“The Seven Potters” Fight: Remorseless Killers Versus Conscience-Hampered Heroes

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Recall (those of you who can bear to recall anything about DH) that flight and fight scene in chapter four. Harry and the Order, outnumbered over two to one (where, by the way, is the twenty to one ratio Lupin had claimed to have been typical?), heroically fight off the AK-wielding villains while never descending to their base tactics. The “blaze,” “flares,” and “bursts” of green light shot by the Death Eaters are repeatedly stressed by JKR. How evil of the Death Eaters, using the Killing Curse as their spell of preference! How brave and noble Harry and his supporters were, using mere Stunners and motorcycle tricks to fight back (mostly successfully) against Ultimate Evil! Precursor of Harry refusing to AK Voldie at the end, right? That’s the Harry we like to believe in, loyal, noble, and merciful like his father, refusing to kill even when killing most seems justified!



Well, maybe not.

First off, of course, although we know that at least one of the green flashes WAS an AK (the one that caught Hedwig), canon doesn’t actually specify that Avada Kedavra is the only green-flashing spell ever used in combat. So we don’t actually know for sure that those are all AK’s being cast, though Harry in his ignorance assumes so (and blithely identifies them as such to us).

But let’s just assume Harry’s right about that, and see what that assumption entails.

Hagrid’s burst of acceleration on the motorbike quickly pulled that pair away from the others, pursued only by four enemies. When Harry looked back at the “masses of people” left behind, he saw only “flares of green light”—no other colors. So either none of the rest of the Order was fighting back, or none was using any spells that produced any visible “flash,” or, er, … the Order was throwing AKs back at their attackers.

(Considering Lupin’s comments in the next chapter, this is at least plausible of him.)

After that we only follow Harry and Hagrid, but of them we can say for sure: they never cast Avada Kedavra; nor any other curse (Entrail-Expelling, Sectumsempra…) whose effect is normally lethal. Let’s assume the same to be true of the rest of the Order, and let’s further assume the DE’s were all casting (almost only) AKs.

What can we say, on each side, about their motives? What did they intend in using the spells they did? What, in short, were the intended and predictable results of what they cast?

Well, for the intended, predictable results of Harry’s spells, let’s skip forward a chapter and let him speak for himself. What was Harry’s stated reason for switching abruptly to Expelliarmus when he identified Stan Shunpike among the DE’s attacking him?

“We were hundreds of feet up! Stan’s not himself, and if I Stunned him and he’d fallen, he’d have died the same as if I’d used Avada Kedavra!” (DH, Chapter 5)

Er, yes, Harry. That would be correct. Good boy! That shows a grasp of elementary physics and human physiology that I wasn’t quite sure you had. If you drop a human body from hundreds of feet in the air, it will hit the ground—or impale itself on a tree, or whatever—with substantially more force than that human body can survive.

If you Stun someone flying on a broom “hundreds of feet” in the air, you’ve just murdered that person. By a method that requires considerably less training, magical force, and focus than casting a successful AK does, according to canon.

And if the Harry of little brain understood this, certainly the brighter members of the Order knew it too. Moreover, if Harry understood this with regard to Stan, he understood it also with regard to all those anonymous Death Eaters whom Harry WAS completely willing to Stun in mid-air and let fall to die.

Harry and the Order were not being more merciful than the Death Eaters; they were being more efficient.

Now, efficiency is often claimed to be a virtue (ask Percy). But not often a moral virtue, at least not by its victims. The great claim of the Fascists, after all, was that they made the trains run on time.

The Death Eaters, of course, did not have that easier, more efficient means of murder-by-Stunner available to them, not if Moody’s supposition that they’d been ordered to kill as many protectors—but never Potters—as possible were correct. Their targets were all in pairs; if someone stunned the non-Harry in a pair, the Harry could just grab him. Only a lethal curse could take out a Protector without his Harry saving him. Or there might have been orders from Himself to use those distinctively-colored AK’s to terrorize the enemy….

I could imagine Moody cold-bloodedly evaluating the situation and telling the Order before they all descended on Privet Drive, “If it comes to a fight, and it probably will, remember that if you disarm or disable an enemy, he’ll be out of this fight, true, but he’ll be back fighting us tomorrow. No, if it comes to that, best to kill as many as we can. But no need to waste energy on an curse if they’re chasing us by broom; just Stun or Petrify or Stop as many as possible and let ‘em fall. Let their families or some Muggles search out their splattered remains. It‘s a better end than scum like that deserve anyhow.”

Harry, of course, performed no such analysis. But he instinctively used spells that he knew would kill his enemies in these specific circumstances. Without his ever having to see or think about (or take emotional or, apparently in Jo’s view, moral, responsibility for) their deaths.

(Just as, you may recall, when Harry ended the standoff with Lucius and the Death Eaters at the Department of Mysteries by initiating the violence, he ordered his followers to attack using a spell which, while not in itself lethal, would in the circumstances probably seriously injure or kill some of the enemy. And it worked—the elderly Nott was critically injured when the children crashed the Prophecy Barn shelves down on him, and we were never explicitly told whether he survived.

Pulling down shelves of junk to crush him was, of course, one of the ways Vincent Crabbe explicitly tried to kill Ron in the RoR at the end of DH. Evil, evil Crabbe! I forget, was Vince’s dad among those buried and almost killed by Our Heroes’ gallant Reductos two years earlier? Oh look, it’s canon that he was! See, Crabbe, like Malfoy, steals all his best ideas from the Trio.)

We got the Order’s full list of casualties in “The Fallen Warrior,” DH chapter five. Moody, killed by Voldemort himself. Harry’s owl, killed in the first melee by we-don’t-see-who. And George’s ear, cursed off by Snape by mistake.

What casualties were there on the other side? We weren’t present for the Death Eater post-engagement reunion, so we’ll never have a full list. Still, we can count up what we see.

Of the initial four who set off chasing the Hagrid-Harry pair, one fell, his broom “shattered,” when he hit the brick wall that Hagrid’s first button emitted. A comrade tried to save this first victim--whether successfully or not, we don’t know, but probably not, as the comrade appeared—without a passenger—only a few moments later (time enough only for two lobbies of AK, for Harry to fire a few Stunners back, and for Hagrid to hit the next button to expel the net).

Harry himself later knocked one enemy off his broom with Impedimenta, and blasted another off his by blowing up the sidecar with Hedwig’s corpse in it. (Harry “knew a dreadful, gut-wrenching pang for Hedwig as it exploded.” Empathic Harry!)

