OOTP Chapter Twenty-Seven: "The Centaur and the Sneak"

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

* First of all, sorry this is so late, I'm afraid I've been a bit busy preparing to go back to university.

* This is the chapter in which Hermione officially crosses the line from “occasionally strident and self-righteous but on the whole likeable and sympathetic character” to “dangerous sociopath”.

* “‘A gorgeous centaur...’ sighed Parvati.” I must say that, given the, erm, associations of centaurs in classical mythology, this sort of thing rather creeps me out. Is JKR aware of the implications of what she’s writing? Or did she just throw it in without bothering to think it through?

* Hermione’s dropping dark hints about what Umbridge is going to do, revealing the plot like any good author avatar would.

* So Harry can remember the names of centaurs he met once four years ago, but in DH he won’t be able to remember a face from a picture from one chapter to the next. *coughplotconveniencecough*

* Wow, centaurs sure are arrogant and condescending people. No wonder Dumbledore felt enough of an affinity with Firenze to hire him as a teacher. He recognises a kindred spirit when he sees one.

* If I were JKR, I’d be hesitant to dignify the wizarding conflicts with the term “war”. They’re more like gang wars than what most people would think of as warfare. Which is why epic fantasy doesn’t really mix with a “secret magical people in this world” plot. Epic fantasy generally centres around mighty empires, big wars and bloody battles, but these things are generally quite noticeable, and any wizards fighting in large-scale conflicts would be found out pretty quickly. So the wizarding war pretty much has to be low-key to make it plausible that Muggles wouldn’t know about it, and the end result is that we get a lot of build-up and very little payoff.

* Firenze spends the whole lesson teaching them something which he doesn’t expect them to do anyway, and which is anyway a bit uncertain and useless. So he’s about as good as the average Hogwarts teacher, then.

* “Indeed, Harry sometimes wondered how Umbridge was going to react when all the members of the DA received ‘Outstanding’ in their Defence Against the Dark Arts OWLs.” Only kidding, Harry will be the only one to get an “Outstanding” mark, because he’s a Mary Sue just the most awesome DADA student ever.

* Although everybody always goes on about how smart Hermione is, and from what we see of her she doesn’t seem noticeably worse in DADA than she does in other subjects, so if she only got an “E” in her Defence OWL, that’s probably because Harry’s not a very good teacher... :p

* Seamus’ Patronus “was definitely something hairy”. *mind goes into the gutter*

* Hermione’s Patronus is an otter, even though she’s one of the least otter-like people in the series. On a Doylist level, this is probably because JKR’s favourite animal is the otter, so her author avatar will have one as her Patronus, obviously. On a Watsonian level, perhaps Patronuses don’t represent what your personality is like, but what you need to guard you and keep you out of trouble. So Hermione’s is an otter because she needs fun-loving people around her to stop her getting too serious about everything, Ron’s is a weasel because he needs smart people to compensate for his mental inadequacy, and Harry’s is a stag because he needs a proper father-figure to help him, not an abusive one like Uncle Vernon or a scheming and manipulative one like Dumbledore. Patronuses which change when somebody falls in love show that their caster needs to be loved by their intended in order to feel happy and secure again.

* Dobby appears, wearing “his usual eight woollen hats”. I quite like the suggestion that it was this sight that made Hermione drop her SPEW activities, as she saw that her hats were all going to this one elf, and that they were therefore pretty useless from a freeing people standpoint. (Can anybody remember if SPEW is brought up again in this book?)

* Umbridge is here! I bet it’s times like this that the DA wish they had a second, secret entrance from the ROR. That way they could slip away while Umbridge and her cronies sat uselessly in front of the main entrance.

* Draco’s concealed “beneath an ugly dragon-shaped vase”, to match his ugly and monstrous soul.

* Umbridge has “an indecent excitement in her voice”. I wonder if this is how Hermione would sound to those on the receiving end of her little schemes.

* When I first read this scene, I didn’t really mind the “Sneak” curse, because I just sort of assumed that Madam Pomfrey managed to find a way of removing them after a couple of weeks. Then we found out that she still had the scars years later and... yikes.

