Wand Lore / Colin Creevey / Dennis Creevey / Harry: Bad Guy? / That Crucio

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 183677

Carol wrote in 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183558>:

<< In DH we get the new information about wand loyalty, but we're 
also told by Ollivander that any wizard can use any wand if he's 
any wizard at all. >>

I objected to Ollivander saying that. I had previously objected to 
Hermione telling Harry that about the blackthorn wand. Harry and 
Hermione have strong magic power, but Harry can't get results from 
the blackthorn wand and Hermione has trouble with Bellatrix's wand 
because those wands are So Far out of tune with them. If a 
conquered wand does indeed voluntarily bend to its new master's 
will, it must also re-tune to its new master's radio frequency / 
cryptographic key / shoe size / choose your own metaphor. 

Besides attunement, I gather that some wands are simply weaker 
than others, and might have chosen a weaker wizard who wouldn't be 
able to ask more of the wand than it could deliver. 

Carol wrotre in 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183589>:

<< Another thing: Colin is either seventeen or nearly seventeen 
and yet he's "tiny in death"? The Creeveys are very small for 
their age (their size is as exaggerated as Hagrid's in the other 
direction, with Dennis being so short that when he stands on a 
chair he's not much taller than the people sitting next to him), 
yet they can't have Goblin or House-Elf blood if they're 
Muggle-borns. Is Colin *that* late hitting puberty? (I've seen an 
occasional normal, healthy fifteen-year-old boy who still looked 
like a child and was something like four-and-a-half feet tall, but 
never a normal seventeen-year-old boy under, say, five feet three 
or four. How "tiny" is Colin, and has JKR forgotten that he's 
either a man or very nearly a man by WW standards? Is he still,
in her mind, prepubescent, or has she forgotten that the Creeveys 
are Muggle-born and, in her imagination but not on paper, given 
them House-Elf or Goblin blood? >>

In RL, I'm 5 foot 2 barefoot (a good way to measure since I am 
barefoot as much as possible, including taking off my sandals at 
work) and I've met adult men who are seriously shorter than me, 
normally proportioned, fathers, and with professional careers. (I
haven't met Clinton's Secretary of Labor Robert Reich but he is
reported to be 4 foot 10 inches, and to have begun one speech about
... maybe it was the financial future of Social Security ... by 
saying: "This is a hard problem... I was 6 foot 5 when I started 
working it." I've never checked whether the children of these 
quite short RL Muggles are also short, but it could be that all 
the Creeveys are just extremely short. Without Goblin or House Elf 
blood. (As Steve bboyminn already wrote.)

<< Would McGonagall know that Colin, one of (at minimum) seventy
Gryffindor students who would normally attend Hogwarts (given ten 
per year in a normal year; perhaps seven per year in DH, but 
that's still forty-nine Gryffindors) had not yet had his birthday? 
I doubt it. Most of the sixth years would be seventeen, old enough 
to fight, >>

She could use her authority to order him out because he's so 
short, even if he is old enough. Her authority is because she 
reacted to the crisis situation by giving orders, but it can be 
justified as she is the previous Deputy Headmaster when the 
Headmaster has left and the current Deputy Headmaster (which of 
the carrows was it?) is on the other side. (As HP Fan 2008 and 
Potioncat already wrote.)

<< expected *Dennis* Creevey to be important after all that fuss 
about his falling into the lake and being tossed back into the
boat by the Giant Squid >>

So did I, and I sort of expected that the Giant Squid would be 
involved in the last book, perhaps wrangled by little Dennis. Of 
course, I also expected Viktor to have a bigger appearance in the 
last book, such as being a teammate on the Horcrux hunt. 

Montavilla47 wrote in 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183596>:

<< I may be wrong about this, but I think Carol meant to say he 
was a second year? He first arrived and was sorted at Hogwarts 
during GoF, making him a second year in OotP, when he showed up
in Hogsmeade with his brother for the first meeting of the D.A. >>

I agree that's what Carol meant. I don't think it was a Flint, as 
I don't believe that canon showed that students can only sneak to 
Hogsmeade if they have the Marauder's Map. If he's small enough, 
he could have hidden under a large older students cloak.

<< I seem to remember that the D.A. wasn't going to accept any
members younger than fourth year, which made him doubly special. >>

Which was fine with me while I expected Dennis to have a special role.

Geoff wrote in 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183602>:

<< Now, let me say that, if I read her post aright, the quote did 
not originate from her, but who, in their right mind (or sober), 
would dream of making such an unbelievable – and dare I say barmy 
– comment? Harry being a bad guy from the beginning? >>

You're right that that is not my opinion. I think Harry is a good 
guy, altho' I object to that Cruciatis curse and to weasel-wording 
his bargain with Griphook.

<< Are we talking about the same Harry? Are we even reading the 
same book? We first meet Harry as he is about to turn eleven. He 
is ignored as a person, treated like a slave being made to cook 
and do chores. He gets second-hand cast-offs for clothing. 
Although the Dursleys can get free glasses for him on the NHS, 
they can't be bothered to replace the ones repaired with 
Sellotape. Dudley's charm, ability and intelligence is flaunted in
front of him, he gets stupid, thoughtless presents and, because of
Dudley's interference, "At school, Harry had no one." So this is a
portrait of a "bad guy from the first time we saw him"? >>

I read some people a few years ago, I think on this list, but 
maybe elsewhere, who kind of agreed with the Dursleys about 
going-on-11 Harry, altho' I don't recall anyone ever praising 
Dudley. 