The last of the four “fell back and vanished” at this point—we don’t know whether that meant he had an attack of cowardice and pulled out of the fight, that he was shaken off his broom by Harry’s blast’s shockwave, or that he lost control of his broom momentarily in the shockwave (but had at least a chance of regaining control before he actually crashed and died).

Two more enemies then appeared; Harry shot “Stunner after Stunner” at them until Stan’s hood slipped, then he switched to Expelliarmus. At that point the other one shouted “That’s him, it’s him, it’s the real one!” and they both ceded pursuit to the Dark Lord.

Who eventually appeared with several more Death Eaters in his train, one of whom Harry “stunned” (killed) immediately, and another of whom Hagrid “launched himself at.” The entwined pair both fell. The half-giant eventually proved to have survived, to Harry’s astonishment.

Presumably the full-human did not. Especially if he’d landed underneath. Not that this death seems to burden Hagrid’s conscience.

Remarkable, isn’t it, the impressions Jo can convey by mere judicious omissions?

So. Hagrid apparently killed two of the enemy. Harry tried earnestly to kill at least eight, succeeded in killing three and may have managed a fourth. Of, apparently, a total complement of nine Death Eaters chasing them plus Tommy himself. (Whom Harry didn’t actually ever try for.) Stan, Stan’s companion, and Selwyn were the only certain survivors among those chasing Harry.

Three (minimum), five (most likely) or six (possible) out of nine pursuers, killed. Quite intentionally. Harry and Hagrid were not trying to disable or disarm their enemies; they were trying to kill.

If the other Order members had anything like a similar success rate with their “non-lethal” spells, the Dark Lord had a lot of recruiting to do after that night. (And he must have already been scraping the bottom of the barrel. I mean, Stan Shunpike? Next after that must be Gilderoy!)

Now, I’m not saying the Order was wrong to use lethal force against people who were using lethal force against them. (There are such committed pacifists, but while I admire Gandhi, I haven’t myself the courage to follow him quite so far.) I’m saying, essentially, that Jo once more was cheating as an author, slanting her writing to portray one side as conscienceless killers and the other as better, more merciful, and more noble when in fact that side’s actions, when analyzed carefully, tell another story entirely.

And Remus was being at best disingenuous when he adjured Harry, “At least Stun if you aren’t prepared to kill!” (DH5)

No, Remus, no, Jo, casting a Stunner or Impedimenta in an aerial battle only LOOKS more noble and merciful than casting Avada Kedavra. Judging by the results (one fatality among fourteen combatants, versus three to six among nine), knocking people off their brooms midair is apparently a considerably more effective means of killing. It’s also much slower than Avada Kedavra, more messy, and much more horrifying and in the end painful for those victims who were still conscious while they fell—as were, in the event, apparently several of Hagrid’s and Harry’s victims.

Translate it to Muggle terms. Two sides are struggling on the top of a skyscraper. One side tries to shoot the second; the other doesn’t use their guns, but does try, successfully, to push most of side one’s fighters off the building to fall to a horrible death. Side two may be justified on grounds of self-defense, but they certainly aren’t less violent.

Of course, there is one difference that we mustn’t forget. If a magical victim is conscious, retains hir wand (not established for any of the victims we saw, and rather unlikely), and is able to concentrate in adverse circumstances, s/he might be able to Apparate to safety. So knocking someone off a broom in midair is not a 100% certain method of murder. However, Stunning someone in midair is, and Stunners were mostly what Harry cast.

Now compare Harry’s bag to Kingsley’s: “Followed by five, injured two, might’ve killed one.” (DH5) Kingsley, apparently, was fighting to disable, whereas Harry was trying to kill.

Tonks, similarly, “injured” Rodolphus while Bellatrix tried, but obviously failed, to kill Tonks.

Ron, on the other hand, killed his target: “Stunned one of the Death Eaters, straight to the head.” (DH5)

Hmm, the two post-VoldWar Aurors preferred to go for disabling their opponents, while both boys struck to kill.

Harry and Ron will, indeed, reform the Auror’s office.

*

Let’s compare the final scores for everyone:

Hagrid & Harry: followed by nine, definitely killed three, probably killed two more, may have killed still another, three certainly alive (one of whom was Stan, deliberately spared by Harry). Themselves injured, but not incurably, by their own actions.

Kingsley: followed by five, injured two, maybe killed a third. Two definitely escaped unharmed.

Tonks: followed by at least three, injured one. Ron killed another. At least one escaped unharmed.

Voldemort: killed one.

Snape: injured one in friendly fire (trying to disable a DE).

Thirty-odd other Death Eaters: followed fourteen, seriously injured none, killed none. Killed one owl (if that was a DE’s AK rather than Voldemort’s; Hedwig was killed in the initial melee BEFORE Hagrid had blasted through the DE’s circle, so she might count towards Tom’s total). All pursued escaped unharmed.

Boy, the more closely we examine the results, the more ruthless and depraved those conscienceless killers look, don’t they?


*

Finally, let’s look at the Death Eaters’ possible motives. Jo tried hard to convince us that the Death Eaters relied almost exclusively on Avada Kedavra that night. And the possible implications of that are really quite… interesting.

The Death Eaters had all been told, not two weeks earlier, that the Dark Lord, himself, must be the one to finish Potter. “I must be the one to kill Harry Potter, and I shall be.” (DH 1) But in Chapter Four, when he finally caught up with the real Harry, the Dark Lord actually had to scream at one overzealous follower, “Mine!”

So… what did the brighter Death Eaters make of Voldemort’s insistence that HE must kill Harry, and NOT with his own wand?

Snape, of course, knew that Dumbledore had insisted that “Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential,” (DH33) And there must be more reason than just “The prophecy said so.” Severus likely thought that Dumbledore’s theory was that only Voldemort’s death strike was guaranteed to destroy Voldemort’s soul-fragment in the boy, that Voldemort essentially must kill himself for it to work right.

As to why Voldemort should believe that “I must be the one…” Voldemort had probably fallen for yet another of Dumbledore’s scams. In fact it was likely Severus himself who set Voldemort up for this particular one. A plausible story might be that Dumbledore thought that Harry kept surviving in part because of the powers Voldemort had accidentally transferred to the boy when he gave him that scar, and that if the boy was killed those powers would transfer to the killer. Just as Voldemort had wanted Harry’s blood for the enemy’s portion of the resurrection potion in order to steal Lily’s blood-protection, so he’d want any power transferred by Harry’s death to come (or come back) to him.