* Not only is that extremely vindictive, but it doesn’t actually help the DA in any way. It didn’t stop them being betrayed in the first place, and it didn’t alert them to the fact that Umbridge was coming to get them. If this had been a one-off incident and the curse hadn’t been permanent, I’d be inclined to put it down to youthful lack of thought, but when you compare it to some of Hermione’s other actions (her treatment of Rita Skeeter, or sending those canaries after Ron), it seems like a rather worrying pattern is starting to emerge...

* Minerva gets all self-righteous about Willy Widdershins being let off. I wonder whether she feels the same about Mundungus Fletcher, or whether petty crooks are OK just as long as they’re on her side.

* Also, she’s not above a bit of petty corruption herself, since she lets Gryffindor Quidditch players off homework when a match is coming up.

* So Kingsley memory-wipes Marietta to stop her telling. You know, this is exactly the sort of mentality that leads DEs to Imperius people and get them to do their bidding: not caring about your victims’ autonomy, just violating their minds when it’s convenient to do so.

* Also, if they are going to mind-wipe Marietta, why not do it to Percy, Fudge and Umbridge too? That would get them out of trouble entirely.

* And really guys, Umbridge has a list of DA members and access to Veritaserum. Obliviating one witness shouldn’t be enough.

* I’m surprised Umbridge thought she could get away with manhandling students like that in front of Dumbledore. I mean, that man’s just so concerned about his students’ welfare.

* Hermione left the membership list pinned to the ROR wall. Well done, Hermione. Not that any DA members will point out this idiocy to her. Nor will they point out the fact that her defensive jinx was (a) vindictive and useless, and (b) not told about to them when they joined up. Maybe they’re all worried she’ll brand the word “COMPLAINER” across their forehead if they speak up.

* Dumbledore taking the rap is all very noble and everything, but I don’t see how it’s meant to help. Fudge can still charge the pupils with attending, even if they didn’t organise it, and now Dumbledore’s ensured that he’s going to be on the run and unable to give them any help.

* Face-scarring aside, I actually quite liked this chapter. It was quite well-paced, and I never really felt like I was wading through pages of filler. It will be interesting to see if the other chapters will be more like this now the book’s reaching its climax, or whether the quality will slip back down again.

Comments

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Those are some nice "might have happened" scenarios but it's all speculation, slanted to ease the burden of guilt on Marietta for breaking her word and betraying her peers. With none of these situations do you have Marietta being *forced* to break her promise. No. In each one you've given her some reasons to betray the D.A. ... just like she had a very good reason not to. Marietta had signed the agreement of her own free will, her best friend was one of the members she'd be placing in jeopardy.

I think it's difficult to argue that there was a *strong* reason for Marietta to inform on the D.A. ... because she didn't go through with it after the pimples materialised. If she'd truly thought that "the DA was doing something wrong and needed to be stopped" she wouldn't had dissolved into tears and clammed up merely because she'd looked into a mirror! No, if Marietta was *really* worried - about the D.A., about her mother being affected - she would have actually followed through with her betrayal.

Also I note that even her best friend gave no reason for Marietta's actions. "She's a lovely person who made a mistake" says Cho ... but that's where the rationalisation stops. Harry challenges Cho on this ... and Cho does *not* come back and give us any good reason for what Marietta had done. We're never given the reason; it's probable there isn't (a good) one. Harry and Ron's judgement stands - she's a no-good sneak.

Marietta may have been in an awkward position but she was far from innocent, and thus certainly cannot be used as primary proof for calling Hermione a 'sociopath'.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Some of this comes down to Lawful vs. Neutral/Chaotic. The law in question was stupid, but Marietta clearly didn't consider the club to be particularly important or worthwhile, either. Given that evaluation of the club, if she's a Lawful type, she's going to be tempted to follow the law.

I also have to say that if I gave my word not to tell anyone about a club, and then the club became illegal... you'd better have me swear again, because the original promise didn't include swearing to be silent about an illegal organization.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Would you give your mates a chance first? Explain your feelings? Ask them to let you out peacefully? Explain to your best mate why you felt you had to leave? Even warn that best mate first? Or leave her to rot with the others when you betrayed them?

