Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 177023

---  "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
...
> 
> Lizzyben:
> > - "Blood status" doesn't matter/ blood is all that
> > matters - bad Slytherin blood will out, pure 
> > Gryffindor blood will save.
> 
> Carol:
> There's no such thing as "pure Gryffindor blood." 
> Hermione and Lily are Muggleborns sorted into 
> Gryffindor. It's Harry's and Lily's self-sacrifice, 
> two acts of love on different scales, that have the
> power of ancient magic.
> 
> ...
> 
> I agree that the message that blood doesn't matter 
> is rather garbled. Hagrid thinks that the Malfoys 
> have "bad blood" and he actually says that blood is 
> important with regard to his half-brother, Grawp, 
> .... And the power of Harry's blood in Voldemort has
> nothing to do with him or with Gryffindor. It has to
> do with the power of love via Lily's self-sacrifice, 
> the same power that protects Harry from Voldemort as
> long as he's with Petunia, no Gryffindor and not even
> a witch. Her blood has power because it's Lily's blood,
> which has the power of love. ...
> 

bboyminn:

While I generally agree with most of Carol's comments,
I have to take one teeny tiny acception to her 
references the 'blood garble'. Again we have to 
consider context. Not all references to blood are 
references to the SAME blood, or the same aspect of
or concept of blood. 

I think Hagrid's references to 'bad blood' and his
reference to blood relative to his brother Grawp (does
that count as a Tom Swifty?) are in a completely 
different and unrelated context relative to references
to Pure-Blood and all that is associated with it. 

In the first instance, Hagrid is simply saying that
the Malfoys are annoying trouble makers; seems fair
enough to me. In the second reference, he is talking
about family, and how important it is. Neither of those
is a reference to or a slight against 'Pure-Blood'. 

I think the books message relative, not to 'Pure-Blood'
but to the 'Pure-Blood is Superior' belief is crystal 
clear. 'It matters not how you are born, but what you
grow to be'; slightly misquoting Dumbledore.

To summaries, if you think you can stand it, let me
say that...there is Blood and there is blood, the two
not necessarily being the same.  


> Lizzyben:
> > - Bigotry is bad/ bigotry against Slytherins is 
> > totally justified.
> 
> Carol:
> But it isn't, as Harry learns. McGonagall is *wrong* 
> in her judgment of Snape and Slughorn and Slytherin in
> general, .... Again, Harry publicly vindicates Snape,
> he names his second son after two headmasters,..., and
> he and Draco become, ..., at least not enemies. He 
> considers Draco's life worth saving. A Slytherin, 
> Regulus Black, becomes the rallying cry for the house-
> elves, ....
> 
> I don't like the way that McGonagall judges the whole
> House by one students' action or the way that she 
> assumes that any of the older Slytherins who choose to
> fight will fight for Voldemort, either. ...
> 

bboyminn:

Just a few comments on McGonagall's action near the end
of the book in the Great Hall scene. She is not ruling
against Slytherins in general, she is ruling against
specific actions by Slytherin in the moment. The moment
provides HUGE context to her actions.

One Slytherin jumps up and says, 'there Harry, someone
grab him', and no Slytherin protests, no Slytherin stand
and points his wand at Pansy. No Slytherin in our line 
of sight, shows any indication that they don't agree. 
Naturally, McGonagall is going to order them all out. 
This is battle, or about to be, and battle is no place
for fence sitter, it is no place for people whose
allegiances aren't clear.

However, if a few Slytherins had hung back and approach 
McGonagall and swore they would defend Hogwarts against
Voldemort, I think she would have let them stay. 

What happened is not a sign of prejudice against 
Slytherins, but a direct response to both the action
and non-action of Slytherins in the moment. Again,
context matter very very much.


> 
> Lizzyben:
> > - Violence & bullying are bad/ unless we're doing it.
> 
> Carol:
> We are not supposed to admire James and Sirius, the
> Gryffindor bullies. ...indeed arrogant, bullying 
> "toerags." And I think we're supposed to see that 
> the Gryffindors' treatment of Slytherins (and the 
> Twins' treatment of Dudley) is no better than Draco's
> treatment of Harry in HBP or the Muggle levitating at
> the QWC.

bboyminn:

While I'm with you in general Carol, I'm not sure I can
agree with the examples you gave. There is a huge 
difference between Harry and Draco as representatives
of their Houses. Draco, as I have said, is an instigator;
he is going to consciously and willfully cause trouble
for others. Harry, on the other hand, if not provoked,
is not going to cause or seek out trouble. He like a 
quiet life. That makes them very very different. 

In psychological terms, perhaps it is the difference
between Active Agressive and Passive Agressive. Draco
is Active, he is willfully causing trouble. In the 
Dudley/Toffee incident, the twins are passive. Fred
simply drops a candy. If Dudley had any self-restraint,
or common sense, he would have never ate it. True we
know that Fred planned it that way. But still Dudley
has to accept a substantial portion of the blame, 
because, the terrible frightening result was caused 
by his own action. 

Let's remember that these Toffees were trick sweets,
the Twins intended to sell them to their friends.
I simply can't put a joke into the same category as
the DE action at the World Cup which I will address 
next. Though, I will admit that what passes for a 
joke in the wizard world is much more extreme when
it presents itself in the muggle world. 

And there was a subversive element of vicousness to 
the joke. What if Dudley has stashed the candy and 
hadn't eaten it until he went to bed? That could have
been disastrous. Dudley was lucky that Mr. Weasley 
was there to help him. But if no wizard had been 
around, what would Dudley have done? Though I do
think the Ton-Tongue spell was likely self-limiting,
just as the Canary Cream was; in time, the ton tongue
would have just gone away on its own. I simply can't
see the Twins creating murderous jokes. 

As to the DE at the World Cup, that is a separate and
incomparable action. Completely out of the league of
the Twins 'joke'. The DE's action were wholly cruel,
spiteful, vindictive, and physically dangerous; they 
were just plain MEAN. No one could possibly put Ton-
Tongue Toffee in the same league as the DE's actions
at the World Cup.

> Carol:
>
> Harry's Crucio on Carrow puts him on the same level,
> briefly, as Bellatrix Lestrange. 
>

bboyminn:

I say it does not. It puts Harry on the wrong side 
in the moment and in that context, but he is not even
remotely close to the cruel and vicious Lestrange or
Carrow. 

Bella takes joy in extended vicious and cruel use of
the Cruciatus Curse. Harry on the other hand sustains
it for a matter of a very few short seconds(1 to 3 
seconds at most), and despite his sarcastic comment, 
I don't think Harry takes joy in it. I think he reacted
in momentary anger against a man who was supremely 
vicious and unconscionable. 

I simply don't see how once extremely short incident
puts Harry in the same category as the habitually
cruel Bella. Momentary anger and laps of judgment
in no way equates to the sustained cruelty of 
Bella or Carrows.

Just a few minor comments.

Steve/bboyminn