Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

[butterfly]

First off -- meep. 400 people (as in, communities not included) have me friended. But I maintain that this does not, in any way, make me anything resembling even a Middle Name Fan.

*looks around shiftily, polishes 'Little Name Fan' plaque, displays plaque for all to see*

See? Little fish, big pond.

First off, Draco did even less to earn Hermione's ire than I'd remembered.

Observations of the scene in question:

A) Draco crows over the fact that the animal that did, in fact, attack him is going to be put down. Now, I *heart* animals, but Hagrid had no right to bring a dangerous creature into a class of thirteen year-olds in the first place. Draco didn't observe the rules, but a thirteen year old child should not be put into a situation where not paying attention can lead to pain and death. Thirteen year olds are stupid and they suck at paying attention.
B) He asks the Trio if they 'came to see the show', which is petty, but isn't actually an insult.
C) Hermione pulls her wand on him, sticks it at his throat, and he pretty much goes to pieces in fear.
D) She pulls the wand away, he laughs in what looked like relief to me (she's not going to hex me!), and then she punches him.
E) He cowers and runs away, and then calls her a Mudblood and says he'll get her. After she has, one might note, threatened and attacked him.

In fact, the first time that he ever calls her a Mudblood in the books is after she's insulted his pride and his talent. When he's talking about her to his father earlier in the book, he just calls her 'Granger'. It really does remind me of Snape snapping 'Mudblood' at Lily after he's been humilated by James and Sirius. It's an instinctive reaction, lashing out. And Snape lashes out at the person who helps him, while Draco, at least, only lashes out at those who hurt him. Though Draco doesn't have a Lily, someone from another house who gives a damn.

I paid more attention to Pansy Parkinson this time around and was thrilled. She's such a little sophisticated child.

Hermione... well, she's a violent girl, isn't she? Violent and so firmly self-righteous. Which are, indeed, as I recall, flaws that further develop later on in the books. In OotP, when she leads Umbridge to get tortured by the centaurs...

*shudders*

Also, after rewatching the movie, I actually would put stock in the Ron=Dumbledore theory. It would make sense. I mean, the sheer pettiness of how Slytherin's Cup victory in PS is taken away makes me think of Ron.

Comments

[twistedchick]

Just for the sake of argument :) let me pose these questions:

If Thirteen year olds are stupid and they suck at paying attention,
then how old should children be before they're taught to ride horses, given dogs to play with or introduced to the concept of looking both ways before crossing the road? All of these are potentially life-threatening, yet children are taught to ride before they're six, have dogs from the time they're crawling and learn to cross the road properly before they're 10. I think you're dissing thirteen-year-olds pretty heavily here.

Thirteen-year-olds are in situations where not paying attention can mean pain and death *a lot* in ordinary life. So are the rest of us.

Not trying to harsh your buzz, but this did strike me pretty hard.

[theatre-pixie.livejournal.com]

*frowns* You really do have this thing for bad guys, don't you? It isn't that they don't make good character studies (or perhaps I'm not half as "live and let live" as I should be), but you sympathize with the bullies (and yes, Draco is--or tries to be--a bully) and with those out to silence Harry and his friends (ie: Umbridge). And considering the lengths that woman was willing to go to silence Harry (even before she'd met him), I'm thinking that she deserved a bit of malicious intent (look what she did to MacGonagal and Hagrid and Seamus! The woman was a flaming bitch!).

[lamardeuse.livejournal.com]

In fact, the first time that he ever calls her a Mudblood in the books is after she's insulted his pride and his talent.

Yes, but considering the obvious WWII parallels in the HP universe, with the whole "purity" issue, Draco's calling someone a "Mudblood" is akin to a member of the Hitler Youth calling a Jewish person names in 1935. There's a terrible feeling of foreboding, that there's more to the name than merely an insult, and I think that's how JKR means to put it across.

[(Anonymous)]

In fact, the first time that he ever calls her a Mudblood in the books is after she's insulted his pride and his talent.

Interestingly enough, Draco NEVER insults Hermione AT ALL in the novels until that moment when she insults his pride. Before that he completely ignores her and just baits Harry and Ron (even after she becomes friends with them and they are hanging out together). And he didn't start being rude to those two, either, until they did their own respective things to piss Draco off (Harry: rejecting his friendship; Ron: insulting his family name). Interesting, eh?

[alicamel.livejournal.com]

I think the difference is that dogs and horses are domesticated creatures - the Hippogrift is less like a dog and more like a wild tiger. And intelligent touchy wild tiger. In Ootp when Professor Grubby-Plank (or whatever his name is, don't hve the book to hand) takes over Hagrid's lessons, he teachs the 5th years about mostly harmless creatures, which seem to be what they need to know a far as OWLs are concerned - Hagrid needlessly exposes them to creatures that will kill them without reason.