But when you step back and consider, once you factor in that the prophesied one was supposed to have “power the Dark Lord knows not” which would supposedly give him “the power to vanquish the Dark Lord,” any question of Harry’s death transferring power to his killer would be, well, rather worrying to Tom, wouldn’t it?

What did Tom think would happen if a less-than-loyal servant killed Harry Potter? (And we know from Tom’s “stench of guilt” diatribe in the graveyard that he considered most of his servants--all of those then at large—to have proved their disloyalty by never having tried to revive him. Only Barty and the Lestranges were actually singled out as having proved their devotion. Even Azkaban inmates Dolohov, Travers, and their ilk, though released when Tom broke-out the loyal Lestranges, were probably treated as useful, but not necessarily trusted, servants.)

Would Tom exactly relish the thought of a disloyal servant, perhaps an ambitious one who’d previously tried making a private play for power, suddenly attaining “the power to vanquish the Dark Lord”?

Yes, Lucius, we’re looking at you. Though probably not only at you, and I do think that the Lucius we saw in DH was too broken to have made the attempt. There’s undoubtedly a reason, though, why Voldemort so relentlessly made an example of Lucius before the other Death Eaters.

There’s nothing that says that “the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord” won’t just BECOME a new Dark Lord, after all. Or, maybe worse, hide his murder of Harry and use his public betrayal and defeat of You-Know-Who to establish himself as a hero in the public eye. The Wizard Who Lived!

(Dolores_Crane’s wonderful AU [from OotP] fiction “In Loco Parentis” features a Lucius who, the moment he realizes Voldemort is failing yet again to kill Potter in their current confrontation, steps forward himself and offs his erstwhile master—and subsequently successfully parlays this heroic, if a trifle last-minute, defection into an Order of Merlin and an extremely serious play to become the next Minister of Magic. I won’t tell you whether he’s successful, you’ll have to read the story… http://archiveofourown.org/works/109558/chapters/151674 )


What if some of the brightest, most ruthless, most ambitious Death Eaters (some of them were Slytherins, right?) thought something along those lines?

But here’s another twist. What if some of the disillusioned Death Eaters, hopeful or desperate, decided that Voldemort’s declaration that “I must be the one to kill Harry Potter” might mean that Potter’s death in the wrong circumstances would weaken the Dark Lord in some way? Destroy his linked wand or something? Maybe even make it explode in his face? Take some or all of his powers with it? Maybe even destroy that ersatz body made with Potter’s blood and by the power of that twin-to-Potter’s wand? The Dark Lord was very emphatic, after all, and he’d recently spent a lot of time torturing Ollivander for esoteric information on wandlore and twinned wands….

Regulus Black, remember, was willing to commit an agonizing suicide for the mere hope of destroying Voldemort’s Horcrux and making him finally vulnerable to destruction. (Of course poor Regulus didn’t realize that Voldemort had more than one.) Killing someone else for the same high purpose? There are people who would. You know, like Albus. Though it’s harder if you have to raise your own wand.

Either way, there were an awful lot of AK’s flying around that night, weren’t there? A whole blaze of them, in fact. And quite a few of them barely missed hitting Harry.

Indeed, when the sidecar was torn from the bike and Harry was alone, levitating it “like a cork” for a while, “the remaining Death Eater shot a curse so close to Harry that he had to duck below the rim of the car, knocking out a tooth on the edge of his seat—”

Hagrid showed up a moment later coming back for Harry, so maybe the curse was aimed past Harry at the returning Hagrid. But it’s quite plausible to read that as someone targeting Harry.

For whatever reason we might care to assign to that anonymous DE. But the one thing we know for certain is, obedience to his Lordship’s explicit orders was not among the possible reasons.

And then when the Dark Lord’s group did catch up at last with Harry and Hagrid, we’re told, “a Death Eater appeared on either side of the bike, two Killing Curses missed Harry by millimeters, cast from behind—” If one was cast by Voldemort, the other one must have been cast by that third Death Eater accompanying him. Selwyn? Is that who Voldemort had to remind, “Mine!” a minute later?

Because that’s the last thing to keep in mind about Avada Kedavra versus other spells. It’s not so much that it’s unblockable (a statue or desk or wall can block it!), it’s that a Shield Charm won’t deflect it and if it touches you—well, you’re dead, that’s all. Not dying, not even dying quickly, not even dying too quickly to reasonably save. Dead. Nothing anyone can do about it.

If a Death Eater hit the wrong target with a Stunner, a Harry rather than a Protector, the Harry’s partner could still grab him and keep him on the broom/Thestral/bike. Even if a Harry were hit by a killing curse other than the AK, the Dark Lord’s minions could still possibly keep him alive long enough for Voldemort to be the one to finish him off.

But if Harry were hit, purely by accident of course, with an AK, he’d be dead. Instantly. And the Dark Lord has emphatically stated that he only wants Potter dead by his own hands (and yet not by his own wand).

Are we quite, quite sure that everyone throwing AK’s that night was doing so with the Dark Lord’s best interests at heart?

Dear Harry, of course, sincerely believes that the WW divides neatly into two parts: those who uncritically love and support Dumbledore and his protégé Harry, and those irremediably evil souls who are willing slaves to Lord Voldemort.

The rest of us, though, know that people come in more colors. Someone could, in theory, sincerely will Harry’s death without wishing for Tom’s ultimate triumph. Even, in fact, to prevent Tom’s ultimate triumph. Like Dumbledore, or the horrified Snape reluctantly acceding to Dumbledore’s schemes.

In fact, follow it through. Suppose someone—anyone—had killed Harry that night? What would have happened?

We have no reason to suppose that Voldemort’s response to Harry’s death in Chapter 4 would be different than in Chapter 34: a short loss of consciousness. But in Chapter 4, Tom wasn’t standing among his DE’s with loving Bella at his right hand. He was gallivanting through the air at great height, flying without a broom. Loyal Bellatrix and her husband were off hunting Bella’s niece.

So, splat.

No more new body.

Not that old Flight-from-death would actually be dead, not with several Horcruxes still intact, but he’d be reduced to that weak, bodiless spirit fleeing back to Albania with no power except to possess animals and people. (And by his description in GoF—which his so-loyal DE’s all heard, was that really quite wise of you, Tommy?--the shock and pain of discorporating is so overwhelming Tom wouldn’t have the presence of mind to do that even much for quite some little time.)