Would you simply leave the club - so as to not personally be part of anything illegal - or would you go out of your way to break your earlier word and dob in your mates?

Would you even acknowledge that the club is illegal, when it was clear that the new laws were broaching centuries of precedent as to what could/should be taught at the school?

You've got to remember in all this that Marietta was wrong! The law preventing the DA from learning the official school syllabus was asinine and clearly incorrect. At the end of the year - at the end of the series - we know for sure that Umbridge, Fudge, their silly rules, they were all *wrong*. And thus so was Marietta. On several levels.

... because the original promise didn't include swearing to be silent about an illegal organization.

No, the promise was a 'superset' of that, more general; it was a promise to be silent about the D.A. Whether it was legal or illegal; big or small; black or white. So that technicality doesn't hold; Marietta's promise encompassed what the D.A. became, as well as what it was at the start.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about technicalities. *Technically*, you're quite right; Marietta agreed not to say anything whether or not the club became illegal. Technically, she also agreed not to say anything about the club even if they started opening meetings with a human sacrifice. In reality, most people are flexible enough that if the circumstances change too much, they wouldn't consider their word to hold.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Well, technicalities do matter in real life. It was a technicality that still held Marietta under the aegis of the jinxed agreement.

And in reality, if a technicality means that one is bound to a promise one no longer feels one can honour ... one should try other avenues before breaking the promise and sacrificing all of one's friends. For little or no reason.

In reality, most people are flexible enough ...

Marietta should have tested the waters, seen if those people would relieve her of her promise, allow her to exit the DA with honour. She didn't even try. She went from D.A. member right to quisling in one single step.

No, the saga of Marietta isn't anything that can be used to show that Hermione is a sociopath.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[oryx_leucoryx]

The law preventing the DA from learning the official school syllabus was asinine and clearly incorrect.

It was 'clearly incorrect' to some people, not to others. It's a matter of opinion. Societies where anyone breaks any law that is incorrect by their opinion are at risk of breaking down. Breaking a law you think is incorrect in secret is hardly the first response in the majority of cases.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

This is probably why the Wizarding World is in so much trouble.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

You've got to remember in all this that Marietta was wrong! The law preventing the DA from learning the official school syllabus was asinine and clearly incorrect.

You're not getting the whole Lawful vs. Neutral/Chaotic thing. Some people believe that it's right to follow the laws, even when some of them are silly. Moreover, if Marietta thought that the DA was asinine, which she appeared to think, then she had very little reason to support a club she believed to be asinine over a *law* she believed to be asinine.

I don't think that Marietta did the right thing in this instance, but I respect... an abstract person making that decision, certainly. I also respect Marietta's right to believe that the club was silly, because she was dealing with incomplete information.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[dracasadiablo.livejournal.com]

Would you give your mates a chance first? Explain your feelings? Ask them to let you out peacefully? Explain to your best mate why you felt you had to leave? Even warn that best mate first? Or leave her to rot with the others when you betrayed them?

This.
I don't blame Marietta for not speaking up when twins can hear her (you had to be very brave or vary stupid to do that), nor for not confronting Harry when, from all she knows, he can turn violent and unpredictable, nor for questioning Hermione.
I blame her for not talking with Cho.

Marietta have no true loyalty to DA. She joined to keep her best friend happy. She doesn't know most members of the DA and some of them may actively frighten her.
She is concerned with things Umbridge might do to there and may even think that DA is one step from being a terrorist organization.
Fair enough. And all of it is understandable.

The problem is Cho.
Cho is Marietta's good friend. They were together for 6 years and are probably best friends.
If Marietta had fears about DA she could have talked with her. They probably sleep in a same room and certainly share classes and a common room. More then ample opportunity for talking far away from Fred and George or anybody else.
Marietta had no reason to think that Cho will "turn on her". After it's all done and damage made Cho Chang still takes the side of her friend and defends her. She ends any possibility of a relationship with a boy she likes over that.
Cho is a good friend.

