GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 182007

Potioncat wrote:
> I never once thought of the dragons as sentient. I guess it depends 
> on which sets of dragon-lore the reader is most familiar with.


Carol responds:
Or how you're defining "sentient." Clearly, they're aware of sense
impressions, which is how I define the term. They can see, hear, feel,
smell, and presumably taste. They're also capable of primitive
emotions, such as fear and anger and the instinct, if they're female,
to protect their young/eggs. Whether, say, conjured birds are
sentient, I don't know, but even a hedgehog partially Transfigured
into a pincushion curls up in pain when a pin is stuck in it, if I
remember McGonagall's words correctly. Anyway, while the dragon at
Gringotts is no Smaug--it can't talk or hoard treasure and it isn't
cunning--it's clearly a beast, in other words, not a being like a
Goblin or even a Dementor--it's as sentient as, say, a lion or other
fierce wild animal in RL. And, as I noted earlier, it can learn to
associate the sound of the clankers with torture (hot swords against
its muzzle), a cruel form of Pavlovian behavioral conditioning.

If you mean that you never thought of JKR's dragons as cunning beasts
with humanlike intelligence, I agree, but sentience doesn't
necessarily imply intelligence. Even a frog is sentient, conscious of
its surroundings via its senses and able to interpret sense
impressions, but not *self*-conscious like a human being.

Potioncat:
> Does anyone have FBAWTFT? I've only ever gotten it from the library.
IIRC, dragons are rated as Multiple-X beasts. Meaning very dangerous.
There were certain legal restrictions as I recall. The MacFusty clan 
manages the ones (flock, herd?) in the Hebrides, and there's some in 
Wales as well.

Carol:
I do. they're rated XXXXX, the most dangerous classification. You're
right about the MacFusty clan, which manages the Hebridean Blacks. I
can't find any reference to "herds" or whatever (I'm sure the correct
term isn't "flock"!), but I only skimmed the relevant pages, including
the Introduction (which answers some of Mike's questions, as does the
short section on the Romanian Longhorn), so I no doubt missed some
things on this rereading (and I'd forgotten quite a bit of what I'd
previously read, including the Macfusty clan).
>  
Carol earlier: 
> > > As for who pays them, surely it's the MoM (not necessarily just
the British version)--the same people who pay Wizarding researchers to
maintain the Hall of Prophecy and to study Death, Love, Time, the
Mind, and other mysteries. 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Me too--sort of like Park Rangers...or the British equivilent. Was
there a brochure on dragonkeepers in OoP?

Carol:
Nope. Just Healing, Muggle Relations, Wizard banking, training
security Trolls, and various careers with the Mom, specifically, the
department of Magical Accidents and Catastrophes (OoP Am. ed. 656-57).
No doubt there's a pamphlet on dragon keeping (Charlie must have read
one), and one on Aurors, for that matter, but they aren't mentioned
because, as usual, HRH are interrupted in the middle of reading them,
in this case by the Ministers of Mayhem, Fred and George. 
> 
> > Mike:
> > This was also on my mind. There seems to be a thriving market in
the wizarding world for parts of dragons that would require their
death. <snip> Are there enough dragons and do they die from natural
causes fast enough to keep all these users in sufficient supply of 
their *materials*?
> 
> Potioncat:
> We are civilized, aren't we? What would  be so bad about managing
the flock of dragons, choosing some for slaughter? I know---it's the 
Bambi factor. But venison is very good. So is rabbit. Just don't try
to serve a cute deer or bunny to my kids. (or to me either, for that
matter, though I used to eat both.)

Carol:
The Bambi factor? I don't think that the apparent sweet innocence or
helplessness of dragons has anything to do with it.  But, granted,
many of us eat meat and wear leather shoes (however opposed we may be
to fur coats). I guess it's the idea of raising a wild *magical*
creature only to slaughter it that's troubling. And there's something
sublime (to use Edmund Burke's word, borrowed from Longinus) about a
dragon as opposed to a mundane cow or chicken. They're rare, they're
magical, they're dangerous, and it seems as wrong to hunt them for the
magical properties of their blood or horns as it does to kill a
Siberian tiger for its hide (or a unicorn for its blood even though
dragons, unlike unicorns, aren't "pure"). 

I gather from FBAWTFT that certain species, such as the Romanian
Longhorn (endangered because its horn is valuable as a potion
ingredient) are being bred to increase their numbers. No doubt it's
the more common varieties whose hide, blood, heart, etc. (but not
eggs) are legal tradeable substances.
> 
> Oh, I just realised--if you're thinking of sentient dragons, it
would be very bad. I just don't think that's what JKR had in mind. <snip>

Carol:
Again, I'm puzzled by your use of "sentient." If the dragons were as
wily and evil as Tolkien's dragons, especially Glaurung in "The
Silmarillion" and "the Children of Hurin," not even Charlie would want
to study and protect them. (Hagrid might, but that's Hagrid, innit?)
and I don't think anyone is thinking of them as gentle creatures like
Puff, the magic dragon or Pete's dragon, sought after by greedy,
unscrupulous people who want to sell his parts for cash.

But say that dragons had the intelligence of Buckbeak and at least
some capacity for loyalty. It would seem wrong to kill them for their
magical properties then, wouldn't it? Is that what you mean by
"sentient"? Does Norbert(a) really "know" his (her) "mummy" (Hagrid)?
I rather doubt it. Buckbeak (annoyed though I am with him for
attacking Snape) is at least capable of forming attachments to certain
humans. I don't think that JKR's dragons have that capacity.
 
Carol, who thinks that the MacFustys may harvest their dragons like
cattle but can't imagine Charlie doing it