Or something. Sorry that wasnt very clear.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Actually, I despise Umbridge. She's a horrid, narrow-minded, ruthless and sadistic monster of a woman. I'm actually quite impressed with her as a villain -- she's so realistically horrible as a person.

Point of fact, Umbridge manages to be the only character in the Harry Potter series that I maintain an active loathing for (Voldemort being too cartoon-y to warrant such a reaction). I just don't think that anyone deserves to be tortured. Even if they have tortured others. I'm not a big fan of 'eye for an eye' punishment theory.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Yes, but considering the obvious WWII parallels in the HP universe, with the whole "purity" issue, Draco's calling someone a "Mudblood" is akin to a member of the Hitler Youth calling a Jewish person names in 1935. There's a terrible feeling of foreboding, that there's more to the name than merely an insult, and I think that's how JKR means to put it across.

Agreed, and yet the Slytherins are the minority in the school and the Slytherins are the ones that get physically and magically attacked and defeated. The Slytherins are the ones that people gang up against. If you beat up a bully preemptively, it kinda makes you the bully.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Very true. Draco's annoying through Harry's eyes in the robe shop, but he doesn't actually say anything mean to him.

His words are cruel ones, but he doesn't use them until he's been hurt. He doesn't attack, he responds to attack. His response just happens to be something that is considered a worse reaction by the audience and society at large.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

alicamel mentions this below, but it's pretty much what I was thinking -- there's a difference between domestic and wild animals. Example -- I'm fine with them riding broomsticks, a more controllable source of danger (though still quite dangerous), but a hippogriff is a wild animal. It's the difference between letting your thirteen year old ride a horse and letting your kid ride a tiger.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Thank you! That's pretty much exactly what I meant.

[twistedchick]

I don't think so. That hippogriff was not a wild animal at all. It was a tamed animal -- it did not fight wearing a chain, or reject food from Hagrid or Hermione -- and it simply had its own customs and manners. So do horses and dogs, both of which can kill people accidentally or on purpose if provoked. Kids learn not to tease or annoy strange dogs, or they'll be in danger of getting bitten. They also learn the proper way to approach a horse and not to startle it, or they might get kicked, which is essentially what happened to Draco. If my riding teacher from when I was 13 had been there instead of Hagrid, the first thing she would have done after bandaging Draco's arm would have been to get him right back there in front of Buckbeak and make sure he learned the proper way to treat the hippogriff, so that neither the kid nor the animal has any lasting damage from the encounter. As my teacher said, "Any horse will bite and kick, because they all have teeth and feet. You have to learn how to behave around them, that's all."

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Honestly, for me, part of the big difference is the carnivore thing. Because a trained tiger will obey, too. And both of them get tossed dead meat as a reward and neither of them are domesticated. And then sometimes they maul you, even though you've been in an act with them for years.

Plus, there is the teacher factor. I wouldn't trust Hagrid to teach my grandmother to cross the street. In the hands of a truly experienced teacher, the danger factor of almost anything is diminished (though, of course, not gone). But a bad teacher increases the danger. Hagrid clearly did not brief the class on hippogriffs before they met Buckbeak, since Ron had to ask what kind of creature it was, and his directions were aimed at Harry, who was physically quite a bit ahead of the rest of the group -- it's entirely possible that Draco may not have been able to hear everything even if he'd been paying attention.

[theatre-pixie.livejournal.com]

*laughs* Thank you. I was starting to worry about you. ;)

Yes, I'd noticed that while Voldemort was one of those "Oooh, scary" types, Umbridge was just... "make you want to scream obscenities at this horrid woman" kind of sadistic BITCH. After her detention session with Harry, I wanted to throttle the woman (and I had to put the book down, I couldn't take any more of that woman).

See, while I'm not fond of Draco, I can handle him. He's relatively harmless, just prideful and annoying (his tattletale tendencies rather tick me off). Voldemort, well... you've got to have a big, bad one in there somewhere right? And he can be rather clever, he just seems to have idiotic henchmen (they got lazy in being powerful for so long and now they haven't quite gotten used to being less powerful). And Snape seemed for a long time just to dislike Harry and the kids outside of his house. Before OotP, I thought he was just jealous of Harry's being a celebrity since before he could hold a wand, but now that we've seen the pain inflicted upon him by Harry's father and his friends, I understand his loathing a bit more. I think the man should grow up, but I don't think he's totally out of line. But Umbridge... No. I just can't bring myself to feel sorry for her. Some things I can forgive, but what that woman did to people ALL through OotP was HIDEOUS. Nope, no forgiveness. I couldn't have lead her to the centaurs myself and I certainly wouldn't have cheered them on (can see some people sitting on the sidelines with popcorn and chili dogs, waving pennants and shouting "Go, Centaurs! Go!), but now that it's done, I don't feel badly about it.