And the Ministry had not yet fallen, and Snape could leak to Kingsley and the Order (via Phineas’s and the other former Hogwarts Heads’ portraits, using Dumbledore’s as his front and authority) information on who in the Ministry had been suborned or Imperiused and who and where the other DE’s were, and the Horcrux Hunt could have been taken up by competent, trained adults instead of turned into a DE-dodging camping trip by idiots who couldn’t even figure out that using an Item-of-Power-turned-into-a-Horcrux in the exact way that the original Item was meant to be used might maybe, conceivably, make one vulnerable to the Horcrux’s influence…

Sigh. I think Selwyn’s my new hero. If only he’d aimed one more millimeter to the right!

*

Finally, turn it around the other way. A “blaze” of green light when the seven Potters and their seven escorts rose into Tom’s trap, and only Moody and Hedwig were killed?

Cast your mind back to our first encounter with the curse, Barty Junior’s demonstration to the thrilled Gryffindors. “Avada Kedavra’s a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it—you could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I’d get so much as a nosebleed.” (GoF14)

Moody was killed by Tom. Hedwig was killed, we don’t know by who, but it was during the initial scrum when among those present and casting were Tom himself, Bellatrix, Rodolphus, Travers—all of whom we have canon evidence to be true baddies, actual murderers and torturers, not just assume to be evil because “they’re DE’s and all DE’s must have joined because they were already murderous psychopaths.”.

All of those other AK’s flying about, cast repeatedly by at least two dozen other people, enough to create “a blaze of green light”, and not a one of those other curses hit?

That’s… interesting aiming on the DE’s part. Real interesting.

Or…

Maybe some of them did hit. Avada Kedavra is only effective when you really mean it, after all. Otherwise all it does is shoot a jet of green light at someone. Harmless.

It doesn’t even cause a nosebleed. Barty said so.

If you don’t really want to harm your “enemy,” if you have qualms about which side you’re on in this fight (though you cannot dismount this particular dragon or you and all your loved ones will be horrifically killed), if you harbor any faintest doubts, even, about what you’re doing—then casting Avada Kedavra is the magical equivalent of shooting someone with a cap-pistol. You produce a noise and a flash, you might look from a distance like you’re dangerous (a five year old with a toy gun was once killed by a nervous cop), but you will do no harm at all.

It works that way, and you’d fully expect it to work that way, if you harbor any conscious scruples about your participation. Casting AK knowing you don’t really want to kill is like deliberately picking up the cap pistol instead of the adjacent loaded gun. Especially in an aerial fight where a mere Stunner kills quite effectively, thank you very much. But AK will also work that way (or rather will fail to work) if you simply have buried misgivings, hidden inner conflicts, that are serious enough. Your loaded weapon will then turn into a cap pistol on you without warning. In fact, you might or might not even realize that it had happened unless you actually saw your curse connect and do no damage.

And we never saw any Death Eater use a single other spell in that whole fight, did we? Except Snape (casting from behind a fellow Death Eater), and we know his motives.

Indeed, the overwhelming reliance on Avada Kedavra in that scene might almost make one wonder whether the Dark Lord might possibly have ordered his minions to use no spell but that. And if so, whose bright idea that originally was. And what hir motives might have been.


*

In conclusion, regarding the Death Eater’s motives, overt and hidden, in casting all those Killing Curses… Well, there’s no way to tell the motives of someone casting a sincere AK in Harry’s direction; s/he might be aiming poorly, forgetting instructions, or deliberately betraying the Dark Lord, for either evil or altruistic reasons. Moreoever, the only way to know whether a given Avada Kedavra was cast sincerely is if one actually watches the curse connect with a living body and witnesses the result—which we only once do. Hedwig’s killer, whoever that was, was sincerely trying to kill. Everyone else? We just don’t know.

Well, we do know that Stan was utterly sincere about the AK’s he was casting; he had no choice but to be. And I don’t think we have any real doubts about either Bellatrix or Severus’s intentions. But we find that we don’t actually have any information about most of the others, do we?

Except that, yet again, most of the Death Eaters either weren’t trying very hard, or weren’t trying very well, to kill their beloved Lord’s avowed enemies.

Harry’s intentions, however, we do know, because he admitted them when he explained why he changed to Expelliarmus once he recognized Stan. Every time he cast any other spell in that fight, he was trying to kill. And he frequently succeeded.

Remorseless killers versus conscience-hampered heroes, indeed.

*

Comments

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

Good article! :)

Also, I may just be suffering from movie contamination here, but wasn't Expelliarmus supposed to knock the target back as well as disarming them? In which case, using it on Stan would be every bit as dangerous as using Supefy or Avada Kedavra...

Expelliarmus!

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

It does when Severus casts it on Gilderoy; it does when the three kids cast it simultaneously on Severus in the Shack; it doesn't when James casts it on Severus in SWM. So... Consistency, Jo? S'posed to be a good thing?

Maybe one could argue it depends on the strength of the casting (as the Cruciatus does), but one would expect James to WANT to lay Snape flat as Severus later did Gilderoy.

Unless, of course, we want to infer that James simply wasn't all that good at that Charm.

Hey, that explanation works for me!

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Two more enemies then appeared; Harry shot “Stunner after Stunner” at them until Stan’s hood slipped, then he switched to Expelliarmus. At that point the other one shouted “That’s him, it’s him, it’s the real one!” and they both ceded pursuit to the Dark Lord.

So if Stan's hood hadn't slipped off, Harry would have blythely stunned him just as readily as any other DE.

And how does Harry know that other DEs in the group that night also weren't operating under the Imperius curse? He jumps to the conclusion that Stan Shunpike can't be a "real" DE because when he first met Stan a few years earlier, Stan had been nice to him. But that was before Voldemort returned, and for all we know Stan could have been a secret adherent of Voldemort's, perhaps his parents had been followers of Voldemort (if not outright DEs) in the first VoldieWar...

IOW, Harry makes decisions based solely on his own personal feelings, not necessarily on the facts. He "knows" that Stan can't be a real DE only because he likes Stan. But he never stops to consider just how many others flying amongst the DEs that night might also have been Imperiused to do so...

Blithely stunning

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Yes, Harry would have blithely killed Stan had his hood not slipped off.

And you're right, anyone that he did kill might also have been an Imperiused victim. And Stan, of course, might not have been... you forget to mention, even if Stan WASN'T a Dark Lord supporter initially, six month's false imprisonment might well have made him one. "You wanna overthrow the Ministry, your Dark Lordship? Count me in!"

