GOF Chapter 22: The Unexpected Task

[oryx_leucoryx]

Today's Transfiguration lesson is about turning an animal from one species to an animal from a different one. What's the point? Does the animal retain the neurology of its original species or acquire that of the new one? Even in the latter case, surely its memories are those of the original species? How do the poor creatures know how to do things?

Ron and Harry are having a sword-fight with fake wands. At least Minerva criticizes them. She announces the Yule Ball, where 4th years and up (as well as any younger guests some of them might invite) have a chance to socialize with the 24 guests. Because the guests are living on their respective vehicles and hardly have a chance to socialize with anyone. Unless you count Viktor ducking his fans in the library.

The champions and their dance partners traditionally open the ball. Now Harry has a task to distract him from preparing for the second task (something he hasn't thought about yet, despite his experience with the danger of the first one). Well, now he thinks of the dragon as a fun diversion, so maybe there is no contradiction.

Molly was right - at least among the 4th years and higher everybody is staying for Christmas, regardless of how they rank their prospects of getting a date to the ball. (Did Ginny think of going home before she got an invitation or was she counting on someone inviting her?) Harry suddenly notices the girls at Hogwarts, now that he needs one as a date. Until now he only noticed boys like Ron, Cedric, Viktor and Draco. Maybe he really is gay.

Well, at least Harry knows whom he'd like to ask, if given a chance. Now that he needs a date, he refuses 4 girls who ask him. Yes, they only care about him because he's famous, but so does almost everyone else, so what's the difference? Even Ron (and Draco!) originally got interested in him because he was TBWL.

The Hufflepuffs are letting Harry be. Which does not mean any of them believe he wasn't a cheat. Aw, Draco's audience has shrunk!

Rita's interview with Hagrid was mostly about Hagrid's opinion of Harry, of course. At least Hagrid acknowledges Severus' criticism about Harry's constant line-crossing wasn't entirely off. Oh, Hagrid will attend the ball. Guess with whom?

Why would Dumbles need to buy 800 barrels of mead for the ball? Buy one bottle and multiply however many times. Unless he wasn't that great at Transfiguration? But he did book the Weird Sisters, the only wizarding band in Britain (as far as we know). Wizarding cultural life is so exciting.

Filius let the students play games in class so he could chat with Harry and praise him. Is he the new Hagrid? Binns still insists on making goblin rebellions boring. That's because goblins are no longer rebellious. Now 'Moody' has them working seriously, he doesn't just impress them with Dark Arts demos. And he's teaching the entire class now, not just Harry. Severus would no sooner let them play games in class than adopt Harry. Little does Harry know. Right, how evil of a teacher to give students until the end of term to prepare for a test. (Which happens to be on a topic that is supposed to be crucial for Ron and Harry's preferred career path, BTW.)

Wizarding cards are cooler than Muggle ones because they explode occasionally, but skrewts are beasts from hell. I follow the logic, almost.

There are only 2 kinds of books Harry ever enjoys reading - Quidditch books and Dark Arts books. Now he is with the former. Despite having a potentially dangerous task to face in some 2.5 months. Hermione is such a spoil-sport to remind him of that.

The twins want Ron's owl to send a letter, but they won't tell him to whom. Fred knows he'll attend the ball with Angelina before he even asked her. Of course for all we know they have been dating since 1st year - Harry wouldn't be able to tell.

Ron wants to attend the ball with the best-looking girl he can manage, and that does *not* mean Hermione. This is his second major personal insult to her (in addition to many minor ones), which is why she made it a life mission to force him to acknowledge his mistake and marry her. Soulmates indeed.

Neither Harry nor Ron have a date, but Harry's fate is worse, because he is a champion. Harry can't get Cho alone. After all these years he finally discovered girls' preference to have company on the way to the bathroom.

A bezoar is a key ingredient of an antidote. Harry will remember this better coming from a younger version of Severus.

