his pov them's the breaks. 
> (Just as the world conspires *with* Hagrid so that his particular 
> brand of anthropomorphizing/admiring animals makes him an expert.)

Prep0strus:
That much is fine, as your view of the world.  The problem, as i see 
it, is... well, something I find very difficult to explain, and wind 
up mucking it up every time I try.  it's the way of assigning blame 
to the author vs the characters.  I think it's ok to assign blame to 
jkr for the world she has created, and to assign blame to the 
characters for their actions.  But in my opinion, it doesn't make 
much sense to assign blame to the characters for the world - or to 
fail to assign blame because of the world.

i will agree that the world is designed in such a way that jkr wants 
us to think that slytherins are bad.  but taht doesn't change the 
fact that in the world she created slytherins ARE bad.  Draco is not 
a victim, in any sense.  He's a little monster.  And he doesn't get 
to escape that blame from me simply because it's clear that JKR wants 
us to think he's bad and sets up situations to show us that.

> 
> > > Magpie:
> Yes, yes, yes, yes.:-) Perfectly acceptable in working with animal. 
> Nobody's talking about chimpanzees and baring your teeth. Petting 
an 
> animal while calling it a great ugly brute is something an 
> affectionate animal-lovers might certainly do, imo. What Draco is 
> doing is not "provoking an animal" in any real world sense--his 
tone 
> of voice might be positively soothing for all we know. It provokes 
> this fictional creature who's been created around this totally 
> fantastic quirk. (Which is why Draco's actions don't horrify me in 
> themselves in this scene.)
> 
<SNIP>
> 
> I can't imagine calling animal control on somebody ruffling their 
> Great Dane's ears and calling him a slobbery idiot, myself. Wonder 
> what one would be called if one took those same chimps and released 
> a dozen of them in a roomful of eighth graders after telling them 
> not to bare or it'd be the last thing they'd do and one of them 
lost 
> a finger when he smiled.

Prep0strus:
I think that's a pretty broad interpretation of the scene.  I tend to 
doubt that anyone can read it the way you are purporting to, but I 
can't judge someone else for their opinion.  However, i will say that 
as I read it, Draco is being nasty to the hippogriff.  He is showing 
disrespect and arrogant disregard.  I believe his body language and 
tone would reflect this, and not the joshing way you describe how one 
might deal with a big goofy pet.  Not to mention it still ignores the 
specific instructions he received.

The fantastic quirk of the creature does not bother me as it does 
you.  Many fantastic creatures have quirks, in true mythology and in 
other fictional fantasy.  And a I said from my memories of unicorns, 
animal reaction to human intent is not original at all.  

And what if the entire scene does exist just to show us again what a 
little tool Draco is? (Besides setting up the ending where the 
hippogriff helps in the escape).  Well, that's... writing.  If we 
took out all the scenes where JKR shows us that Draco is a horrible 
little boy, then we wouldn't see that Draco is a horrible little boy, 
and then... well, the story would be totally different.  You may not 
like that she made him that way, but she did, and this scene was very 
much in character for him.

And we've seen many ways in which the WW is a more wild and dangerous 
place than the real world, especially for children.  And I think the 
other children clearly demonstrated that this was a safe exercise if 
you followed the instructions appropriately.  Even in the real world, 
kids are asked to engage in potentially dangerous activity.  You 
should pay attention to the saw in woodshop and the oven in home ec.  
Kids swim, ride horses, and take trips to the big bad city, and many 
dangers could befall them if they decide to act like arrogant gits 
instead of following appropriate directions.

Hippogriffs are neither housepets, nor chimpanzees.  They are 
something in between, which when dealt with appropriately, with 
caution and respect, represent no danger.  Draco has no ability to do 
this, but I'm not going to fault anyone but him for that.