Marietta is not.
She left Cho to take a fall with the rest of DA. She never even attempted to try and make Cho see how dangerous DA is. Ans she could have done that easily.
She could have said : "Look, Cho. I support you and I have joined, against my better judgment, DA for you. But now that it's illegal we need to talk and think about it. Think how many things we could lose. Think about our future. Think about being banned from playing Quidditch ever again.
Is all of that worth being close to a boy you like?"
But she took a cowards way. She wanted to have a get out of jail free card.
Get in Umbridge's good book and make certain nobody will ever suspect her for betraying them.

One more thing.
There's no chances Umbridge made her betray them. Marietta planned it.
Why?
The timing.

'Well, Minister, Miss Edgecombe here came to my office shortly after dinner this evening and told me she had something she wanted to tell me. She said that if 1 proceeded to a secret room on the seventh floor, sometimes known as the Room of Requirement, I would find out something to my advantage.
Think about how the Dumbledore's army galleons work. Marietta knew when the meeting was about to start and instead of going to it she went to Umbridge's office. She timed it so DA could be caught red handed. But her tale took some time what with jinx activating and Umbridge demanding more information. But as soon as Umbridge was certain what is going on she organized the Inquisitorial Squad, sent the word to the Ministry and went after the DA.

The only way that time table works if it went exactly like that.
No way did Umbridge accidentally decided to pressure Marietta right before a DA meeting.
It was all Marietta's decision.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[oryx_leucoryx]

Regarding Cho - we don't know Marietta didn't talk to her. I'm pretty sure they did discuss it at some point. Maybe even often. Cho knew Marietta had her misgivings. And Cho kept pressuring Marietta to come to the meetings again. Whether it was because Cho didn't want to go 'alone' or she wanted moral support when she was around Harry or any other reason.

As for Dolores pressuring her - it could have happened any time earlier. It could have been an on-going thing, if Umbridge caught on that Marietta is unhappy about her friend. And that night was when Marietta finally broke down.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Brad, the "breaking her word and betraying her peers bit" - I see it as a girl forced to choose between her peers and her mother. And I don't blame her at all for choosing her mother. I think Hermione's punishment was way over the top.

As I said, I used to like Hermione, too. I don't any more. DH and HBP killed a lot of things for me.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I see it as a girl forced to choose between her peers and her mother.

But her mother wasn't involved. Until the DA was betrayed Marietta's mother didn't have a clue that Marietta was a member of an underground student club. There was no such choice pending for Marietta to make.

The choice that's been pointed out here is that of (a) choosing to no longer participate in what had become an illegal club, and possibly (b) notifying the authorities of said club. But the club was semi-illegal when Marietta voluntarily signed up ... I don't think much of the girl for allowing the technicality of a proclamation change things around for her so drastically as to dob in her friends and cast them to the wolves.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

No, it wasn't semi-illegal. It was something that one of the professors wouldn't've approved of, if she knew, but that several other professors would have strongly approved of if they knew about it. There were no laws, and no reason to prioritize one professor's perspective over another.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

In Hermione's words, since I imagine you'll believe her ;)

ʹAnd anyway, even if Umbridge does come in here thereʹs nothing she can do to stop us, Harry, because Iʹve double‐ and triple‐checked the school rules. Weʹre not out of bounds; I specifically asked Professor Flitwick whether students were allowed to come in the Hogʹs Head, and he said yes, but he advised me strongly to bring our own glasses. And Iʹve looked up everything I can think of about study groups and homework groups and theyʹre definitely allowed. I just donʹt think itʹs a good idea if we parade what weʹre doing.ʹ

That's not semi-illegal, or even semi-breaking the rules. Even Umbridge didn't try to punish them for that first meeting; she simply passed a law to prevent them from meeting *again*.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

...or she worried that if she kept talking, something worse than pimples would happen. We really just do not know, which is my point. You can't say that Marietta definitely had a good reason - but you can't say that she's definitely a no-good sneak either.