Harry manages finally to ask Cho, but he is too late. Oh, Cho would so have agreed if only he had asked before Cedric did! Even when he loses Harry gets affirmation that he really is the best. See, Cedric is pretty and brainless. As opposed to Harry who is not (yet) pretty and, er, well... (let's not discuss his brains here).

Harry's one consolation is that Ron failed even worse than he did, by asking someone who more obviously outclassed him. Ron's consolation is that Neville was refused by Hermione - ie Neville ranks even lower than Ron because the girl who turned Neville down ranks much lower than the one who completely ignored Ron. Of course Ron can't imagine anyone (but Neville) asking Hermione of his own will. Not happening, right? (Notice how Neville is better socialized and braver than both trio boys - he dares to ask a girl before they do, and his choice is based on the girl's behavior rather than purely her looks. Also, he didn't give up when he was turned down. Also, Ginny is so popular that the only one who asked her to the ball was Neville, and only because Hermione refused him.)

Suddenly Ron has the realization of the century - Hermione has 2 X chromosomes! (Do wizards know about chromosomes? Never mind.) But despite her repeated insistence, he can't get that she already had a date. Ron even tries setting Ginny up with Harry - again, too late. Not that Ginny likes Neville, in any way. Not that he was her preference. He was just her ticket to the ball. As she leaves for dinner we part for ever with Ginny V1.0, the one who, among other things, keeps Hermione's confidence.

Finally Harry asks Parvati, who for plot-contrived reasons is still available. Lavender was already asked by Seamus, but Padma might go with Ron. We can all sigh with relief that this messy business was completed in a single chapter.

Comments

Re: Comment #1 of 2

[oryx_leucoryx]

Half-way through this paragraph I was making a mental note to rebuke you for not introducing an 'anti-OTP' label when I read on and found that you basically did just that.

I think of all the pairings Rowling shows us in their early stages the only one that is anywhere near healthy is Bill/Fleur (though Fleur in DH seems to be on her way to become another Molly). Of the long-established pairings I think the most functional one is the Malfoy couple, I can't see either of them doing the equivalent of Arthur's retiring to his shed, nor do I see either of them encouraging Draco to be better than the other parent (Molly wants her sons to be ambitious - that's her complaint about the twins).

Re: Comment #1 of 2

[aasaylva.livejournal.com]

Molly wants her sons to be ambitious
Not that that makes her a Slytherin or anything.

Re: Comment #1 of 2

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I've got absolutely nothing against a parent wanting their children to eclipse their own station in life. In fact I think it would be a bad parent who doesn't try and motivate their children to excel, to do better, to improve on what went before. So I've no problems with Molly on that score.

Also I'm not impressed with the Malfoys. Yes, we see them holding hands in book 7 ... the book where the Dark Lord is dumping on them. In other words we're seeing them under extreme and unusual circumstances. And when they're feeling sorry for themselves.

But when they were on top of society they (a) were bad guys, supporting the dark lord's depredations, and (b) they brought up Draco to be a cowardly murdering type of person. The fact that they supported each other when the chips were down and they were threatened doesn't do much to mitigate their vastly greater sins in my opinion. Certainly you can't use the Malfoys as role models of 'healthy' couples?!? Abusing their house elves, bringing up a boy to be like Draco, bribing the Ministry. (I was going to add 'kicking out the headmaster' but yeah, that made sense, even though Rowling would be aghast to realise it.)

Re: Comment #1 of 2

[oryx_leucoryx]

I've got absolutely nothing against a parent wanting their children to eclipse their own station in life. In fact I think it would be a bad parent who doesn't try and motivate their children to excel, to do better, to improve on what went before. So I've no problems with Molly on that score.

To want one's children to do better - yes. To use that as a veiled dig at one's spouse - no.

As for the Malfoys - what have their politics got to do with the health of their relationship? (And they did well with Draco - he is one of the few characters who re-examines things and arrives at his own conclusions.)

Re: Comment #1 of 2

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

To use that as a veiled dig at one's spouse - no.