But Harry does notice (at night by only the red light of his Stunner flashing by--what excellent eyesight that boy does have when the plot requires it) that Stan has a "strangely blank" face. As opposed, of course, to Stan's normal vacuous gape. So I think we're intended to understand here that Harry, as always, is infallible when he follows his heart.

Which means, of course, that those he did kill without the faintest trace of compunction did fully deserve to die. Otherwise his heart would have warned him to use Expelliarmus for them too!

I have to admit, if I'd been among the 14 I probably would have bought Moody's reasoning and cast Stunners. I doubt I could've cast AKs in any case, but I could probably have closed my heart to what would happen "after" and Stunned a pursuer.... That's actually what makes that specific spell so evil in this context. Easy to cast as long as you don't think too hard. And I certainly don't know any of the Aurors' spells for disabling a foe in aerial combat without killing them. But the difference is, I would have been haunted by nightmares of people falling at my wand for decades after. And one of the nightmares would have been, the hood slipping as my victim fell to reveal a friend's face....

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Wow. JKR really did do a good job of brushing over the fact that Harry and Hagrid may have killed up to six people. I honestly missed that fact. And I don't think I've ever seen it mentioned in post-war fanfics. The attitude in much of fandom seems to be that, even though Harry did some pretty awful things, he never actually killed anybody. But he did.

It's similar to how she brushes over the fact that Harry nearly killed Draco.

Harry quite possibly killed more people than Severus ever did since it's not written anywhere in canon that Severus ever killed anybody other than Dumbledore.

In fact, Harry also killed more people than Draco ever did since Draco never killed anybody. And we also don't have any evidence that Lucius ever killed anybody.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

P.S. I really enjoyed reading In Loco Parentis. Thanks for the link.

Harry's pure and pristine soul- SPLAT!

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Y'know, I rather think that Jo herself thinks that Harry (despite that boys-will-be-boys and I-never-meant-him-to-be-taken-for-a-Saint Cruciatus) remained pure of soul because he never killed.

I don't think she ever followed his Impedimenta, Confrigo, and Stupefy to the logical conclusion of the following SPLAT upon the ground.

And yet she wrote that he cast the last one, at least, completely knowingly. It's not even like Harry had a shocking epiphany when he saw Stan--"Wait, if I Stun Stan I'll kill him! Oops--what about those other guys, then? Better stick to Expelliarmus after this."

Because he Stunned one of the three wizards with Tom, after he'd consciously acknowledged that Stunning someone in midair was (attempted) murder. (And, as majorjune points out, after recognizing that any random hooded Death Eater attacking him might be Tom's Imperiused fellow-victim.)

Now let's think about how that soul-splitting thing worked. Did Harry's soul fragment when he cast the spell, or when his victim actually went SPLAT! on the ground?

Had to have been the splatting. After all, if someone had swooped after Harry's victims and caught them (as the one DE did try with Hagrid's first victim) Harry wouldn't have been a murderer at all. Just an attempted one. And if one's soul splits at every ATTEMPTED murder, Harry's is in teensy shards by the end of this chapter: he attempted to kill at least a dozen times.

So Tom's soul split at Hepzibah's death, not when he brewed the poison or Imperiused the poor Elf to administer it. Good to have that sorted.

Now if we can figure out the mechanism for my soul to respond instantaneously to an event I have no means of knowing is actually happening at this time....

Oh, well, it's magic!

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

The attitude in much of fandom seems to be that, even though Harry did some pretty awful things, he never actually killed anybody. But he did.

Harry quite possibly killed more people than Severus ever did...

In fact, Harry also killed more people than Draco ever did...

Harry was like Dumbledore. He never killed anybody if he could help it. That makes it OK. That and being a Gryffindor. ;-)

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

Great essay! I love how you expose these things that JKR's blithely skipped over, it really makes me see that battle in a whole new light.

One thing- if you harbor any faintest doubts, even, about what you’re doing—then casting Avada Kedavra is the magical equivalent of shooting someone with a cap-pistol.

I know AK's need a great deal of concentration and determination, etc. But didn't the Cruciatus as well? Isn't that why these are Unforgivables, because you can't cast them unless you REALLY MEAN IT and are overflowing with hatred and vindictive spite and desire to hurt others.

And yet Draco was able to cast it despite being 'petrified' and 'terrified'. I mean, he must've been out of his mind with fear for Harry to notice his emotions, but he was able to torture that guy anyway? (unless he was playacting- LOL, imagine the DE twitching and screaming his head off but really, Draco's curse has no effect on him). So from that, the AK might be effective anyway. Although it contradicts what JKR said in GoF. But y'know how she doesn't re-read her books. *eyeroll*

no need to waste energy on an curse

Except it takes no energy to cast curses. One of JKR's weaknesses with magical theory- if it takes no energy to cast or maintain a spell, I mean...obv in life-or-death duels, this doesn't apply, but in regular training duels or like, schoolyard fights, one could just throw up a Protego and sit tight for an hour or two or the rest of the day and nobody could touch you.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Probably would have worked better from the get-go if she had just put some limits on her magic. Otherwise it makes it pretty easy to get out of any dramatic situation she throws at them. BTW, it's been a while since I read the books, but why couldn't they just use Floo powder/disappearation/etc. to travel? Would have definitely been easier.

Casting the Unforgivables

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Right. Casting any of the Unforgivables (performing ANY "dark Arts") requires one to add an emotional commitment to the technical work: wave a wand in this specific pattern/mouth this incantation (mind your pronunciation!).

As Bella says: "You have to really mean it."

Except we saw with Harry that "meaning it sorta" will produce a "sorta meaning it" result. With the Cruciatus at least.

Harry hurts Bellatrix with his first Cruciatus Curse, but he doesn't incapacitate her, not the way she had disabled the Longbottoms.

But then, Harry wasn't trying to.

That's how the Avada Kedavra truly differs from the other two. The Imperius, the Cruciatus, a half-hearted attempt produces a half-hearted result: pain, but not overwhelming; an impulse to obey a suggestion, but not an overwhelming compulsion.

But death, now? There's no gradiant. A curse kills, or it doesn't.

A half-hearted attempt at the Cruciatus or the Imperius produces SOME effcct on the victim. A half-hearted one.

Any less than a whole-hearted attempt at an AK produces nothing.

You either want to kill your target stone dead, or you really don't, actually, when it comes right down to it at the end.

And this is the end. Choose. Cast.

And that's what you end up casting. Death, or nothing at all of consequence. An idle wish you admit you have no actual will to fulfill.

And the Dark Lord is grading your performance, and assessing your will.

Cast, and be judged.

