OOTP Chapter Thirty-Six: "The Only One he ever Feared"

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

* You know, Rowling, when you’re trying to create in your readers a sense of sadness that one of the main characters has died, it’s probably best not to have Neville coming in with his comedy broken nose voice. It sort of distracts from the pathos of the moment.

* Oh dear, Harry almost loses Bellatrix in the spinning room. Luckily, though, “the plot room seemed to have been waiting for him to ask” how to get out. So that’s alright, then.

* Harry tries to use Crucio on Bellatrix, but because he’s not enough of a sadist only succeeds in knocking her over. Fortunately he’s going to remember her advice about needing to enjoy the pain of your opponent (much better, in fact, that he seems to remember any of his school lessons), and by the end of Book Seven he’ll be torturing with the best of them.

* So is part of the reason why the Cruciatus is considered so bad the fact that you can only cast it with malevolent motives, unlike most spells, which don’t seem to be much affected by your mental state?

* “I know spells of such power that you, pathetic little boy, could never hope to compete—” A pity we never get to see any, then, or find out what makes them so powerful. Is it the effect they have, the effort needed to cast them, both, neither…?

* Voldemort appears, rendering his whole “I don’t want to enter the Ministry and alert them to my return” thing a bit pointless.

* Also, it would have been better if, instead of monologuing like this, Voldemort had just AKed Harry as soon as he appeared. What is it with this man and pointless, time-wasting speeches?

* “Months of preparation, months of effort… and my Death Eaters have let Harry Potter thwart me again…” Well, to be fair, Voldemort, it was a pretty stupid plan. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that you deserved to fail.

* I suppose that Dumbledore fighting Voldemort with all those magical creature statues helping him is supposed to be symbolic.

* “‘It was foolish to come here tonight, Tom,’ said Dumbledore calmly.” I’d think that addressing Voldemort by his real first name would be an incredibly cool thing to do, were it not so obviously copied from the Obi-Wan/Darth Vader scene in Star Wars.

* Albus refuses to kill Voldemort because “we both know that there are other ways of destroying a man… Merely taking your life would not satisfy me” – so he’s saving Voldemort from death in order to inflict something even worse on him. Yup, that man’s the epitome of goodness, alright.

* “Merlin’s beard – here – here! – in the Ministry of Magic! – great heavens above – it doesn’t seem possible – my word – how can this be?” Well, Minister, if you’re curious, I could recommend having a few words with your head of security, for starters.

* Dumbledore starts telling Fudge what to do. Ordinarily I’d think this was insufferably arrogant, but after being falsely accused of spreading panic for the past twelve months, I think I can forgive him for enjoying his vindication.

* I assume that Hogwarts usually has some sort of anti-Portkey wards, else any half-competent wizard with a wand would be able to teleport right into the middle of the castle. But this raises the question of how Dumbledore managed to send Harry Portkeying to Hogwarts. Does the Headmaster have the power to remove the magical protections around the grounds? But then Umbrige is in charge now, not Dumbledore. Or does Dumbledore count as the “true” Headmaster, and therefore get control over the wards, sort of like how only the true Head can get into the Office?

Comments

[dracasadiablo.livejournal.com]

* I suppose that Dumbledore fighting Voldemort with all those magical creature statues helping him is supposed to be symbolic.

Oh, but it is.
He uses statues the same way he uses people. He manipulates them and use them with total disregard for their safety. But it's all for the Greater Good so it's o.k.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----Albus refuses to kill Voldemort because “we both know that there are other ways of destroying a man… Merely taking your life would not satisfy me” – so he’s saving Voldemort from death in order to inflict something even worse on him. Yup, that man’s the epitome of goodness, alright.