The veil was so opaque I'm afraid I never saw the purported slight against Arthur. I don't recall Molly ever showing any signs of dissatisfaction with Arthur's station either. (Percy, sure. Actually, didn't Molly *defend* Arthur?)

As for the Malfoys - what have their politics got to do with the health of their relationship?

Interesting.

I guess the Malfoys being Death Eaters and Dark Lord sympathisers is what biased me to thinking that any love between them is similarly tainted. But your question has brought me up short. Is it possible for 'bad' people to have 'good' qualities, if only brought out between each other? Hmmm.

And they did well with Draco - he is one of the few characters who re-examines things and arrives at his own conclusions.

Hard not to snigger at this. Draco was definitely a miserable human being up until the last book or so. And even there at the end he was fighting on the side of the Death Eaters, right?

Show me where he exhibited penitence for attempted murder and treason (whatever charge you'd call his bringing DEs into the castle) and turned over a new leaf and I might be convinced. That he *repudiated* his parents' early training, that is.

Re: Comment #1 of 2

[oryx_leucoryx]

Actually, didn't Molly *defend* Arthur?

Her defense is that Arthur's career is being hobbled by his love of Muggles. Since she doesn't share said love nor does she respect Arthur's interest the message isn't that Arthur's superiors are bad for not promoting him but that Arthur is wrong for not dropping his hobby.

Draco was definitely a miserable human being up until the last book or so. And even there at the end he was fighting on the side of the Death Eaters, right?

Draco was no worse than Harry for 4-5 books, got worse and improved. Harry managed to stay just ahead of Draco for a while but caught up with him, without making much of a swing back (at least on camera). Yes, Draco was fighting with the DEs - Voldemort was living in his home, with Narcissa in his reach whenever he wanted to, of course Draco did everything to keep her from harm. And Draco had to be threatened to torture people. Harry was the one who learned to enjoy it.

Draco's penitence...

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Oh, of course. This is where Oryx and I really part from you--you still see Draco as the surface reading Jo conveyed of "cowardly murderer." Oryx was my beta-reader two years ago for my fiction "Protean Charm", in which Neville, Luna, and the former headmaster clear Draco's fair name and establish that he was in fact a hero risking (and at least once suffering) torture to save his fellow students from the Death Eaters and to ensure that Potter's mission succeeded. You probably don't want to read all nearly 30,000 words (which was padded by plot, by Neville's other revelations, and by some scenes I just made up). I'll try to pull out only the extremely close reading of canon it was based on and post it as an essay.

The main points: OotP and HBP between them establish that Draco knew EXACTLY where Dumbledore's Army was meeting, how they were communicating, and how to enter the Room of Requirement (he does enter it when Harry's there). Draco hid ALL of this information from the Death Eaters, in circumstances where it would have been decidedly in his short-term interests to rat the DA out as he'd previously ratted them out to Dolores. And, in fact, where he risked being tortured or killed if it were ever found he hsd been protecting the rebels.

Then there's the Malfoy Manor scene, where the most fervent Draco-hater must see he's all but screwing his eyes shut and sticking his fingers in his ears going "La, la, la, I can't hear you!" to avoid identifying the hated Boy-Who-Lived, Weasel, and Mudblood-Scum Academic Rival to the Death Eaters.... And his utter incompetence in preventing the subsequent escape is therefore a bit suspect (he fought far better against Harry when he was twelve!)--particularly when we recall that the MINIMUM punishment for letting Potter escape was repeated rounds of Cruciatus. And Draco had been the one forced to administer them last time. He won't have forgotten. And his incompetence, if it was incompetence,in letting Harry escape, will have brought this fate upon his father and his mother, as well as upon himself. Really, shouldn't Draco have been motivated to try a bit harder than in canon he does?

And if you look really, really closely at what Harry actually SEES in that scene in the RoR where the Evil Trio attacks the Good Trio--if you ignore Harry's interpretations, which are based on his preconceptions and biases--Draco's actions really look--well, quite a lot different.