They said Harry was disrespectful of authority (Uncle Vernon, Aunt 
Petunia, Mrs Figg, teachers) and downright rude. They said he 
should be grateful to the Dursleys for housing, feeding, and 
clothing him. They said he was greedy and selfish and extravagant 
(and just like Dudley) for wanting new instead of hand-me-down 
clothes. They said he was cruel and selfish for being glad that 
Mrs Figg had broken her leg.

They said he was disobedient and a liar for scheming to get one of 
those letters for himself. They said he was violent because he and 
Dudley had a *truly brotherly tussle* over who got to listen at 
the keyhole and who had to make do with under the door.

I don't understand their viewpoint any more than I understand the 
well-explained viewpoint of the listie who loved Snape and hated 
Harry because Snape punished Harry for exchanging raised eyebrows 
with Ron during the first Potions class.

I was happy that he replied to Dudley's saying 'Let's practise 
stuffing heads into the toilet like they do to new students at 
Stonewall Comprehensive" by saying "No, thanks, I don't think the 
poor old toilet has ever had anything as nasty as your head in 
it." I viewed it as evidence that the Dursleys hadn't managed to 
crush his spirit, rather than as sassiness that OUGHT to be crushed.

<< It's surprising that he /isn't/. In my teaching career and in 
young people's work in churches, I have often seen guys (in its 
unisex connotation) who had become unmanageable because of this 
sort of treatment. He has emerged from his experiences surprisingly
well, all things considered. >>

I completely agree with you, and think that it was foolish of 
Dumbledore to put Harry with the Dursleys if Dumbledore wanted 
Harry to grow up full of love. I am sure there was more to Harry's 
psychological survival than just that he was a resilient child. 
Even resilient children need one supportive adult in their lives.

I had a theory that Lily-in-his-head was that one supportive 
adult, that she had used her last magic to give power to her 
baby's memory of her so that alone in the cupboard with the 
spiders, she could come out (almost like Diary!Tom) to hug her 
baby and tell him he was a good kid and she loved him. But that is 
NOT what is shown in the scene of Lily's death in LV's memory in DH.

Steve bboyminn wrote in 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183608>:

<< Again, I hear you saying that everything in the books needs a
clear preachy moral explanation; absolute black and white, no
shades of gray. >>

No, it isn't.

Okay, I can't speak for Julie, but I can speak as a person who 
wishes the Cruciatis scene had been at least a little different. I 
say *the Cruciatis scene* should have had a little touch of preachy
moralty, not that *everything in the books* should have one. 

For examples, I loved the first book, even before the climax's big 
reveal, because Harry was NOT shown as a plaster saint who was 
always perfectly virtuous (see above reply to Geoff, about sassing 
Dudley and tussling with Dudley), and altho' I'm not happy that 
Harry planned to cheat Griphook, I don't think the text should 
have moralized about it.

<< So, do you want Harry to win, or do you want Harry to be smug 
in defeat know that while his world was lost, his life was lost, 
that thousands will live in misery and tyranny for the foreseeable 
future, at least he took the high road? >>

I hate to disagree with you, steve, as we agree about so much, but 
I strongly disagree that Harry's Cruciatis helped him WIN or was 
justified by  military necessity. I agree with those who pointed 
out that it was militarily stupid not to have used Stupefy, Petrify,
or even AK instead. (acknowledgement that many, many listies already
said so)

I agree that Amycus deserved it, but I think it is very difficult 
to argue that Harry has an ethical right to hand out unilateral 
quick justice during combat, and MUCH easier to argue that it was 
natural for him to lose his temper. But I want the morality 
preachment with the temper.

<< In war you need to be hard, sometimes even heartless. >> 

That point was made, or attempted to be made, by Snape and 
Dumbledore on the Lightning-Struck Tower.

<< The only  bleeding heart liberals that are found in war, are 
the ones literally bleeding to death. >>

I wish Rowling would write a novel discussing whether it's moral 
to be defeated, but in this series she showed that people can make 
a big contribution to the war effort by being killed without 
attempting self-defense, most clearly by Lily Potter.

<< I don't think McGonagall approves of Harry choices, but she
does think it 'gallant' that Harry would defend her honor. But
gallantly defending her honor, does not mean blanket approval
of the method he used. >>

Exactly. I would have liked it so much better if she had SAID 
"That was very gallant of you, Potter, but Stupefy or Petrify or 
Incarcerous would have been more prudent", or "That was very 
gallant of you, Potter, but I can defend myself" or even "If you 
must use an Unforgivable Curse, Potter, choose a useful one."

If McGonagal hadn't said anything different, still I would have 
liked it better if she had used Petrify and Leviosa to move 
Amycus and the other bad guy instead of Imperius.

If the Cruciatis scene hadn't been anything different, still I 
would have liked it better if I had SEEN Harry later regretting 
having used Cruciatis rather than having to assume it.

I'm just saying what I would have liked better, not what Rowling 
would have had to have written to be an ethical person or a better 
writer. However, I don't agree with the people who say that 
Rowling would have been a *worse* writer if she had put a little 
touch of preachy morality into the Cruciatis scene. She would have
written it well enough that Steve, Pippin, etc wouldn't think it was
preachy.