Well, what should Albus say instead? He knows that he can't kill Tom at the moment.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Albus has an interesting dilemma: He could AK (or otherwise apply destructive force) on Tom. This would revert him to vapor form, giving himself and others more time to find the Horcruxes while sending the DEs scampering. It would also tear his own soul. And leave the dilemma of what to do with the Harrycrux - let him be until someone else brings Tom back, send him to commit suicide or what, knowing that now that the body made with Harry's blood would be gone, so Harry would not be able to return from the dead. So: upside: inactivate Tom for a while (maybe even long while, if Bella is captured), downside: Albus' soul, no saving for Harry if the Harrycrux is ever destroyed. Well, he chose otherwise. Perhaps he could have prevented the deaths of the 2 following years.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----He could AK (or otherwise apply destructive force) on Tom. This would revert him to vapor form, giving himself and others more time to find the Horcruxes while sending the DEs scampering.

That's... a really good point.

----It would also tear his own soul.

I'm still unclear on whether killing someone always tears your soul. If there are circumstances in which your soul is safe, I'm pretty sure this would be one of them. Plus, Albus wouldn't exactly be killing Tom. He'd just be removing him from his body.

---....knowing that now that the body made with Harry's blood would be gone, so Harry would not be able to return from the dead

That's a real moral dilemma, balancing Harry's death against the potential deaths of others in the future....

But there may have been a some other factors involved in his decision. It could have something to do with Albus's interpretation of the prophecy. It's also possible that separating Tom from his body might actually be a rather difficult task. The only two times we do see it happen is when Tom's own AK is reflected back at him. Would an AK from Albus have the same effect? If not, then what would work? Tom's body isn't exactly a real body; it might be resistant to basically everything except something like fiendfyre.

[corycides.livejournal.com]

I always assumed that the soul-tearing was of varying degrees according to intent - so someone who murdered someone in cold blood would have a big whack ripped off, while killing to defend someone else would be more of a sliver - and that it would heal up over time. So someone who killed a lot would end up with a soul covered in scar tissue rather than confetti.

[oryx_leucoryx]

I'm not sure why the new body would be less vulnerable than any old Horcrux-protected one, but Terri proposed that vaporizing wasn't the normal outcome of being hit by an AK while having a Horcrux, that Tom's old body vaporized because he was hit by an AK while splitting his soul, and that caused the vaporization. So Albus might still not have been able to force such an outcome.

[sunnyskywalker]

Even if the body wasn't vaporized, after Tom's soul-piece was separated from it, they could manually vaporize the body later. Or keep it on ice and hope it would help Harry in the event of a fatal accident, I suppose. It also depends on which spell he uses to kill the body (hypothetically, at least, he could get around Voldemort's defenses long enough to fire off an entrail-expelling curse or something, right?).

One thing I wonder - Voldemort says being split from his body the first time was "pain beyond pain." Which sounds like he wouldn't exactly have been very quick to react to anything else during his first few moments as Vapormort. So... given that the Veil is practically just around the corner, is there any way of controlling a ghost/soul-piece/whatever, at least if it's weak or distracted? Could Dumbledore have killed the Voldemort-body and steered the Voldemort-soul through the Veil, leaving only the Horcruxes behind? They're still potentially dangerous, or at least the locket could be given how similar it seems to the diary, but they won't be starting any trouble on their own. He'd have decades to find and destroy the rest, and without the main fragment able to re-embody itself, he could probably safely let Harry die of natural causes.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/You know, Rowling, when you’re trying to create in your readers a sense of sadness that one of the main characters has died, it’s probably best not to have Neville coming in with his comedy broken nose voice. It sort of distracts from the pathos of the moment./

This seems to happen a lot in the series. In HBP, the Ministry has finally realized that Voldemort has returned, we know that Draco’s up to something, and we occasionally hear about war casualties...but a large part of the book is the tiresome and obnoxious soap opera of Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny. When we finally do see the war directly in DH, we still hear Fred and George merrily chant, “U-No-Poo.”