Read that scene closely. Start from the premise: in past years, Draco was the leader of that Trio and Crabbe and Goyle obeyed him pretty much blindly. Harry assumes this is still the case. But is that what we see now?

I don't think JKR intended to display Draco as a hidden hero. But the case can be made that she wrote him as one.

I'll try to get the strictly canon-based, non-fanfic points, up and posted. But it'll probably take me a bit.

In the meantime, if you want to read the fiction (which as I said includes made-up scenes and plot points irrelevant to this discussion), it starts here:

http://severusbigbang.livejournal.com/46237.html

Functional couples

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Well, I think oryx's point was more that Molly's encouragement of her boys' ambitions comes across sometimes as nastily-underhanded criticism of her husband (who for much of canon is in an unrespected dead-end job, which he doesn't WANT to move out of because it allows him unauthorized access to his Muggle toys--even while his wife is scraping to make ends meet for their children). Moreover, it's clear Molly & Arthur, as parents, have strong differences of opinion about proper discipline of their young--and we SEE the Twins, twice that I recall (CoS, the Ford Anglia, and GoF, the Ton-Tongue Toffee) play Arthur off against Molly.

Whereas the Malfoys, however we may criticize their POLITICS, seem to have harmonious values as a couple and to present a united front to their son. We don't see Draco trying to use one parent to do a side run around the other.

As to point a: I do think that both Lucius and Narcissa by 1981 entirely agreed with you that joining that Dark Lord fellow's organization was the worst possible error of judgment on Lucius's part. It IS canon that Lucius, with all his resources, never lifted a finger to try to bring Riddle back. But of course once he had joined, if the dark lord was around they had to "support the dark lord's depredations."

As to point b: the Weasleys brought up at least 3 bullies (the Twins & Ginny Mach 2), 2 overt criminals (he Twins again, who committed both blackmail and the crime of performing potentially-fatal experiments on younger children without those children's parents' knowledge or consent), a boy who repeatedly abandons his supposed best friends (Ron), and a boy whose response to the disorder in his family life is to become morbidly obsessed with rules and order (Percy).

Regarding Lucius's other crimes:
Arthur "I'll get your brother off from charges if you get my family tickets to Top Seats at the World Cup" Wealey is as guilty of partaking of the WW's general corruption as Lucius; he just has less leverage to exploit. Being less competent at being corrupt is quite different from being honorable.

(Do we actually see any adult in the WW who doesn't partake of the general corruption?)

But yes, at least it is canon that Molly and Arthur don't abuse their house elf. Good for them!

Re: Functional couples

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

It IS canon that Lucius, with all his resources, never lifted a finger to try to bring Riddle back

I imagine some readers believe that he was attempting to bring back Riddle in CoS with the diary. Personally, I don't think he knew that the diary could possibly do that.

Re: Functional couples

[oryx_leucoryx]

Well, I think oryx's point was more that Molly's encouragement of her boys' ambitions comes across sometimes as nastily-underhanded criticism of her husband (who for much of canon is in an unrespected dead-end job, which he doesn't WANT to move out of because it allows him unauthorized access to his Muggle toys--even while his wife is scraping to make ends meet for their children).

And we see at least 3 of their children, maybe 4 (who was it that made the remark about plug collecting?) express disrespect of Arthur for it.

Re: Functional couples

[oryx_leucoryx]

But yes, at least it is canon that Molly and Arthur don't abuse their house elf. Good for them!

Now I need to know how things would have turned out if instead of going with Dobby to Hogwarts Winky had ended up doing Molly's laundry.

Molly's House-Elf

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

I'm still working to complete the tale of Harry's first week at Hogwarts, I don't NEED a bunny for another drabble.

Re: Functional couples

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

You have me wondering now why Winky couldn't go work for the Weasleys. Ron says that his family can't afford a house-elf, but what would be the costs involved in taking in Winky? She wasn't asking for payment. Would they still have had to pay Crouch for her even though he had given her clothes?