Cho might not know the real reason either, depending on how much of Marietta's memory got wiped. She might have a feeling that there is a good reason, based on her knowing Marietta, but not be able to justify it, and tries to split the difference with lovely person/mistake.

I'm trying to translate this into Muggle terms: say you joined a semi-clandestine martial arts club at school because the PE teacher isn't teaching the subject very well, and promise not to tell about it. Would you take this as a super-serious oath, or possibly rank it as low as having a secret handshake? You're a bit nervous to start, especially since the student leader says you really have to know this stuff because he saw Osama bin Laden rise from the dead last summer with help from Daniel Pearl, who was actually a secret Taliban agent all along and is not dead. (You have no proof but his word on this.) The government officials are incompetent/in denial/in cahoots, so you have to take matters into your own hands, basically. Also two of his older friends threaten people with bodily harm. Then the club becomes illegal. Then your club leader starts teaching you how to resist arrest. And then when you tell an authority about this, one of the club members splashes your face with acid so the scars spell out "sneak" for (at minimum) months. It turns out this punishment was planned since the very first meeting, when you thought you were still joining a study club.

Would you call that acid-tosser not so bad really since you were far from innocent?

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[nx74defiant.livejournal.com]

Perfect example!

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

This is brilliant.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"especially since the student leader says you really have to know this stuff because he saw Osama bin Laden rise from the dead last summer with help from Daniel Pearl, who was actually a secret Taliban agent all along and is not dead."

To be fair to Harry, suggesting that you saw somebody coming back from the dead isn't quite as silly in a world where everybody has seen ghosts, portraits of dead people that can still interact with current events just like they could when they were alive, and various similar examples of the dead continuing to influence things. Perhaps a closer example would be a famous terrorist who went missing a decade ago and who hasn't been heard of since, but who was never conclusively proved to be dead?

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

Maybe some of the Nazis who took off for South America?

It would help if Potterverse rules were consistent, too. I think that no one would be surprised by Ghostimort or Portraitmort, but bodily resurrection seems to be something else... maybe. *tears out hair*

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Your analogy is way too slanted pro-Marietta. The initial meeting of the D.A. was much more open than that. Everything was laid out, all the reasons to set up the group - learn how to defend ourselves properly, pass our OWLs, Lord V is back, etc. Yes, some people initially doubted that the dark lord had returned ... and they raised those doubts and were answered.

It's also noted that Umbridge is "trying to actively prevent us from using defensive spells", so that's why we need the group. Oh, and that's why we'll keep this a secret, is everyone agreed on that too?

Marietta knew that the group would be viewed negatively by the authorities (if not outright illegal at that time). But she still signed up. Yes, her friend Cho was pressing her to join. But a wand wasn't held to her head. Other people had voiced objections of various sorts.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

Their questions were answered with "yes, I really saw it, just like the article said, and my best friends will back me up, oh and also some of my dorm mates heard half-garbled rumors several years ago about some other stuff." That isn't answering, that's repeating the same things everyone already read from the same sources. Maybe Harry's great charisma persuaded them, or maybe some (like Zacharias) decided they wanted to join for other reasons anyway and would drop the issue. Either way, it's still basically Harry's word.

And if the group is not something Umbridge would like particularly but perfectly within the rules, then signing up and pinky-swearing not to tell isn't exactly a serious oath, any more than joining a secret study club with a secret handshake would be in a Muggle school. That's what Marietta signed up for. Feeling iffy about signing up for a perfectly allowable club because one teacher/official won't like it, but giving it a chance because it's technically okay and you want to support your friend, is not proof of bad character. Changing your mind once the club becomes illegal and you get to know everyone in it better and get a better idea of what the club is about (in part, overcoming prison guards) isn't necessarily either - it could just be a sign of someone processing new information and freaking out.