/Harry tries to use Crucio on Bellatrix, but because he’s not enough of a sadist only succeeds in knocking her over. Fortunately he’s going to remember her advice about needing to enjoy the pain of your opponent (much better, in fact, that he seems to remember any of his school lessons), and by the end of Book Seven he’ll be torturing with the best of them./

Remember when the Unforgivable Curses were supposed to be the worst spells ever? Well, no, apparently the only evil spell is the one involved in making Horcruxes. But tell me this, how come Harry is unable to cast the Cruciatus Curse now, when he’s been nothing but a spiteful, angst-ridden cauldron of self-absorbed anger all year, but in DH, when he’s ostensibly calmed down a bit (at least to the point where he’s no longer erupting into caps-lock every five pages), *that’s* when he can use the Cruciatus Curse with ease?

/So is part of the reason why the Cruciatus is considered so bad the fact that you can only cast it with malevolent motives, unlike most spells, which don’t seem to be much affected by your mental state?/

I don’t know if Mary-J-59 was the first to propose this idea, but this would seem like a good way to distinguish Dark magic from regular magic. The Dark Arts require malevolent intent, hence why the Unforgiveable Curses are bad (well, unless Harry’s the one casting them, of course *sarcasm*), whereas the spells that James used on Severus while bullying him can be used for harmless purposes, so they don’t qualify as Dark.

/“Months of preparation, months of effort… and my Death Eaters have let Harry Potter thwart me again…” Well, to be fair, Voldemort, it was a pretty stupid plan. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that you deserved to fail./

And why on earth did it require “months of preparation?” Unless Voldemort really does feel that education is a high priority.

/I suppose that Dumbledore fighting Voldemort with all those magical creature statues helping him is supposed to be symbolic./

Since we see that most of the magical creatures in the battle in DH (werewolves, giants, etc.) fight for Voldemort’s side, it’s kind of ironic once you look back on it.

/“‘It was foolish to come here tonight, Tom,’ said Dumbledore calmly.” I’d think that addressing Voldemort by his real first name would be an incredibly cool thing to do, were it not so obviously copied from the Obi-Wan/Darth Vader scene in Star Wars./

Except that Obi-Wan didn’t call Darth Vader “Anakin.” But yeah, the whole teacher/former student confrontation idea is reiterated here.

[oryx_leucoryx]

And why on earth did it require “months of preparation?” Unless Voldemort really does feel that education is a high priority.

Well, maybe this supports danny_sparks' idea that Tom had been sending Harry visions of Sirius in the DOM since late February, but Harry kept waking up before he got to the end of the sequence.

Since we see that most of the magical creatures in the battle in DH (werewolves, giants, etc.) fight for Voldemort’s side, it’s kind of ironic once you look back on it.

We only know of 1 werewolf and 2 giants that supported Voldemort. And there were none of those among the statues. But the centaurs and house-elves ended up doing - er - something or other against the DEs in the last phase of the battle (and 1 centaur and 2 elves played significant roles earlier). Even the goblins helped a bit.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

This seems to happen a lot in the series. In HBP, the Ministry has finally realized that Voldemort has returned, we know that Draco’s up to something, and we occasionally hear about war casualties...but a large part of the book is the tiresome and obnoxious soap opera of Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny. When we finally do see the war directly in DH, we still hear Fred and George merrily chant, “U-No-Poo.”


And of course, the scene in Book VI where Harry tells Ron and Hermione about the prophecy is interrupted by Hermione getting punched in the eye by a joke telescope. It's almost as if JK Rowling wants to include all these dramatic, emotional moments in her stories, but doubts her ability to pull them off without being melodramatic, so ends up undercutting them to diffuse the pathos.

But tell me this, how come Harry is unable to cast the Cruciatus Curse now, when he’s been nothing but a spiteful, angst-ridden cauldron of self-absorbed anger all year, but in DH, when he’s ostensibly calmed down a bit (at least to the point where he’s no longer erupting into caps-lock every five pages), *that’s* when he can use the Cruciatus Curse with ease?