> > 
> Magpie:
> Yeah, I get that Draco broke the rules. I've never said he didn't. 
> The movie's portrayal in this case I mentioned to show that there's 
> nothing inherently violent or abusive in what Draco does in terms 
of 
> real world standards any more than there's anything inherently 
wrong 
> in Neville adding more than one spleen to his Potion. The movie is 
> also significant, imo, because I think they feel like they need to 
> make Hagrid look better and Draco worse to get the same emotion 
> without the narrator to guide the audience along.
> 

Prep0strus:

the difference is in attitude and intent.  No, Draco did not hit 
buckbeak with a stick.  But acting nastily towards an innocent 
creature has no place in any situation, and he deliberately 
disregarded the instructions given him.  Neville messes up - mixes 
things wrong.  If he could have done it right, he would have.  
Draco's mistake is deliberate and meanspirited.  They are worlds 
apart.



> Magpie:
> I didn't mean Buckbeak had magical foresight, I meant Buckbeak's 
> created so that the way Draco sucks will get him a smack down that 
> he deserves. As you yourself say--Draco sucks even to animals. 
> That's what I get from the scene, and to me as a reader, I start 
> pulling against the author and start looking for the suck somewhere 
> else.:-)

Prep0strus:

I guess in this case I went with the author.  It's clear to me that 
Draco DOES suck to the animals, and there's no reading that will make 
me think otherwise.  I can certainly find a lot of suck in her 
writing, and in a lot of situations... but for this one, it's her and 
Draco.  I can't find much suck in Buckbeak or Griffindors.

> 
> Magpie:
> Actually, all the teachers have to put up with this nonsense--
making 
> clear that they won't put up with it is part of a teacher's job. 
But 
> I don't know what this has to do with anything anyway. You say it 
> was only Draco, and yes, it was Draco. I have hard time thinking it 
> *couldn't* have been anyone else given the set up (especially 
> Neville, who was running around in a panic) and wind up thinking it 
> was Draco because the author made sure to create a creature whose 
> latin name might as well have been Targetus Draconis. Your 
emotional 
> reaction to this seemed to be "OMG, Draco is such a horrible 
child!" 
> Mine was, "I wish Hagrid would get eaten by something..." You focus 
> on how Draco's not listening was especially bad because the class 
> was so dangerous, while I think the class was stupidly dangerous.
> 

Prep0strus:
You're right that we view it differently.  But not exactly in how I 
view it. Because I don't view Hagrid as that much outside the WW 
norm.    And I don't think his 'not listening' was especially bad.  
His fault would be much less had he simply forgotten to bow - that 
would mean he had failed to listen to instructions.  but he did 
listen to the instructions in order to take that step.  I think he's 
such a horrible child not because he doesn't listen to instructions, 
but because of what he does.  He is nasty to the innocent hippogriff 
for no reason.  Then I think he's MORE horrible for what he does 
after - reneges his own culpability, makes others do his work for 
him, and attempts to have a creature he knows to be innocent KILLED.  
These are all very different from 'not listening'.

As for the class, it seems like the rest of the class was having a 
great time.  It was a wonderful lesson, and no one would have been 
hurt - not if Draco simply had listened, but if he wasn't an 
inherantly nasty child.

> 
> Magpie:
> He's right there, imo. But regardless I already agreed to this, 
that 
> he wasn't paying attention--and pointed out that all the students 
> have times when they don't pay attention, and it's only here where 
> it becomes a cardinal sin. (I mean, I know the idea is supposed to 
> be that it's extra stupid here because the animal is SO DANGEROUS 
> but it still sounds like more than that, like there's just zero 
> tolerance for something people and kids do all the time, and this 
is 
> the first day.) Even here --he's stupid for not listening for those 
> 10 seconds and yet is also teasing the creature because he didn't 
> believe what he didn't hear. How's he doing both? We see him 
> whispering in the moment Hagrid says this one thing, and we see him 
> following the directions he was listening to. If he didn't believe 
> Hagrid why'd he bow? I thought part of the burn on Draco was that 
he 
> thought he was in the clear and successful.
> 

Prep0strus:
I thought it was clear he HAD heard the instructions, followed them 
until his inherant arrogance and superiority took over, decided on 
his own that some dumb creature (either hagrid or the hippogriff) had 
stupid rules, and decidd to disregard them.  He hears the 
instructions, and then disregards them.  Showing arrogance and 
stupidity - and also nastiness, in how he disregards them.