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

What I want to know is whether Tom was using Lucius's wand to fly with. Because the amazing, fighting auto-wand completely shattered that one.

Did he go spat and bounce like Neville did when uncle Algy dropped him out the window? Or was he using his own yew wand to fly with and Lucius's to shoot curses with? And where in the books does it ever say that you *can* use two different wands to shoot two different spells at the same time.

The problem with DHs is that it was written for Warner Bros. The cartoon division of WB, at that.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Maybe you don't need a wand to fly. Lily didn't.

Comment #1 of 2

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I believe that Rowling wanted to keep Harry (and the Trio) 'pure' and innocent of killing; she went to some absurd lengths to ensure same. Inventing the ultimate deus ex machina of the Elder Wand. Having Harry essentially *invite* Voldemort to take his best shot ... resulting in Riddle's own curse being reflected back on him. Convenient, that.

Oh, and the horribly muddled once-off miracle of Harry's own wand locking into auto-pilot mode in the 7P fight; something that Rowling threw in there and then had Dumbledore try and explain/justify at the end. That 'gushing of golden fire' which saved Harry's bacon both shielded the boy from any need to defend himself (with deathly force) and also ensured that he continue to have no special magical power, no extraordinary skills, through to the end of the series. I think Rowling was even more desperate to keep Harry grounded as a barely competent wizard than she was to keep his and his friends' hands clean. Her primary aim in this series seemed to be to ensure that the Boy Who Lived was also the Boy Who Was No More Powerful Than Any Other Boy.

However, while I agree that Rowling took pains to keep Harry & Co's souls lily-white and unblemished, I don't understand your vehement enthusiasm in proving that they actually were killers. Rowling wasn't *sanctimonious* in her artificial plots to shield the kids from mortal sin. Dumbledore and Hermione never preached about how 'thou shalt not kill'. I don't think Rowling even tried to ram any of that home in her post-publication propaganda.

That’s the Harry we like to believe in, loyal, noble, and merciful like his father, refusing to kill even when killing most seems justified!

*shrugs*

I never got that strong a vibe from the series. Yes, Rowling employed some horrible writing and dei ex machina to get Harry across the finish line without practising *murder*; i.e.without killing with malice or deliberation (which Voldemort's death there at the end definitely would have been, as he could have easily been taken into custody rather than killed). I guess you're right in that she had Harry - and hopefully we readers - gloss over the fact that he possibly did kill some of the DEs he faced in the 7P battle. But as you've mentioned, she actually has Harry remind us that those DEs would have died:

"We were hundreds of feet up! Stan's not himself, and if I Stunned him and he'd fallen, he'd have died the same as if I'd used Avada Kedavra!

And no-one takes Harry to task over that. He simply draws the line at killing opponents who are likely innocent, rather than bona fide Death Eaters.

My vehement enthusiasm

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

You're right, I did get a little exercised here, didn't I? When I thought about why I felt so strongly, my thoughts started to spin off into several interesting directions which will be at least two more essays. But here's the first, and simplest answer: I feel that Jo tricked me, and I fell for it.

Instant hate!

I’m not a very visual person, and I almost never watch the kind of action-adventure movie that features characters pushing each other out of flying airplanes and off cliffs and so forth. The last time I saw such scenes regularly, it was when I was nine watching the Road Runner cartoons with my cheering brothers—and Wile E. Coyote always survived his falls. And Jo carefully never showed us anyone actually falling. So when I read DH chapter 4, the first time, and the second, and the tenth… I reacted viscerally to Harry’s utter serenity about his actions and didn’t stop to visualize their predictable effects. I read Jo’s descriptions of those flashes of red and green light (gee, which houses’ colors would those be?) and thought that she was still writing about a brave young boy who refused to return evil for evil, firing back at his would-be killers with spells that would incapacitate but not kill.

I believed we were still dealing with the boy who’d kept Lupin and Black from assassinating his parents’ betrayer—because what they three still honored as sacred was more important than the punishment the villain “deserved” to have doled out to him.

I thought, I really thought, that Harry was using Stupefy because he was a more merciful person than those evil Death Eaters throwing Killing Curses at him. Not that he was a smarter fighter using Stunners simply because they were easier to cast and as effectively lethal in an aerial battle.

So now, boy, do I feel like a chump!

If you, Madderbrad, read this scene the first time and thought, “My God! Harry’s finally turned into a total hardass, firing off the most efficient-in-this-context killing hexes without a moment’s hesitation!” of course you won’t have that sense of betrayed mortification now. And all others who instantly visualized that each of Harry’s Stunners would horribly kill its recipient if it hit are probably giggling at my humiliation.

However, I think that my reaction, imagining that Harry was throwing those Stunners to avoid having to respond with lethal force to his enemies, was probably Jo’s intended one. At least among the more tender-hearted of her audience. I checked with a hardcore HP-fan friend who is not, shall we say, the usual deathtocapslocks reader, who’s in the process of rereading DH with her family in preparation for the movie release. She’s a few chapter past this fight, and when I asked her if Harry had ever deliberately killed anyone in the books she said immediately, “I don’t think so—not that I remember, anyhow.”

So I think that my feeling that Jo was cheating the reader, was sneaking it past us that she had turned Harry into a deliberate and remorseless killer, has some foundation.


Moreover, I do think that murder, even in self-defense, deserves some reflection. Call me idealistic; I just don’t think that it’s really right to mass-murder and not even notice.


Finally, I don’t think it’s right (or consistent) for an author to state that killing fellow humans is the Supreme Evil (which WAS directly stated in HBP), that it rips the soul almost irreparably (only healable by excruciating remorse-DH) and that it becomes the source of the foulest magic ever created, and to then turn around and have her protagonist commit premeditated murder without a moment’s hesitation or any remorse whatsoever.


But the very worst of all is, I don’t think Jo in her heart of hearts ever registered that she had turned her sweet Harry into a mass-murderer. And I don’t think that canon!Harry ever registered what he’d become.


After all, Harry never actually killed fellow humans. Just Death Eaters.

Offing them isn’t murder. More like animal control.

Or, perhaps, waste disposal.


You know, like the worst among the Death Eaters felt about killing us Muggles.


An attitude no more charming in Harry and in Jo than in Tom.

Comment #2 of 2

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

A plausible story might be that Dumbledore thought that Harry kept surviving in part because of the powers Voldemort had accidentally transferred to the boy when he gave him that scar, and that if the boy was killed those powers would transfer to the killer.