Maybe Harry's "calming down" was actually just him keeping all his anger bottled up until it erupted in the Cruciatus scene, whilst his angsty capslocks in Book V helped him relieve stress and stopped him getting mad enough to torture anybody? That's about the only explanation I can think of.

I don’t know if Mary-J-59 was the first to propose this idea, but this would seem like a good way to distinguish Dark magic from regular magic. The Dark Arts require malevolent intent, hence why the Unforgiveable Curses are bad (well, unless Harry’s the one casting them, of course *sarcasm*), whereas the spells that James used on Severus while bullying him can be used for harmless purposes, so they don’t qualify as Dark.

But then we have Severus describing Sectumsempra as a curse, that is a piece of dark magic, even though Harry didn't know what it did and so can't have been intending to cut Draco. Unless "I want Draco to be harmed" is enough intent for the purposes of cursing someone, even if the caster doesn't know exactly what harm he's going to do.

Since we see that most of the magical creatures in the battle in DH (werewolves, giants, etc.) fight for Voldemort’s side, it’s kind of ironic once you look back on it.


It's odd that, for all Voldemort's reputation as a Pureblood fanatic, he's actually quite accepting of other groups. IIRC, he even makes Fenrir Greyback into a Death Eater.

Except that Obi-Wan didn’t call Darth Vader “Anakin.”

I think I recall reading that George Lucas didn't plan to make Anakin and Vader the same person until Empire, so "Darth" was still Vader's first name, rather than a title used by evil Jedi. (His official title seems to have been "Lord Vader", or at least that's what most of the Imperialists call him.)

[corycides.livejournal.com]

Or what happened to Draco was Sectumsempra watered down?

[corycides.livejournal.com]

I suppose it is possible, but I doubt it.

For a start it is a spell created by a bullied and troubled teenager to use on his enemies, designed to do as much physical damage as possible. The intent there is pretty Dark, to start with. We also know that there was some Dark Arts experimentation going on in Slytherin at the point and I think it is likely Snape was involved/interested, since he was fairly quickly scooped up by Voldemort.

Squint a bit and I suppose you could argue the spell was designed to shred clothes - mirroring the Marauders 'pranks' - and it was Harry's anger that latched it onto skin, but that would stretch my credulity a bit. The spell seems much likely to be a very nasty curse created by a very angry teenager, who never used it because he knew it would be going too far.

[oryx_leucoryx]

But the idea that what defines 'Dark' is malicious intent is still conjecture based on Gryffindor sources.

We do have hints in canon that others use different definitions for 'Dark'. For instance, we have Xeno saying the Hallows are not Dark in the crude sense. Which means there is some non-crude meaning of the term (which I take to be the way it was used prior to Dumbly's propaganda campaign) by which the Hallows (including the invisibility cloak) are Dark indeed.

[corycides.livejournal.com]

Fair enough, the books were never entirely clear on what Dark magic actually was or even its legal status. Was it illegal to use Dark magic in particular - as opposed to the Unforgivables in particular - or to own items of Dark magic? Was it only illegal if the use of them caused harm? If so why weren't half the students arrested and imprisoned? I don't have the books on hand but how does a spell that makes you spit slugs or one that turns your bogeys into bats qualify as anything but Dark?

Defense Against the Dark Arts could have given a clue, but it seemed mostly about fighting magical creatures. What classes we saw about opposing the Dark Arts didn't seem to reference their corruptive influence and focused more on what seemed like simple duelling.

My personal interpretation is Dark magic was any magic that was powered by emotion and desire, as such it was unreliable and unpredictable but powerful. Dark curses are a subset of that, in that are Dark magic spells created with the intent to harm.

Dumbledore disliked it and preferred the intellectual arena of light magic spells, that were all about precision and education.

Another author - I think Alan Garner? - used a similar division in his book between Wild Magic and High Magic.

So Sectumsempra being Dark makes sense to me.

[oryx_leucoryx]

So why are the Hallows Dark?