> Magpie:
> If he was actually provoking this animal intentionally, he was 
> courageous (and more stupid)--he could have gotten himself killed! 
I 
> think he's just being arrogant and superior. I am arguing against 
> him being courageous here.


Prep0strus:
Because he has decided it's NOT dangerous.  On his own.  He heard the 
instructions, disregarded them, and then provoked buckbeak once he 
made his own determination that the rules were a crock.  I don't 
think he's courageous either.


> Magpie:
> I am criticizing the way he's written. I also happen to be 
> criticizing the way other things are written--and saying the way I 
> took the scene. One's visceral reaction to Draco is subjective, and 
> how angry one is at him in the scene is too. I started by basically 
> agreeing with you about Draco, and I have agreed with your posts on 
> the Slytherins in general. I disagreed about certain things in the 
> scene and the way I see them--and I still do. Draco can still be a 
> bad character for me without having this reaction to the Buckbeak 
> storyline. Perhaps our only difference is that you dislike Draco 
and 
> I don't, but is that really something to argue about? It seems like 
> we've gotten into this big emotional area that can't be argued for 
> no reason.


Prep0strus:
This scene (and all the subsequent related scenes) also affect me as 
an animal lover and caretaker.  Draco shows disrespect and stupidity 
in his dealings with Buckbeak, regardless of instructions.  The fact 
that he ignores specific instructions just shows his arrogance and 
continued idiocy.  But then the way buckbeak is supposed to be 
punished for DRACO'S thoughtless cruelty raises my rancor to a new 
level.

> 
> Magpie:
> I didn't compare anything about their characters in the scene, I 
> just pointed out that kids goofing around in class is a pretty 
> normal thing. I don't blame anybody else for Draco's not listening 
> or for insulting the hyppogriff. I just don't think what he did in 
> the scene with Buckbeak is so very surprising for a 13-year-old boy-
-
> even one who wasn't the most repulsive thing in the universe. 

Prep0strus:
Maybe. Maybe.  If we're assuming a stupid, mean boy.  but the way he 
continues the charade to the point where buckbeak will be executed is 
entirely different.  That is a death that would be on Draco's soul as 
surely as Dumbledore's would have been.  it raises the level of o the 
debate to someting else.

> 
> Magpie:
> As I've said before, lots of people would "treat an animal like 
> that" imo. He's petting it and saying, "You aren't dangerous at 
all, 
> are you, you big ugly brute." I think plenty of kids--even non-
nasty 
> ones--could do that and even consider it affectionate. I used to 
> call my Kerry Blue "Fungus Face" when she needed a bath because her 
> beard got a bit funky--it's an insult, but it was affectionate.
> 
> However, I don't see why that doesn't make it a mistake. Neville is 
> given instructions just like Draco is. Neville doesn't follow them 
> even though he wants the Potion to turn out well. Draco follows 
> instructions about bowing etc. Presumably he doesn't want to get 
> attacked by the thing--he's a nervous nellie in general. But only 
> Neville's mistake is honest and only Draco deserves it.
> 

Prep0strus:
Like I said, I am unable to read the scene as him petting it in an 
affectionate way.  It is not in character for Draco.  IMO, he was 
being as nasty as the words imply.  And there IS a difference between 
making a mistake and being nasty.  There is no intent behind Neville -
 his mistake is akin to tripping over a log and falling down.  
Draco's mistake is akin to sticking his leg out and making someone 
else fall down.  He doesn't make the mistake by forgetting to bow.  
he makes the mistake by being nasty to teh hippogriff.  These things 
are so different.