Re: Functional couples

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Well, I think oryx's point was more that Molly's encouragement of her boys' ambitions comes across sometimes as nastily-underhanded criticism of her husband --

I didn't see that in Oryx's original comment; probably because I never saw that in the books either. Percy knocked his dad's lack of ambition, sure, but can you tell me if Molly ever did? Or if she actually *defended* him to Percy? I'm not even sure what book it was in, otherwise I'd go look.

We don't see Draco trying to use one parent to do a side run around the other.

We don't see much of Draco with both his parents at all!

I think you're trying to extrapolate too much from too little. We see a lot of the Weasleys, hardly anything of Draco with both his parents.

I do think that both Lucius and Narcissa by 1981 entirely agreed with you that joining that Dark Lord fellow's organization was the worst possible error of judgment on Lucius's part.

Where do you get that from? All the Malfoys were touting the party line up until book 7, as far as I can recall. Or book 6.

if the dark lord was around they had to "support the dark lord's depredations.

Well, no, they didn't. Or at least they could have thought about it. But no, Lucius was back in the graveyard split seconds after Riddle was reincarnated.

the Weasleys brought up at least 3 bullies

I once called Ginny ver 2.0 a 'bully' only to be corrected by a devout canon-thumper. Ginny didn't go around looking for weak people to torment; she only exhibited bullying behaviour when the poor little darlin' was put out by someone.

The twins, though, I think you've got a case there.

As to point b: the Weasleys brought up at least 3 bullies ... and a boy whose response to the disorder in his family life is to become morbidly obsessed with rules and order (Percy).

But all of this pales in comparison to a boy who's raised to desire the deaths of innocent children (based on their blood), who tries to murder, who brings in terrorists. If the Weasleys were bad parents then the Malfoys were abominations!

Arthur "I'll get your brother off from charges if you get my family tickets to Top Seats at the World Cup" Wealey is as guilty of partaking of the WW's general corruption as Lucius;

Nice one ...

... he just has less leverage to exploit.

So we'll never know if he'll sink to the depths of Malfoy. Hopefully he would not have.

(Do we actually see any adult in the WW who doesn't partake of the general corruption?)

It's pretty bad, isn't it? I thought my outlook on the Ministry as a hive of corruption was influenced by all the fanfics, but you've prompted me to think it's canon after all.

Lucius's choices once the dark lord was back

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Of course, you're entirely correct. Lucius had every opportunity to emulate Severus, turn his cloak too, and start working for Twinkles. Of course, the only sure way to protect Narcissa and Draco from the Dark Lord's reprisals would have been to kill them, but hey! The Lucius we see in canon would have had no problems with tossing a few AKs at hie best beloveds.

Of course, being sent to Azkaban for their murders might have inhibited his potential usefulness to The Right Side....

Bother! There's always something.

Thanks, by the way: you've inspired me with a drabble about Karkaroff. His last precaution before he went on the run....

Re: Functional couples

[oryx_leucoryx]

Or if she actually *defended* him to Percy?

The one time she defends Arthur that I remember she is more apologizing for him to Albus, in Harry's presence (in the hospital wing in GOF). I don't remember her defending him to Percy (or the twins, or Ron, neither of whom respect Arthur any more than Percy does), but I can't swear she doesn't. Albus is looking for how many troops he can gather for his cause. So in this context one can read Molly as saying 'of course we'll support you, look what a sacrifice in status Arhtur has always made for your cause' or 'sorry we can't help much with the recruitment effort, Arthur isn't all that influential because he has this odd hobby that keeps him behind'. And we know what Molly thinks of Muggles from PS.