It was Terri who pointed out that one reason for the confusion in canon is that different people are using the term in different meanings, that this division is relatively recent and political, and that we see these differences in action in the conversation between Lily and Severus.

Dark Magic Doth Never Prosper, Part I

and Dark Magic Doth Never Prosper, Part II

[oryx_leucoryx]

OK, I posted links to Terri's essays on the Dark Arts, they'll probably show up eventually. If you want to find them yourself, look up the tag 'dark arts' in her journal. The important bit: The confusion about the Dark Arts in canon is because different people use this term to refer to different things, this division is relatively recent (was created by Dumbles as a political tool). A lot of things that people like Lucius or Severus or Xeno consider Dark are not pointed out as such to newcomers to the wizarding world or to Dumbledore's supporters. The Hallows are Dark. The sword of Gryffindore is Dark. The Patronus is a Dark spell. The more sophisticated magical healing is Dark. etc.

[oryx_leucoryx]

You know, I disagree with you about Albus. He was not distrustful of emotion, he worshiped it. And he was distrustful of intellect. At least, other people's intellect. Which is why he worked hard to dumb down the curriculum of Hogwarts even before he became headmaster. No, Albus saw his and Gellert's intellect as their downfall, as he tells Harry, and Harry's emotions as Harry's and everyone else's salvation. He wanted people to follow emotions over intellect, only special people such as himself could be trusted with intellect, and even that only after they learned not to overdo it.

[corycides.livejournal.com]

I disagree back :)

For me, Albus is someone who might *use* emotion, but doesn't trust it. No matter how much bonhomie and quirky old gent he waved about, he didn't let anyone get very close to him. He had been burned by letting his heart rule his head, and, being Albus, decided that if he couldn't be trusted with it, then no-one else could be.

Harry's emotions were useful, but only because Albus was there to guide them. He didn't really trust Harry's emotions at all, not until he spent a long time carefully shaping Harry into someone he trusted to act a certain way given a certain stimulus.

So Dark magic (in my idea of it) is unpleasant to him because it is all about the depth of emotion. Wand magic which is more precise and logical resonates more with his idea of how things should be. If you do a and b, then you get c. No amount of wanting or needing will change that.

Not that Dumbledore liked people being too clever either. He liked a certain sort and level of cleverness, the sort that Hogwarts was designed to create. He didn't want people who thought new things, but people who were good at thinking about appropriate things. A tamed, bureaucratic sort of cleverness, if that makes sense?

Although, of course, when it came right down to it he didn't really trust anyone other than himself.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Wait, now you're distinguishing between Dark magic and *wanded* magic? That makes no sense. We know of three spells agreed by all parties to be Dark (the Unforgivables) and all seem to require a wand. Sectumsempra also seems to require a wand and is possibly Dark or possibly not. Nor is precision vs emotion (into the latter of which you're incorporating intent it seems) the clear axis on which it turns. The AK is driven by emotion/emotional intent but is also quite precise - it's not a vague or diffuse spell, but one that must be aimed carefully to be effective and seems to act analogously to a bullet that cannot be stopped, only reflected around until it hits a living target. It kills, and does nothing else. That is, in area, in kind of damage, and in the kind of target it can effect it is quite precise. Sectumsempra meanwhile can be cast with varying precision: compare Harry's wild use of it to Severus' no less furious but carefully controlled use of it to nick James' cheek - which did not apparently even leave a scar.

[maidofkent.livejournal.com]

Dark magic is about the depth of emotion? But the Patronus charm, which is apparently as Light as you can get, is magic generated by emotion.

[oryx_leucoryx]

There is no such thing as 'light' magic. There is Dark and non-Dark. And yes, in the non-Dumbledorian, non-crude sense the Patronus may indeed be Dark. As are the Hallows, and who knows how many other spells, objects and forms of magic.

