GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 182019

Carol earlier:
> > I guess it's the idea of raising a wild *magical* creature only to
slaughter it that's troubling. 
> >  -<snip, rearrange again>-
> > and it seems as wrong to hunt them for the magical properties of
their blood or horns
> 
> 
> Mike now:
> But why not? If they are indeed beasts, as you called them, what's 
wrong with culling the herd and selling off the unwanted/unneeded
extras? Wouldn't any attempt at keeping the merchants supplied with 
marketable dragon parts at reasonable prices make poaching seem less a
profitable venture, especially since taking on dragons is so
dangerous? <snip>

Carol responds:
As you may have gathered from my previous post, I do think that
"dragon management" of the commoner breeds does involve choosing some
dragons for slaughter, and I picture the MacFusty clan as dragon
ranchers.But Charlie is in Romanai primarily to *study* dragons (and,
occasionally, to "handle" them by transporting them and their eggs
safely, etc.). He seems to me to have a different temperament from his
brothers, a nice combination of Gryffindor courage, Ravenclaw
curiosity and need to know, and Hufflepuff willingness to work hard,
without any desire for wealth like Fred and George. (whether he has
any Slytherin ambition, I'll leave to others to decide.) Anyway, I
like Charlie, and although I'm sure he would kill a dragon if he had
to, I can't imagine him doing so willingly. I think that's someone
else's job. (Or maybe it's just me--my head understands the practical
aspects of culling the dragon herds and making a legitimate profit
from the regulated trade in dragon parts, but my heart likes the idea
of the dragons being protected and preserved for posterity--like the
beautiful but potentially deadly Siberian tiger.)

> > Carol:
> > but I only skimmed the relevant pages, including the Introduction
(which answers some of Mike's questions,
> 
> Mike:
> Wait, I have more. I don't have a copy of FB. 

Carol:
You need to buy one--proceeds to charity and all that! :-P!! (And you
get to read Harry's and Ron's graffiti, not to mention that QTTA comes
with it.)
> 
> > Carol:
> > And there's something sublime about a dragon <snip> They're rare,
they're magical, they're dangerous,
> 
> Mike:
> They're magical? In what way? I've seen that they can breath fire, I
suppose that should be considered magic. But flying I don't. Are they
magical because of their ability to resist magic, like Giants, as
Sirius explained. Is it just that their blood, horns and such have
magical properties that can be used for potions or whatever?
> 
> Or can they *do* magical things? Educate me, please!
> 
Carol responds:
Well, I'd say that breathing fir in itself qualifies them as magical,
and, as, Potioncat says, they're among the beasts whose existence is
kenp secret from Muggles because Muggles don't believe in them. But I
think their magic, aside from breathing fire, consists mostly, as you
say, in the magical properties of their blood, horns, hide, etc., just
as magical herbs and fungi are magical primarily because of their
properties as potion ingredients. They're also very resistant to
Wizard magic (it takes several Stunning Spells to knock one out, as we
know from GoF). But as for magical abilities, they don't talk, they
can't turn invisible, and, as you say, flying is not a magical
ability, so it must be the magical properties of dragon parts that
cause JKR, her alter ego Newt Scamander, and the WW in general to
consider them magical creatures. That and their association in the
Muggle mind with Wizards and magic.

 
> > Carol:
> > 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?
> >
> > Buckbeak is at least capable of forming attachments to certain
humans. I don't think that JKR's dragons have that capacity.
> 
> Mike:
> Do you think dragons were as intelligent (or as self-aware) as 
> hippogriffs? Was it just their nature to not bond with humans, 
> like hippogriffs seemingly could? Or were they a lower form of
> life than hippogriffs? What does FBAWTFT tell us?

carol responds:
I wouldn't call hippogriffs self-aware. That's a human trait, shared
in the WW by "beings" such as House-Elves, Goblins, Centaurs, and
Merpeople, and in RL, to some small extent, by certain ape species (a
few apes have been known to recognize their own reflections, unlike,
say, a cat, which thinks it sees another cat in the mirror). But
hippogriffs seem to have some degree of intelligence, recognizing
their masters and the whole business of bowing and, in essence,
agreeing to be touched or ridden. Dragons seem to be untameable; the
old half-blind one that HRH escaped on didn't know he was being
ridden. They have the animal instinct to defend themselves and protect
their young, but that's true of virtually any animal. (If it matters,
a hippogriff is part bird, part mammal whereas a dragon is all
reptile, so a dragon might be "lower" in that respect. Then, again,
Nagini is a reptile, and horrible as she is, she's intelligent in her
way and communicates with the Wizard formerly known as Tom Riddle.)
Anyway, I'd class JKR's dragons below her hippogriffs in terms of
intelligence though I'd be open to arguments to the contrary. All that
FB says on the subject is that hippogriffs can be tamed though the
taming should be attempted only by experts. They're rated as XXX
rather than XXXXX.

Both dragons and hippogriffs are defined (naturally) as "beasts,"
meaning that they don't have sufficient intelligence to understand the
laws that regulate the magical community and represent themselves.
(Acromantulas and Manticores were classified as beasts despite their
intelligence and ability to speak a human language because of their
brutal natures; Sphinxes can speak only in riddles and respond
violently to those who get them wrong, so they were also classified as
beasts. You can read about the ghosts, who ended up being classified
as Spirits rather than Beings because they're "has beens" (a JKRian
joke, I'm sure), Merpeople, Centaurs, etc. to see why they were
classified as beasts despite what Umbridge would call "near-human
intelligence." Anyway, "self-awareness," to use your term, is clearly
lacking in both dragons and hippogriffs. I can't see either of them
representing their own interests in a court of Wizarding law.

Carol, who thinks that Ron and Harry need to learn how to use commas
correctly!
> 
> 
> 
> > > Potioncat:
> > > Was there a brochure on dragonkeepers in OoP?
> > 
> > Carol:
> > Nope.  <snip>
> > No doubt there's a pamphlet on dragon keeping (Charlie must
> > have read one), 
> 
> Mike:
> I just wanted to add in here that I wish we would have gotten
> more of Charlie and his dragons. I would really liked to have
> seen Charlie and his mates play a bigger part. Especially if 
> it would have been with the dragons, say, kicking some Giant 
> butt!
> 
> Mike, wondering if Charlie was allowed to ride his dragons, seeing
> as how the Trio got to ride one
>