Where do you get that from? All the Malfoys were touting the party line up until book 7, as far as I can recall. Or book 6.,/i>

Where do you see them supporting Voldemort except under duress? It seems Lucius wanted to oust Albus and probably topple Fudge's Ministry (who would have been held responsible for further monster attacks once both Hagrid and Albus were gone from Hogwarts? Who was being accused for the QWC riots?) but his attack on Muggles stopped at terrorizing convenient victims, nor is it clear if and how much of a threat he believed the diary would be to Muggle-born students at Hogwarts. IOW his proven independent acts are bad but in a very limited way - he doesn't go out to seek more victims, and he does stop short of physically harming them, let alone killing them (similar to the claims of Sirius apologists that he only wanted to scare Severus). That is a far cry from the claim that DEs wantonly killed Muggles for fun. And when he faces kids at the Ministry - shouldn't partyline touting Lucius just go and torture Hermione or one of the Weasleys to get the prophecy from Harry? But that's all Bellatrix's idea.

Well, no, they didn't. Or at least they could have thought about it. But no, Lucius was back in the graveyard split seconds after Riddle was reincarnated.

Of course he was. He has brains. And a heart. And a family. What he didn't have was a contingency plan.

Re: Functional couples

[oryx_leucoryx]

But all of this pales in comparison to a boy who's raised to desire the deaths of innocent children (based on their blood), who tries to murder, who brings in terrorists. If the Weasleys were bad parents then the Malfoys were abominations!

We don't know he desired any of that. He only kept up with the plan in HBP because he was terrified for his mother, who was within easy grasp of Voldemort (when did he move into the Manor? And when did Bellatrix?) Sirius tells Peter he should have died before betraying his friends, but would we sympathize with Sirius if he had told Peter he should have also sacrificed his mother?

Re: Functional couples

[sunnyskywalker]

a boy whose response to the disorder in his family life is to become morbidly obsessed with rules and order (Percy)

I take issue with that adjective! Because I am overly protective of Percy :D But really, how many instances can you really say Percy acts morbidly obsessed with rules? In the first book, he frowns a bit and wonders why Dumbledore didn't explain what's up with the 3rd-floor corridor, because he thought usually these sorts of things have explanations, and that's the end of it. Mostly while in school he tries to enforce the rules like not wandering around where you aren't supposed to be after hours - which, given how often Hogwarts is infested with monsters and dark lords and mass murderers, does not seem all that unreasonable. (And Ron and Harry really were up to no good when he caught them wandering around the dungeons.) He is a bit overzealous on the subject of cauldron bottoms - but again, given how dangerous we see Potions actually is, he might not be far off about how important cauldron bottom regulations are. And it's his first job - lots of people go overboard trying to do the best possible job in those circumstances and aren't morbid about anything. Not having witnessed Umbridge's blood-quill etc., he seems to be in favor of her efforts to evaluate and shape up the Hogwarts teaching staff - which, as most of us have pointed out, really is in a sorry state, as he would know from recent experience. He believes the Ministry about Harry being a bit unstable and wrong about Voldemort returning - which doesn't require mindless obedience to authority to believe, does it? If fifteen years from now some kid you knew had been through traumatic battles with monsters and criminals popped up saying Osama bin Laden had returned from the dead and killed his classmate, it isn't so out of line to be suspicious and consider that this kid is not very sociable and prone to massively reckless things like flying a car to school instead of waiting two minutes for the adults to get back. Also that there was a perfectly good candidate there (Crouch Jr.) to have done it and who might have damaged Harry's mind compelling him to believe this other story (and that's if Harry himself didn't do it).

So. A bit too trusting and enthusiastic about rules? Sure, and a bit too heavy on the flattery sometimes too. Morbidly so? Nah, I don't think so. Especially since we also know he has no problem sneaking off with his secret girlfriend to make out in empty classrooms, making bets over Quidditch, and jumping into a lake to make sure his brother is okay in front of his everyone (not very professional!) when he's no doubt been assured that it's a perfectly safe competition. And I don't think we ever heard him say that Fred and George shouldn't throw snowballs at poor Professor Quirrell either, for that matter. I think the bigger problem is the toxic family dynamic which prompts him to cut ties with his family for a couple of years (except for that letter to Ron). Stomping off to join another team in a huff, when you have at least some reason to believe that the other team is at least not worse than your family's and possibly a bit better, isn't the same as being morbidly obsessed with rules. Nor is having a bit of ambition :D

That Lucius ever engaged in bribery is baseless slander

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Come to think of it, we don't ever in canon see Lucius engage in bribery--that's Harry's spin on what's going on. It's possible that he might be doing so off the page (certainly my reading of the character allows it), but we have no evidence at all he ever has.