[sunnyskywalker]

As to legal status - that opal necklace in Borgin & Burke's has a Dark curse on it, yet he doesn't feel the need to keep it hidden in the back and only show it to special, discreet customers. It's right out in the open, labeled. So I think it's a fair bet that you can own and sell some Dark artifacts legally (even ones which are explicitly labeled as THIS IS MEANT TO HURT YOU). The poisons Lucius wants to unload aren't legal, but they seem to be an extreme case. Also, all of Knockturn Alley is said to be full of Dark stuff, and it operates entirely openly and legally, even if some Gryffindors think children shouldn't wander there unsupervised.

Some spells the kids learn at Hogwarts are not identified as Dark, but still rely on emotion, such as "Ridikkulus." Lupin teaches that one to all the kids openly, but no one ever then comes back and accuses the Hogwarts staff of hypocrisy for saying Dark magic isn't taught at Hogwarts. So, either it's ill intent only which defines it, or Ridikkulus only isn't Dark in the crude sense, which is good enough to pass as not Dark at all according to modern definitions.

Finally, we know Durmstrang teaches the Dark Arts, yet no one seems particularly worried about inviting Durmstrang students into the school for that reason. Ron is more worried about them being an opposing sporting team and potential romantic rivals. He never starts worrying that Krum or any of his classmates are bad seeds who've been taught to channel hate regularly. Even after they know the headmaster was an actual Death Eater, the characters don't seem particularly worried that Durmstrang might be a factory for baby DEs who will be sneaking into England to fight for Voldemort. (I'm counting adult Order members here too, not just HHR, who can be clueless about such things.) No one bats an eye at inviting a Durmstrang alumnus to Bill and Fleur's wedding in the middle of VoldWar II.

I'd say if the Dark Arts were only about using emotions like anger and intent to harm to fuel harmful spells, none of this would be the case. All Dark objects and spells would be illegal, and at least some of the adults would be seriously concerned about inviting dangerous, nasty kids into the country and would warn the kid characters about it in unambiguous, "stay away from them all because they're murderous sociopaths in training" terms. So I think it's also fair to conclude that Xeno is right and there is some non-crude sense of Dark magic which is totally legal and not seen as harmful (or at least no more than any "Light" curse, at least not immediately), even by some of Dumbledore's supporters who claim to consider it bad in general.

[maidofkent.livejournal.com]

The only time we see Severus definitely use Sectumsempra, it is as an amputation spell. Harry sees him in the Pensieve aiming it at a Death Eater's wand hand. The spell misfires and severs George's ear. Harry damages Draco in the way he does because he is slashing wildly as he says the spell.

[corycides.livejournal.com]

So it is a spell designed to sever his enemies body-parts in a way that makes it difficult if not impossible to reattach or regrow?

Still pretty dark.

[maidofkent.livejournal.com]

It's been suggested that Severus either found or invented the spell (it's not clear which), intending it for use against werewolves, who can't be harmed by most spells. It's a confusing spell, since causing damage which is impossinle or difficult to repair seems to be a sign of dark magic, but when Draco is cut by the spell, Severus is able to heal him completely.

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<dumbledore [...] spells,>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

It's been suggested that Severus either found or invented the spell (it's not clear which), intending it for use against werewolves, who can't be harmed by most spells. It's a confusing spell, since causing damage which is impossinle or difficult to repair seems to be a sign of dark magic, but when Draco is cut by the spell, Severus is able to heal him completely.

<Dumbledore disliked it and preferred the intellectual arena of light magic spells, that were all about precision and education>

I don't think there's any difference in precision between dark and light spells - if Sectumsempra is dark, then, as used by Severus, it is a precise spell. If it is the spell that gashes James' cheeck during SWM, then that is a very precise use (which apparently heals). Avada Kevadra is also a precise spell.

Inventing spells is also an intellectual exercise, whether they be light or dark, and I agree Albus distrusted intellect when used by anyone but himself.