[theatre-pixie.livejournal.com]

All right, don't be too hard on Hagrid. Admittedly, he has a fondness for dangerous creatures (and books, also for dangerous books), but he's still... rather a young wizard. He never took classes beyond his... well, somewhere between his second and fifth year. Yet Dumbledore trusts him with his own class. Now, most of the boys (who aren't in Slytherin) think that Hagrid's choices of animals are pretty cool, don't they? They get to see all of these wild creatures up close and learn about them. The girls are impressed too, they'd just rather pet a unicorn.

Yes, Hagrid should probably spend more time in a classroom-type setting with the kids reading about the animals they'll meet, but it isn't like he's purposely endangering anyone. He just wants the kids to be unafraid of these creatures that he loves so much.

[fallingfortruth.livejournal.com]

*cheers* Okay, I think I fall a little bit less on the side of angry-with-Hagrid, but I am very, very with you about Hermione and Draco.

I'm becoming less and less of a Ron/Hermione shipper as the series goes on, because more and more Hermione is just too angry for Ron, who is quite possibly my favourite of the "protagonist" characters in the books.

Except for Sirius and Remus, who have my undying love. Esp. Sirius. Gary, I should never have doubted you!

[alicamel.livejournal.com]

Hagrid's a good person, and his love of animals is admirable. But he should not be a teacher. He's a bad teacher, pure and simple. As butterfly said, if he was going to introduce them to dangerous animals he should have at least had a lessons with them on it - like in Chemistry, you're never just give the dangerous chemials with obscure warnings, you (should be) taught about what you're going to do, what's going to happen, what are the dangers and how to avoid them.

The fact that Hagrid's warning about what to do if the Hippogrif didn't bow to them were along the line of 'well, we'll get to that when it happens' I'd have been suprised if someone didn't get hurt.

As for Hagrid not finishing shool - all the more reason for him not to be given a teaching post; at least not without being sitting/resiting his OWLs and sitting his NEWTs. I mean, come on. Would you let someone who hadn't taken their GCSEs/A-levels teach at a secondary school level?

[sperrywink]

Another interesting thing about this scene in the book is this exchange:
He (Draco] had a bored drawling voice. "Then I'm going to drag them off to look at racing brooms. I don't see why first years can't have their own. I think I'll bully father into getting me one and I'll smuggle it in somehow."
Harry was strongly reminded of Dudley.

I think this line, although in context could only really apply to Dudley's and Draco's spoiltness since as you mentioned Draco is never anything more than annoying in this scene, also leaves everyone with the impression that since Draco is like Dudley, Draco must be a bully like Dudley, and it is this misperception that doesn't get born out by the series but gets perpetuated because he isn't a nice character and so therefore must be not-nice in all ways.

[theatre-pixie.livejournal.com]

*smirks* Well... I wouldn't let them teach chemistry. But I think that some of the best teachers are the ones who aren't all bogged down by the politics of their position. So much high school is "write a paper about it--ooh, within these specific guidelines of how I want you to do it." It takes a lof of bloody creativity to make one's paper different from their best pals' even if you aren't copying from one another.

Yes, Hagrid should have more education. I wish that Rowling would let him get it so that he could be a full-fledged wizard (I mean, now that everyone knows that Tom Riddle was the culprit all those years ago, shouldn't they let Hagrid finish his schooling--even in private tutoring with the professors--instead of just having him use magic this way and that?)

And, in case you didn't notice, I agreed with what

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<ljuser="butterfly">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

*smirks* Well... I wouldn't let them teach chemistry. But I think that some of the best teachers are the ones who aren't all bogged down by the politics of their position. So much high school is "write a paper about it--ooh, within these specific guidelines of how I want you to do it." It takes a lof of bloody creativity to make one's paper different from their best pals' even if you aren't copying from one another.

Yes, Hagrid should have more education. I wish that Rowling would let him get it so that he could be a full-fledged wizard (I mean, now that everyone <i>knows</i> that Tom Riddle was the culprit all those years ago, shouldn't they let Hagrid finish his schooling--even in private tutoring with the professors--instead of just having him use magic this way and that?)