Here's the legal definition:

"The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.

The expectation of a particular voluntary action in return is what makes the difference between a bribe and a private demonstration of goodwill."

One: we see Lucius give large sums of money, but we never see him specifying any particular actions in return. Two: he doesn't make anonymous donatations to Fudge's re-election fund (or Gringotts vault)--he donates to St. Mungo's and to other WW philanthropic organizations! Openly. Publicly. Flaunting his wealth and his devotion to the well-being of wizard-kind.

Sorry, Lucius clinking his bags of gold was a private demonstration of goodwill. And let's face it, when someone who is filthy rich DOESN'T donate largely to charities, only spending money on their own family's desires, we say OTHER nasty things about them, don't we? Like how selfish they are, with no regard to the good of the community?

(Pause to observe here that if Sirius Black could access the family vault to buy Harry a racing broom, he could have been making regular donations to St. Mungo's too, to try to rehabilitate his name.... Or to S.P.I.T.--the Society for Prevention of Incarceration without a Trial.)

And what Lucius got from his charitable donations was, in fact, quite clear in canon--and non-specific, as befits a non-bribe. Fudge believed Lucius to be a fine upstanding fellow and wouldn't listen to wild slanders cast by Lucius's political enemies.

But when Lucius was finally CAUGHT as a Death Eater, not all his past generosity kept him from Azkaban. We don't even know that it purchased him a trial.

Re: That Lucius ever engaged in bribery is baseless slander

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I get the impression that many readers assume that he must have used bribery in order to stay out of Azkaban after the first war. But there's no actual evidence in canon to support that theory.

Also, many readers believe Hermione's accusation that Lucius bought Draco's position on the Slytherin quidditch team with the Nimbus 2001 brooms. Since Hermione often functions as JKR's avatar, she could be right, but we're never given any evidence in canon to support her claim. The fact that Draco seems to be the only seeker that ever gives Harry any real competition would suggest that he earned his spot on the team.

Re: That Lucius ever engaged in bribery is baseless slander

[oryx_leucoryx]

I get the impression that many readers assume that he must have used bribery in order to stay out of Azkaban after the first war.

Why would he need to do so? That he remained free to make his claim of turning over and Imperius plea after Halloween 1981 meant he was never caught in the act. I doubt the Ministry had any evidence against him besides possibly something Severus may have said (which would have been 'I recognized Lucius while masked, I saw him at a gathering' noting more.) Even Igor doesn't say a thing about him. So all he had to do was claim he was forced to join.

Re: That Lucius ever engaged in bribery is baseless slander

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

It's at times like this that I most particularly wish I had a memory like Oryx's so I could specify the exact lines where Malfoy was accused of bribery. Sadly, all I have is my overall impression that that was the case.

But when Lucius was finally CAUGHT as a Death Eater, not all his past generosity kept him from Azkaban. We don't even know that it purchased him a trial.

True. I guess in 1980 he wasn't caught in the act, simply found to have the Dark Mark, and that's how he was able to buy himself a pardon on that occasion. ;-)

Re: Comment #1 of 2

[oryx_leucoryx]

Regarding the Malfoys, I can think of RL people whom I consider scum of the earth for their political extremism, who are considered war criminals by many, or in one case a man who wantonly sacrificed his soldiers while lying to his superiors in order to promote a personal agenda - but who were dedicated to their respective spouses. That's what I mean when I differentiate politics and personal relationship.