It seems pretty clear that the OMGit'sdarkmagic view as expressed by Lily and other Gryffindors is relatively recent. The Blacks were a well know dark familu and intermarried with Longbottoms, Macmillans, Crouches and Potters without difficulty.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

It's been suggested that Severus either found or invented the spell (it's not clear which), intending it for use against werewolves, who can't be harmed by most spells.

I heard another theory that it was intended for use against Muggle assailants when Severus was back home for the holidays. Severus seems to have grown up in quite a rough part of the country, and if he were mugged or otherwise assaulted he'd have needed to be able to defend himself. A controlled Sectumsempra wound would look like a knife cut, and so wouldn't wouldn't look suspicious in the way that other magic-related injuries might.

It's a confusing spell, since causing damage which is impossinle or difficult to repair seems to be a sign of dark magic, but when Draco is cut by the spell, Severus is able to heal him completely.

He does heal him, but using a seemingly quite obscure spell (at any rate, we don't really see anything like it in the rest of the books), so to most people it might well be impossible or difficult to repair. Unless Snape's spell is just an unusually powerful healing spell, and other, more common, spells would work as well.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Whatever cutting spell it was that Severus used on James was also healed enough that neither Sirius nor Remus ever mentioned that as one of Severus' faults.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

Perhaps Sectumsempra wounds will heal naturally, but they're difficult or impossible to cure using magical means? When George (or Fred) has his ear cut off by Snape, Lupin says that it would be difficult to reattach because it was removed with Dark Magic, although he might have just assumed that whatever spells the DEs used must have been Dark, rather than actually recognising it as such.

[sunnyskywalker]

In the ww, that would make a lot of wounds "impossible" to cure. Muggles could stitch George's ear back on, so long as someone thought to Accio it, but we know what wizards think of stitches.

[oryx_leucoryx]

There was no mention of reattaching. It was mentioned (by Molly?) that it can't be *regrown* because it was removed by Dark Magic. Apparently wizards have stem cell technology that allows stimulating the wound to regrow the tissue that was removed.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

According to my copy, Lupin says "there's no chance of replacing his ear, not when it's been cursed off". "Replacing" could I suppose cover both reattaching the ear or regrowing a new one.

[oryx_leucoryx]

And Molly says "I can't make it grow back, not when it's been removed by Dark Magic." Not that I trust either of them. Remus was caught exaggerating for the sake of drama several times already, and I have no idea what Molly's credentials are in the area of Dark Arts.

[sunnyskywalker]

Unless she's secretly a trained Healer or Dark Arts expert, she probably doesn't know more than advanced first aid. She wasn't in the Order in the first war, though her brothers were (so she might have picked up a few tricks, but she wasn't exactly a battlefield medic). If she has any specialties, I think the evidence points toward clock/tracking magic.

So I believe that she can't grow it back. Whether Pomfrey or Snape or the St. Mungo's staff could is another question we never get answered. Why they haven't recruited someone with those skills is yet another question.

[oryx_leucoryx]

IIRC, he even makes Fenrir Greyback into a Death Eater.

It is canon that Fenrir doesn't have the Dark Mark. DH chapter 23.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

Harry guesses that Fenrir doesn't have the Mark ("Harry thought he knew why Greyback wasn't calling Voldemort..."), but I don't think it's ever confirmed for certain. Even if Greyback is only a second-rank DE, allowed to wear the robes but not given the Mark, that's still surprising given what we're told about Voldie's views on purity of blood.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Fenrir admits he doesn't have the Mark, which is why he can't signal to Voldemort that he caught Harry, nor can he go through Malfoy Manor's security system unassisted. (I wonder how Narcissa does it). There is no evidence for 'second-rank Death Eaters'. Fenrir isn't a DE, just as hanger-on.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

Greyback is allowed to wear Death Eater robes and he seems to be in charge of the group which captures Harry, so he's clearly got *some* position of authority within the Dark Lord's hierarchy, even if he's not as high-up as the DEs are.