An interesting idea, but way out there on the conjecture meter. Absolutely nothing supporting your theory in the canon, as far as I know. Still, I can't see anywhere where Riddle tells his followers WHY it must be him, so it's an interesting possibility.

Snape, of course, knew that Dumbledore had insisted that Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential, (DH33) And there must be more reason than just The prophecy said so.

I consider this assertion to be a horrible 'cheat' committed by Rowling, something she shoehorned in to try and justify the melodramatic showdown that all her readers we expecting. "It had to come down to Harry and Tom because ... because ... uhm, becausedumbledoresaidsookthankxbye". Which was nonsense. Sadly, Rowling *didn't have* any more reason than "because it allows me to write the story the way I want to".

If one was cast by Voldemort, the other one must have been cast by that third Death Eater accompanying him. Selwyn? Is that who Voldemort had to remind, Mine! a minute later?

Nice! I guess that *is* a smidge of support for your idea of a DE or two working independently of Voldemort.

All of those other AKs flying about, cast repeatedly by at least two dozen other people, enough to create a blaze of green light, and not a one of those other curses hit?

Just the start of Rowling's playing the DEs like Keystone Cops. These are the same villains who allow the 'blood traitor' Weasleys to live in peace for half the year, their girl to attend Hogwarts, et cetera. They didn't make Death Eaters like they used to. :-)

Re: Comment #2 of 2

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

Sorry if it seems like I'm stalking you...but that last couple lines, omg, yes! So frustrating- JKR needed to make up her mind, either be dark and angsty or keep it relatively light and unrealistic. People keep saying how she raised the stakes and all, but let's be real. All Voldy had to do was torture the Weasleys. Hell, hold Ginny for ransom and Harry would come flying to the rescue! But no, we're to buy that they were let alone, no attempt to use them as leverage, and that a ghoul with spots was able to keep them from harm. Riiiight.

The more she throws in contrivances to explain why something isn't happening as one would reasonably expect it to, the more she draws attention to how crappy her excuses and plot points are.

Keystone Kops Death Eaters

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

But, in fact, they were before.

Or rather, an analysis of the fight in OotP seems to show the DE's dividing neatly into two groups: psychopaths who love torturing kids, and softies who can't do more than threaten, wrestle, and cast mild hexes at them. And the dividing line there seems to be, who had spent years in Azkaban.

My essay "Death Eaters in the Seventies" includes a failure analysis of the fight in OotP, and I concluded that the DE's failed because many of them, including their leader Lucius, were too soft to throw anything stronger than a corridor-hex at kids their sons' age.

And that of the Unforgivables and other real nasties we saw, all but one was very clearly cast by one of the Azkaban escapees (and the last had at least a 50-50 chance of having been).

And Lupin told us when we first learned about Dementors that those rare people who survive prolonged exposure are driven insane. A Ministry-induced psychosis which I choose to call Dementor Dementia, characterized by the victims becoming nearly as "soulless and evil" as the Dementors themselves. I.e. they've become psychopaths.

What we thought was the normal DE character (Barty, Bellatrix, Dolohov), taking pleasure in torture and death, is in fact the characteristic effect of prolonged incarceration in Azkaban.

Now, I'm sure Riddle recruited natural psychopaths when he found them (including, Azkaban parolees), and I wouldn't put it past Tom, frankly, to have arranged that some potential followers be exposed to Dementors to erode their empathy and capacity to feel moral scruples....

But Lucius, and some of the other DE's who weren't exposed long-term to Dementors, seemed in OotP to be utterly unwilling to seriously hurt kids. Threaten, yes, wrestle with physically (are you a wizard or what, Lucius?) yes, stun, yes. Hurt, no.

Not even though the consequence of failing the Dark Lord is torture!

And it's only when Bella, who doesn't suffer that particular emotional inhibition, casts the Cruciatus on Neville that Harry cracks and starts to hand over the Prophecy--at which point, of course, the cavalry arrives.

That essay is here:

http://terri-testing.livejournal.com/10552.html#cutid1

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Just chiming in to say: this is a great analysis, Terri. The Stan Shunpike thing was always particularly chilling to me, because I was convinced Stan actually was a Death Eater. And, if Harry is right and he's actually under Imperius, why couldn't many of the other fighters - including some Harry killed - be Imperius victims, as well?

But yes, Harry certainly killed people. It's astonishing that so many fans don't recognize that.

And Lupin continues to give me the creeps.

Thanks

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Actually, I had not realized until I DID this analysis that Harry had definitely, and with intent, killed people.

And I wouldn't be surprised if you were right about Stan. As I pointed out above, if he hadn't been a Voldemort-supporter before Azkaban, he might well have been an enthusiastic one after Voldie broke him out.

Lupin--brr. He was, indeed, a Marauder at heart.

[aasaylva.livejournal.com]

I hate to sort of drop a bucket of cold water on this wonderful essay, but how does little Neville, bouncing off the road when dropped by dear uncle fit into it? In PS, it's obvious Algie didn't mean to kill Neville (unless, of course, he was a Squib, but then we know he wouldn't have mattered very much anyway). So he assumed Neville WAS going to save himself by magic then why wouldn't adult wizards be able to do the same?

Children's Magic

[annoni-no.livejournal.com]

I don't have the books with me, but I'm fairly sure that Neville made clear that his uncle was trying to *scare* his magic out of him. The one time he was in actual, physical danger (from Algie's perspective - Neville wasn't supposed to know) was the time when Algie accidentally dropped him - leading to the life saving bounce. This, combined with the most of the other incidents we see of wandless, uncontrolled magic (Harry inflating Marge, probably Snape dropping the branch on Petunia) are in response to strong emotion. We also see less and less of such outbursts as the characters in question get older and gain more conscious control over their magic, but there's no evidence it ever ceases altogether (I've read at least one theory that the jar exploding by Harry's ear as he fled after sneaking into the pensieve was caused an uncontrolled outburst of Snape's magic due to his rage).

On the other hand, there has been serious concern when Harry's fallen from his broom during a Quidditch match, and everyone with any experience in the matter seems to think that death is a much more likely outcome than a miraculous save.

So, it seems there is a very, very slim possibility that a magic-user in a panic could subconsciously save themselves from a bad fall, but no one really seems to believe this likely enough to hold out hope for.

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

Interesting analysis. I can't take the chapter that seriously, however. I know there's supposed to be drama going on, but when I think of this chapter, I agree with the Keystone Cops / Warner Brothers anaysis. In fact, when montavilla posted this chapter (http://deathtocapslock.livejournal.com/90114.html), I pictured Wile E. Coyote (http://www.pattyk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/wile_e_coyote-gravity-lessons1.jpg) falling off a cliff.