Re: Comment #1 of 2

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"But when they were on top of society they (a) were bad guys, supporting the dark lord's depredations,"

They don't seem overly keen on trying to bring Voldemort back pre-GOF, IMHO, and don't seem particularly enthusiastic when he does return, so whatever support they give him seems (at least by the time the books start) to be more due to fear of what will happen if they desert than desire to actually help him.

Also, I personally have a hard time criticising the Malfoys for their pureblood supremacy, because that's so obviously a result of growing up in wider society, rather than any particular moral failing on their part. We know that the good guys are fine with the idea of enslaving and oppressing entire species (house-elves being the obvious example, although we never really see anyone making much of a fuss about the way goblins or centaurs are treated, either), and that they look down on muggles just as much as the purebloods do (Arthur Weasley, who is apparently a muggle-loving crank, speaks of them like a cross between amusing pets and small children).* All the supremacists do is take these two features of wizarding society to their logical conclusion -- "Hey, maybe we should rule over this group of inferior beings, too" -- rather than talk of muggles as if they're utterly beneath them, but then hypocritically criticise anybody who states this attitude explicitly.

[* In fact, one could argue that the good guys look down on muggles more than the pureblood supremacists do. Yes the Death Eaters seem to hate muggles, but it seems to me like there's an undercurrent of fear driving this hatred -- they know that muggles could, if they found out about wizarding society, pose a serious threat to wizards, so the wizarding world needs to launch a pre-emptive strike to stop this from happening. The idea of muggles posing any sort of threat would be completely alien to somebody who thinks of them as Arthur does; it would be interesting to see how he'd think of muggles if he actually did credit them with the ability to threaten the WW.]

"and (b) they brought up Draco to be a cowardly murdering type of person."

That's a bit of a harsh judgement on young Draco, I must say. He only trys to murder anybody when Voldemort is essentially holding his family hostage, and he shows no enjoyment of his task. As for the rest of his behaviour, he actually seems like a better person than Harry in some areas (not that that would be difficult, mind). In his first scene he tries to befriend this scruffy kid dressed in ill-fitting second-hand muggle clothes, who's clearly not a member of the swish pureblood set which Malfoy comes from, which hardly seems the behaviour of a snobbish bigot. Most of his actions in the rest of the series consist of him making mildly insulting remarks to a group of children who he doesn't get on with; if that makes the Malfoys dysfunctional, then show me a family which isn't dysfunctional.

"Abusing their house elves,"

Doesn't Dobby say that they mostly leave him to get on with punishing himself? Maybe they'll punish him if he doesn't, but it wouldn't be OOC for Dobby to punish himself of his own volition, IMHO.

[Apologies if the above is a bit incoherrent; it's late, and I really need to go to bed.]

Re: Comment #1 of 2

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

They don't seem overly keen on trying to bring Voldemort back pre-GOF, IMHO, and don't seem particularly enthusiastic when he does return -

Lucius turns up in the graveyard about two nanoseconds after his dark master sends out the call. That's enthusiasm!

There's never a sign of the Malfoys equivocating over their position in the forthcoming war. Never a hint of them considering what safety might lie in joining the Order. No attempt to open discussions with Dumbledore and his crew.

Also, I personally have a hard time criticising the Malfoys for their pureblood supremacy, because that's so obviously a result of growing up in wider society, rather than any particular moral failing on their part. We know that the good guys are fine ...

Pointing out that the 'good guys' have their faults doesn't exonerate the Malfoys for their sins. Whatever grievances you have against wizarding society you must also hold against the Malfoys ... PLUS their pureblood supremacy stance. The Malfoys still come out as even-more-evil. :-)

Most of his actions in the rest of the series consist of him making mildly insulting remarks ...

... which show that he is a 'cowardly murdering type of person'. We Hermione fans will NEVER forget his gloating over forthcoming murder, you know. :-)

Plus you're conveniently forgetting various cowardly attacks (on the Express, etc) as well.

Doesn't Dobby say that they mostly leave him to get on with punishing himself?

I don't know. And either way, they're responsible for abusing their poor house elf. SHAME, Malfoys! SHAME!