[oryx_leucoryx]

The group that caught the trio were Snatchers, people capturing kids skipping school, hidden Muggle-borns, assorted undesirables, for the Ministry in exchange for money per head caught. Bounty hunters. They didn't normally deal with the DEs at all. Follow the exchange between Fenrir and Scabior when they discuss what to do with the kids. Their normal destination would have been Umbridge's department. But Fenrir had past business with the Malfoys and he decided he had a better chance to get a bigger prize for such an exceptional catch from them. I'm guessing Fenrir was used in the past by Lucius to threaten people, just like Draco attempted to use him on Borgin. He wore a black robe in HBP but it didn't quite fit him properly. Looks like an improvised costume.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

It might have been improvised (in HBP -- I don't think DH mentions his clothes being ill-fitting, so presumably he'd got a new set), but I still can't imagine Voldemort letting just anybody wear DE robes. And given that by the time Harry and Co. are caught and taken to Malfoy Manor, Voldemort had already seized control, it's difficult to say how significant the fact that they're reporting to Umbridge is, as we don't know whether or not Voldemort has taken any steps to intergrate his DEs into the official government structures.

[oryx_leucoryx]

“I know spells of such power that you, pathetic little boy, could never hope to compete—” A pity we never get to see any, then, or find out what makes them so powerful. Is it the effect they have, the effort needed to cast them, both, neither…?

Bellatrix is probably the best dueler among the 12 DEs who were on this mission - she defeated both Tonks and Sirius. We don't know what spells she used, though. She is handy with Cruciatus, and in HBP she AKs an urban fox, supposedly because she thought it was an Auror. But she didn't even try to AK anyone at the DOM. I suppose that her insanity hasn't reached the point she'd forget that indoors, with many people, the risk of hitting the wrong person, whether directly or via rebound was a serious issue (as opposed to Rowle in HBP).

Second place goes to Dolohov, for the use of the purple spell - even non-verbally he managed to inflict serious harm on Hermione. The rest - not so impressive.

BTW what do you think Molly was doing the entire evening? I'm sure she noticed that 2 of her children were in 'mortal danger'?

[granatapfelrot.livejournal.com]

Molly was training up her own Mad Dueling Skillz that evening. Or her Power Of Love.
Whatever it was exactly, she took out Bella with in DH, after she couldn't deal with that Boggart in OotP.

[detritius.livejournal.com]

I like to think the spell Molly used on Bellatrix was some type of household spell turned deadly. Like maybe a freeze-drying spell (which would make sense with the way it looked in the movie) -- harmless on vegetables you want to store for the winter, not so much on a person. But then, I'm sort of fascinated by the idea of repurposing common spells for wartime usage. I was disappointed when it never came up in DH.

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Like how that clever James turned a household spell into a means of torture?

Just think what a simple paring spell could do! And without ever being nasty and Dark.

[granatapfelrot.livejournal.com]

Even if Molly killed Bella with a common household spell(which would be kind of cool), she still would have to be fast and powerful enough to throw said spell. And like oryx wrote, Bella was actually good at dueling.
I could believe Molly managing to hex her in the back, while Bella was distracted fighting other opponents, but that was not what it sounded like, what with that loudmouthed Action movie quote.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I always figured it was because JKR wanted to write something "Epic" and didn't care whether it made sense or not.

[granatapfelrot.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes. That and underlining that whole childish 'mummy is the best'-concept she has going.
I think DH as a whole was meant to be 'Epic'. Rowling is just sadly as good at 'Epic' as she is a romance.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

That doesn't stop a lot of people from thinking that it's epic, though. Maybe it's because it's the finale and thus it has to be cool, I guess. It's sort of like how movies always seem to have similar "epic" music to show you when to think things are getting awesome. If they actually are then it really helps bring that out, but sadly, it can also be used to hide a whole host of plotholes and stupidity. That, and much of it is totally ripped off of Gustav Holst's The Planets.