My guess is that the Order and helpers were not using AKs because, at that point, AKs were Unforgivable with a capital "U" and Harry at that point hadn't been so camped out of his skull utterly debased that he'd knowingly resort to Unforgivables, especially not in front of Hagrid. Surely, Harry's actions could have killed Death Eaters, but he fell off a broom himself during a Quidditch game and his fall was buffered by Dumbledore. He knew he survived. Why would he assume others couldn't have done the same? Didn't other Quidditch players get knocked off brooms by Bludgers and other players? Did they die?

If I flew by broom, I'd certainly make it a point to learn and teach my friends the spell Dumbledore used. Granted, it was probably super-sparkly magic only DD was powerful enough to cast, and we don't see anyone else attempting to learn it or being taught how to do it - no surprise there! Maybe Snape learned to fly because other wizards were just too stupid to learn the breaking spell, not that he'd trust them to use it, in any case.

Basically, Harry in DH was so clueless that I doubt he could have formed an intent to murder, no matter what his actions. He just did the first dumb thing he could think of doing. Even when he tried to help others in DH, he ended up leaving them stranded and on their own in hostile territory. For example, Stan: Expelliarmus was possibly as harmful as stunning. For all we know, a person may have needed to have a wand to operate a broom, but certainly needed one for defense or if he or she fell off the broom from a great height, assuming s/he knnew a fall-breaking spell, and assuming the person was not Imperiused and thus possibly unable to act with free will at all.

Yes, there's a blatant double standard in the books where the "good" characters get away with murder or attempted murder (Sectumsempra) while the "evil" characters are abhorred for trying (with generally inferior results) or because they exist, if you know what I mean. Still, I think Rowling was going for action! and not a death toll in this chapter. She can't count, and that includes AK volleys (ooh, shiny green lights!) and downed fliers. I'm surprised her hero characters managed to add up the fallen Death Eaters, or that they even knew who they were, given the low level of awareness and elementary skill sets in the Idiot World (http://www.jabootu.com/glossary.htm) that wizards occupy. This includes the aimed-and-missed Death Eaters, who probably had no excuse for their incompetence other than their execrable educations and their roles as insignificant extras in the story.

Death Eater incompetence

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Actually, there is a VERY INTERESTING explanation for the canonical Death Eater incompetence, which Madderbrad (above) has sent me off on. But it'll take me a while to get there....

Top Gun Propaganda

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

The more I think about this essay, and the more I read the comments, the more this battle reminds me of the climax of the movie Top Gun. It's a crummy movie that I saw because my niece had a copy and was watching it to ogle the guys. Anyway, it's about American fighter pilots in the 1980s.

The end of the movie, of course, features a battle with Soviet pilots. I was grossly offended by the blatant way they stacked the emotional deck in favor of "our guys." We got to see the faces of the American pilots. We also got to hear them talk, including their expressions of courage, triumph, and, most affectingly, fear.

By contrast, the Soviet pilots had their faces hidden behind helmets with black goggles and large breathing tubes. (This is actually a far more realistic depiction of the way fighter pilots are equipped than the way the Americans were portrayed). They looked like big, ugly insects. And they either didn't speak at all or spoke very little. (I can't remember which.) It was all very dehumanizing.

The entire effect of these contrasting portrayals was to make the American pilots seem like sweet, innocent boys-next-door, while the Soviets seemed like emotionless, alien, insect-monsters from a science fiction movie.

I'm not a pacifist. I believe when you're a superpower, you have to have a strong military. I also believe you have to be careful, even suspicious, about the motivations and behavior of potentially dangerous enemy countries.

But self-protection does not require you to turn the citizens of enemy countries into giant insects. They're still people, and if you have to kill them, you should feel something more than you do when stepping on a bug.

As American philosopher Sam Keen wrote in his book, The Passionate Life: Stages of Loving:

Considerable psychological sleight of hand is necessary to make people kill without suffering overwhelming guilt. Mythology always includes a justification for killing the enemy. It makes killing and dying a sacred act performed in the service of some god or immortal ideal. Thus the creation of propaganda is as old as human history. Truth is the first sacrifice we make in order to belong.

It may be that one of the earliest human inventions was the image of an enemy. And shortly after that came the weapon, for killing. Typically, propaganda changes the enemy from a human being into a demon, an incarnation of evil, a stain that must be wiped from the earth. The human face, which might be loved, is changed into a loathsome thing, an animal. The Jap becomes an ape, the Nazi a blond beast, the American a capitalist pig, the communist an atheist, the Jew a vermin. By contrast, the majority of names tribes have invented for themselves mean simply "the people," man or human. The Carib of South America, for instance, say, "We alone are people." (pp. 113-114)

Tell me again how the HP books are supposed to promote the ideals of Christian love and understanding.

Re: Top Gun Propaganda

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

I feel the need...the need for speed.

Actually, Top Gun was a pretty popular movies from the 80's.

Seemed like to me it was more about the relationship of the girl/guy and his best friend or daddy issues, etc. than it was about the planes and fighting the mysterious 'enemy'. Giving a face to the enemy pilots was probably not in the budget because they were just there to put a little action in an otherwise story about 'romance'.

The airplains are just in there to make it so it doesn't look like a chick flick. It's sort of the guy version of a chick flick.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Harry and the Order, outnumbered over two to one (where, by the way, is the twenty to one ratio Lupin had claimed to have been typical?)

The Longbottoms, trained Aurors, one of whom was definitely active as such and apparently successful as such (I'm assuming that was where his popularity came from, but maybe not, maybe he was more like James, who knows?) were overcome by 4 DEs, one of whom was barely out of school. The Prewett brothers were killed by 5, and that is supposed to be exceptional, that it took so many. It seems 2.5:1 ratio was on the high end in the first war. Igor says Travers helped kill the McKinnons. What he doesn't say is that Travers helped *Igor* kill the McKinnons. And he doesn't mention any other names wrt this attack. So if there were any other DEs involved they were already dead or arrested by the time of Igor's arrest (he was unaware of attacks, deaths or captures that took place once he was arrested). It is possible the entire McKinnon family was killed by 2 DEs. (Of course, much depends on who the other family members were. If they were 2 adults and their youngish children, it is possible the DEs grabbed a child each and used them as human shields as they killed the parents.)

I'm still wondering how Moody knows the Prewetts were killed by 5 DEs (and what became of 4 of them). Did Dolohov talk?