Fred and George and Karma and Marietta and dark magic, oh my

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 176851

> 
> Magpie:
> Last I looked, it wasn't karmic at all. Fred dies a hero killed by DEs 
> and George loses his brothers and an ear to same. For it to come 
> across as karma it has to be tied to their own actions and be ironic 
> in some way.

Pippin:
The DE's are there because the  Carrows told Voldemort that Harry 
was at Hogwarts, the Carrows are at Hogwarts, symbolically, 
(though not literally) because the vanishing cabinet let them in,
and it let them in because of what the twins did. That's plenty
ironic and connected enough for me.

Hermione *does* consider Montague's fate a bad thing -- she's
worried about him, and wonders if they should tell someone 
what happened.  If she had, then someone might have discovered 
the cabinet problem. 

Actually, Karmic Justice isn't my favorite term for what 
JKR is up to. Dumbledore unambiguously rejected the notion that
Sirius deserved what he got, and yet he clearly saw it as connnected
to Sirius's actions. I think  "poetic consequences" might be better.

In RL, people don't necessarily *deserve* the consequences
of their actions. If you jump from a building, you aren't going
to die because you deserve to, you're going to die because
jumping off buildings is dangerous. Sirius didn't die because
he deserved to, he died because underestimating your 
inferiors is dangerous.

In RL, if you betray a trust, that's dangerous. You can't expect 
everyone to be as forgiving  about it as Cho was. Hermione's a 
good person, but she's not a saint. It'd be awfully preachy if JKR 
had to hit us over the head with it every time Hermione acted 
like a self-righteous show off. It's not as if we don't know those 
are her faults. 

In the greater context of the books, Harry being impressed by
Hermione's jinxing ability is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Being impressively good at punishing people is not held up
anywhere else as something he admires.  Cho calls him on 
his partisanship, and she's quite right, IMO.

The way I see it  one can  enjoy the jinx as cartoon violence 
by a  cartoon heroine if you like that sort of thing, but if you 
read it as realistic violence, then it's only going to make 
sense if you read Hermione as realistic too, and don't make 
her out to be JKR's idea of a flawless role model.

Harry certainly doesn't see Hermione that way, even if in this
case he admires her a little too much. 

There hasn't been consistent teaching of DADA at Hogwarts for
two generations. The kids have probably been exposed to as
many theoretical definitions of dark magic as we have, and they're 
no doubt just as much at a loss. I think if you asked Harry, he'd
say that there are some things no decent human being should
do to another, and then, if he was being honest, he'd add that
there were times when he didn't give a tin sickle for decency.

I felt, when Harry did the crucio, the way Harry did when he
found out what sectum sempra did: "as if a beloved pet had
suddenly turned savage." But pets, even the most loving, best
trained pets,  may turn savage if  they're mistreated or if their 
protective instincts take over.  

I think JKR really tries to show that when people in her
world turn savage there's a reason for it, it's not because 
they're black hats who were created to set a bad example 
for the rest of us.

Pippin