And, in case you didn't notice, I <i>agreed</i> with what <ljuser="butterfly"> said about giving them lessons on a creature before they met it. Hmmm... oddly enough <b>Ms.</b> Grubbly-Plank (sorry, but it drove me bonkers that someone thought she was a man) doesn't do this either. Why the double standard? Just because she introduces them to unicorns? Seems to me that if Draco insulted a unicorn he could be run through, don't you think?

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I don't have a double-standard so much as just not care about what Grubbly-Plank does as she neither interests nor bothers me as a character. Hagrid bothers me because it seems like we're supposed to, well, like him as much as JK does. And I don't like being told to like a character (I suspect that at least a little bit of my Malfoy love springs from sheer contrariness towards JK.). Make a character interesting in a good way and I'll like them. I mean, what the hell was that Gwrp storyline about? I still don't see why she spent so much time on it.

And I suppose it would depend on whether or not unicorns are dangerous. We do find out in the first book that they're like, goodness and light.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I was starting to worry about you.

Hee. Yeah, I'd worry about someone who liked Umbridge, too. I can understand why she's the way she is (and Percy could end the same way if he isn't careful), but wow, what a nightmare.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Right. And we learn later that Draco is just talking big. Hell, he's probably trying to impress Harry (an impressionable first year like himself) with his wealth and connections, even here.

But first impressions stick like the dickens (and where does that expression come from?).

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I'm still angry with Hagrid over Gwrp (or however that's spelled).

I like Hermione quite a bit as a character, but do think that she and Ron would be ill-suited in the long run. She's so passionate about things that he couldn't give a damn about.

And yes, Sirius and Remus were the very knees of bees.

[theatre-pixie.livejournal.com]

And if you've ever watched Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, you know that too much goodness and light can do quite a bit of damage (Actually, that's mostly the awesome power of God thing, but it works for this discussion ;)).

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

They also learn the proper way to approach a horse and not to startle it, or they might get kicked, which is essentially what happened to Draco.

No, this is not what happened to Draco. He didn't get kicked, he got attacked, and he did not startle the animal, and he didn't annoy a strange dog. In the books, this happens:

Hagrid brings a big dangerous animal to class. It is certainly not "tame" if attacking people is part of its natural behavior. Since when does accepting food from a human being make an animal tame? Or fighting with a chain? Anyway, Hagrid thinks it's important that every kid come into close contact with this animal.

Hagrid doesn't get anywhere near the kind of care given to safety or explanations about the danger of approaching this predator.

Hagrid tells Harry (Harry, not the class) that he shouldn't offend Buckbeak or it could be "the last thing" he does. This is a vague and jokey statement, not much of a warning. Harry then looks over at the Slytherins and sees they are talking to each other, so they probably didn't hear that. Just as at any given time every kid in the class wasn't listening.

When Draco, Crabbe and Goyle approach the animal they follow Hagrid's instructions--the ones he stressed, like waiting for it to bow. Draco is petting it. He says, "You're probably not dangerous at all, are you, you big ugly brute." This line, as I understand it, is practically given to Hagrid in the movie so the filmmakers know it's not provacative.

The animal apparently understands English and gets insulted (suggesting it's sentient so acting on reason), so slashes Draco. Draco was being an idiot, and showing off, and insulting Harry (I doubt he even thinks Buckbeak understands him), and being his usual bratty self, but he's also the kid in the class who does something wrong and gets attacked by an animal--and would have been further attacked had Hagrid not wrestled him back into his chain, I believe. When Hagrid has this line in the movie are people surprised that Buckbeak doesn't attack him?

In the movie, as I understand it, Draco is more of an idiot, waving his arms, but he still offends Buckbeak's pride.

So if we're talking about canon, and from what I've heard of the movie scene also the movie, blaming the victim is pretty interesting. In canon, Hagrid is the teacher and he's a bad teacher. Harry is defensive of him, but even the books admit he's unqualified. Draco's a brat, though his behavior in class isn't all the bad compared to boys I grew up with--he pets an animal while calling it an ugly brute--that's it? He's also a kid in a class who gets mauled by an animal. I suspect if I got bitten by somebody's dog that he told me to pet because I called him a brute while doing so I wouldn't feel all that responsible.

If your riding teacher from when you were 13 had been there, it wouldn't have happened. I have to agree with AJHall's assessment of Dumbledore's movie line about Buckbeak being "innocent." "Innocent" in this case basically means: Guilty as charged by since the only person who cares about Draco's being hurt is Draco and his father that's all right then."

[sperrywink]

Yup, that is the impression I get also.

But first impressions stick like the dickens (and where does that expression come from?).
What? The fabled importance of first impressions or the fabled importance of dickens?
;)