The thing is we just don't know enough to say definitively one way or the other. We do know that Marietta didn't sprint over to Umbridge's office to tell the minute the club became illegal, which you'd think she would have if she were so gung-ho about betrayal and getting brownie points as you're painting her. "I just wanted to have more hours of stuff to tell you about" wouldn't be a good excuse if Umbridge asked why she didn't tell right away instead of participating in illegal activity - she'd know it would look like she was actually fine with doing illegal stuff, and only told to save her own neck, which isn't much of a recommendation or something likely to reflect as well on her mother as just going to Umbridge right away. For whatever reasons, she appears to have gone through some conflict before making that decision. So I can't see her as totally, unequivocally guilty in this situation.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

It's also noted that Umbridge is "trying to actively prevent us from using defensive spells", so that's why we need the group.

As has been noted in this community, though, Umbridge appears to have chosen a book which promotes pacifism. From Hermione's comments on Slinkhard's textbook:

ʹHe says ʺcounter‐jinxʺ is just a name people give their jinxes when they want to make them sound more acceptable.ʹ

ʹMr Slinkhard doesnʹt like jinxes, does he?

To someone who only knows Umbridge from class, Umbridge might well come across as opposing fighting in general. It isn't just a matter of "defensive spells," no matter how Ernie phrased it; the best defense is a good offense.

My point: Someone could come to the conclusion that Umbridge is right to prevent people from using defensive(/offensive) spells, if they didn't believe that Voldemort was back. And as Sunnyskywalker said, the Trio didn't exactly overcome any doubts on that score; they just dismissed them.



(mutters) If Umbridge had any sense, and if JKR had any *talent*, Umbridge would have spent some of the time teaching first-aid magic and shields that don't reflect spells back on the caster, just nothing that could be used offensively. But nooo, we can't have anything that interesting.

/tangent

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[oryx_leucoryx]

(mutters) If Umbridge had any sense, and if JKR had any *talent*, Umbridge would have spent some of the time teaching first-aid magic and shields that don't reflect spells back on the caster, just nothing that could be used offensively. But nooo, we can't have anything that interesting.

/tangent

How is 'Methods of Rationality' going? I never got around to reading all of it but Yudkovsky seems to have a good grasp on what would make an intelligent villain.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

Now that would have made her even scarier! Then she would seem quite reasonable. Learn to shield yourself, heal, and maybe disarm people, and then you should have enough time to escape and call the authorities who are trained to deal with serious villains. Plus she could probably legitimately say that the past DADA teachers have neglected the defense side of things (apart from Lupin teaching them defense against creatures - useful, but not against humans - and "Moody" semi-teaching them to resist Imperius). It would make the conflict much more interesting if you knew there was something not right about Umbridge, but the characters couldn't find a good crime to hang on her.

And notably, isn't the first thing Harry has the DA practice Expelliarmus? Even he thinks they haven't learned enough non-violent defensive spells, and agrees that they're useful. (Learning mostly harmless spells like that probably made the club seem less iffy for the first couple of lessons, too, for anyone with concerns. How much trouble could you reasonably get into for a technically illegal club if all you were doing was Expelliarmus, one might think?) If Umbridge had set them to practicing disarming etc. in class as well as reading theory, Harry would have to think harder to come up with justifications for learning things more harmful than stunners or Petrificus Totalis.

Now I wish we had that version :(

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[detritius.livejournal.com]

It's also notable that the DA has two out of the three "warning signs" of a group that is likely to become violent: a charismatic leader and an apocalyptic worldview. Their leader, whose word they are supposed to accept without question or risk the wrath of other followers, talks continually about a coming fight that they have to be armed and ready for, painting themselves and "the enemy" in black-and-white, us-versus-them terms. The group has a theology of violence, and group members are encouraged to be ready to practice violence as a first resort. And while the group is not socially encapsulation, the third warning sign, swearing members to secrecy, as well as the illegality of the group, certainly creates the kind of boundary issues that can lead to members becoming isolated from non-members.

So, not slanting this in anyone's favor, but, in sociological terms, the DA was at the very least a group to watch out for. (Not as much as the Order of the Phoenix, but that's a whole other post.) Does that make Marietta turning them in right? Not necessarily. But it's also not as if she turned in a perfectly innocent study group, either. There are legitimate reasons one might be wary of the DA.