> > 
> Magpie:
> Because when Hagrid puts people in dangerous situations he doesn't 
> mean it so it's kind of cute. Hagrid feels badly here *even when he 
> shouldn't because it was all Draco's fault.* This is why this book 
> in particular is one I don't like, though it points to what I found 
> disappointing in the whole series. I should have actually known 
what 
> was coming the way this worked out way back in Book III (no 
> possibility for compromise here--Draco/Slytherin just must be 
> stopped so the good guys can prevail!).

Prep0strus:
IMO, the kids were in no more danger than they usually were in a 
world of danger and surprise.  And there is a difference when someone 
means to put someone in danger and when they don't.

> > 
> Magpie:
> Yup, good thing it was Draco hurt, because being a "bad kid" the 
> lesson can still be "a good lesson" even after it ended in disaster 
> after a short time (Hagrid loves teaching!!). If only I could get 
on 
> board with this attitude I'd probably have loved the book. 
> Unfortunately, all I see is exactly what you're describing--the 
> author creating a character to be a hate object, to never stop 
> deserving punishment, so I should be feeling sorry for the poor 
> students and Hagrid whose class was ruined. 
> 
> And since the whole book makes me dislike the wrong people, the 
very 
> things Draco does that are objectively wrong that are supposed to 
> horrify me don't bother me the way they should. I know Hagrid's 
> pet's going to be fine and he's going to keep his job; I know 
> Draco's not going to get what he wants. So while I see that JKR has 
> created Draco to be 100% repulsive, I still spend the book 
disliking 
> Hagrid and not angry at Draco at all. Don't much like Buckbeak 
> either (though I didn't think he deserved to be executed).
> 

Prep0strus:
I guess that's your perogotive, but it still seems strange to me to 
not be bothered by someone simply because you know you're supposed to 
be bothered by someone.  It doesn't make his actions any more 
sypathetic or admirable.

> 
> Magpie:
> And there's a big reason why my hatred goes elsewhere. Draco ruined 
> the first class for everybody by getting hurt. And every other 
> decision Hagrid makes in his class is also Draco's fault. No 
> responsibilty for Hagrid at all (no surprise--this is the guy who 
> sternly gives kids detention for saving his own a**). And here my 
> entire life I've thought I wouldn't want to be a teacher because it 
> was too much responsibility and controlling a bunch of adolescents 
> who would know doubt include a few boys who challenge authority or 
> show off would be a normal part of the job. So I hate this 
> storyline. Don't like talking about it either, but am completely 
> incapable of stopping myself whenever I read about that awful 
Malfoy 
> boy in this scene (rather than the rest of the book).

Prep0strus:
I just don't see Hagrid as so far out of the norm of adults in this 
world.  And I don't see that lesson as any more dangerous than any 
other lesson where kids need to pay attention or they might get 
hurt.  And, in this case, it's not just paying attention... you just 
need to be not nasty.  And Draco can't handle that.


If Buckbeak had gotten executed, as the first death of the series (an 
animal leading up easier to Cedric) would your feelings change?  
Would the fact that there were consequences on the other side change 
your feelings?  Because the intent was the same, whether he got away 
or not.  I disagree with so much that JKR did, but it doesn't make me 
want to excuse what I see from Draco.

we see a lot of intent.  intent from draco in being nasty to buckbeak 
(he just didn't feel there really was a danger).  trying to hurt 
harry in the game.  we don't see intent from neville or hagrid.  and 
there is a difference there.

and draco got a quick injury, and then easy street for weeks.  
buckbeak almost got killed.

i've worked with animals, and I've worked with kids, and this 
scenario doesn't seem like a little rapscallion joshing with a puppy 
who turns around and bites his head off.  It's a blatent setup by 
jkr, but i buy into it, because it's in character for draco as we 
know him to be nasty, selfish, and disregard animals and people.  
Working for its death shows his disregard for life, which we already 
know because he wants to work for the people who killed the family 
members of so many other students.  Yeah, she wants me to hate him, 
and yeah, i do.

i'd have felt honored to bow to a hippogriff, and wish that draco had 
gotten his stupid little head clawed off for sticking me with 
flobberworms for the rest of the year.

~Adam(Prep0strus)