Harry Potter

I'm way late, but Rowling confirmed during an interview that Edgecombe's disfigurement faded with time.

Guess there was some fan out there that felt bad for her.

edited 22nd Mar '15 11:59:20 AM by ElementX

Naw, they'd conjure a psychic Pokemon.

I have a question.

What do people here think of Hagrid as a teacher?

This is something I've never understood. You will encounter many HP fans who insist Hagrid was everything from incompetent to just downright dangerous as a teacher. In the three books/years Harry had him as a professor, the only time he ever fucked up was with the Skrewts.

I thought the general opinion was that he wasn't that good when he started but got he better, and his biggest problem stemmed from the failure to understand normal people are a lot squishier than him?

That and he didn't really grasp at first that just because he knows the ins and outs of every creature and is so familiar with them that he couldn't imagine being hurt, that doesn't mean that other people would be able to connect with them so safely.

He expected everyone to have the same immediate passion and affinity for his subject that he did.

Though I'm not sure whether all of the blame lies with him for the Skrewts, since I got the impression that the whole project was something he had to do for the Tournament, and that he had to drop everything else to do it.

edited 22nd Mar '15 4:16:30 PM by KnownUnknown

The monster books were an excellent example. He was stunned that none of his students figured out how to calm them down.

Hagrid has a tendency to make rather dangerous assumptions. Still, the hippogriffs would have gone okay if Malfoy hadn't decided to be an asshole, and all of the other lessons of his that we saw seemed like they were going well.

The Hippogriffs are a really good example. Hagrid figured "yeah, Hippogriffs will get dangerous on you if you don't show them the proper disrespect, but only someone with no common sense would do something like that," and didn't imagine that one of his students would be egotistical or immature enough not to care even though he was teaching teenagers.

I feel like he wasn't all that used to dealing with people who didn't know as much as him or were as eager to learn as him, which makes sense (though it's definitely a job where that should sink in fast), but then the resulting shitstorm made everything ten times worse.

On the other hand, he's got a big problem with scale. He's the kind of guy who is willing to risk personal injury or misfortune to learn something new, which could be considered admirable, if foolish. He's also willing to risk the injury and misfortune of others on the assumption that they won't mind because they encountered something new, which needed to get kicked out of his system ASAP.

He's tons better with the lessons when we see him in Book 5. Thestrals were apparently way above the gang's grade level, but he gave a reasonably safe and informative lesson before Umbridge ruined it. I always figured it was a shame Harry dropped the class, since it felt like they got out right when Hagrid finally started getting good at it (not that I can blame them).

edited 23rd Mar '15 3:16:19 AM by KnownUnknown

So, what does everyone think of Harry and his two besties not "actually" killing anyone? I always figured he was fine with self-defense, it's just good fortune and skill that he, Ron and Hermione never killed anyone.

You know, on page. There was that time he was trying to stun those Death Eaters chasing him on broomsticks. They might be OK.

And Quirrell doesn't count. Or the Basilisk. Maybe.

The basilisk doesn't count (WhatMeasureIsANonhuman). Quirrell might, but he's been taken over by Voldemort and could be considered already dead. And Harry did try to kill a Death Eater (with Avada Kedavra, no less). The fact that they didn't kill anyone is probably because they don't really want to (which is pretty normal for teenagers) and it's not easy to kill people in the magical world.

@Ogodei: not saying the proper words (or making the right wand movements) means you're not focused enough.

Quirrell totally counts. Voldemort's Body Surfing was shown to not be permanent (or else Harry wouldn't have survived the Battle of the Ministry), Quirrell could have lived quite readily.

So yeah, Harry killed a man. When he was 11. And then at least one more when he was 17. In both cases, it was because those men would not desist in trying to kill him. Quirrell only died because he kept trying to touch Harry (Phrasing). Voldemort could have lived had he not insisted on trying to Avada Kedavra Harry a 5th time, when he had failed every other shot.

Hell, use that crazy spell that Molly Weasley used to shatter Bellatrix.

edited 24th Mar '15 10:09:11 AM by Ogodei

Remember folks, for your reference:

• Killing Curse: unforgiveable evil that fractures your soul.
• Shatter Into A Million Pieces Curse: totally forgiveable, doesn't make you a bad person.

Harry only explicitly kills Quirrell in the movie. In the book, Dumbledore implies that Quirrell died when Voldemort left his body.

Killing people is totally okay as long as you use a colored beam of light to push them off a flying broom hundreds of feet into the ground rather than give them an immediate and painless death.

And did Molly's curse shatter Bellatrix? I don't remember that.

Only in the movie. It's not specified what the curse did in the book (though you might assume she did use Avada Kedavra.)

In the book, they just specify that the curse that killed Bellatrix hit her square in the heart and that killed her, because I guess where you hit someone with Generic Curse matters? Would Stupefy kill someone if you jabbed them in the heart with it? Are curses bullets now?

edited 24th Mar '15 2:17:15 PM by TobiasDrake

I think technically the book doesn't even specify if Bellatrix died or not.

Hey, maybe it's like a Blunt Impact curse that just got really well aimed. Come to think about it, what would happen if someone got Kedavra'd on the pinky toe?

I assume that just because certain spells and curses are legal doesn't mean you can use them in any way you want. The unforgivable curses are forbidden in any and every circumstance.

i'm pretty sure that's the intent. There can be extenuating circumstances for dangerous spells, or otherwise kosher uses; similarly, anyone with a cruel enough mind could make a seemingly harmless spell horrifying. But there's no justifiable excuse for the Unforgivable Curses.

Moreover, just because the Unforgivable Curses exist doesn't mean other spells used for evil purposes are just fine. If you used Reducto to drill a hole through someone's skull, you'd still be just as culpable as if you'd Avada Kedavra'd them.

Or Sectumsempra, which would be of dubious peaceful use.

I guess Avada Kedavra isn´t simplay forbidden because its lethal, didn´t it say somewhere in the books that there was no counterspell? I´m not sure but was Avada Kedavra even blocked in the books? (except by harry expelliamus, wich i count as an exception because of the connection between harrys and voldis wands).

Also it could have something to do with the intent used for the unforgivable curses.

Avada Kedavra: Intent is pure death, no wounding or hurting, just death. Sectumsempra isn´t pure death but "cut up", altough also lethal its purpouse isn´t only killing(you could cut your breakfast banana with it^^) Cruxio: Intent is pure pain, only really usefull for torture. Outlawing this spell would be the absolut first thing to do if you want to ban torture, i´m sure there are more laws wich forbid general torture but cruxio gets an extra law, because it´s physical pain without leaving traces. Imperio: Intent is control. Controling the thoughts of another person could be considerd the worst of crimes. I think this spell is specificly outlawed because there are no other spells wich do what it does, even if indirectly, and if there were they would also be considerd unforgivable.

Yes, it's been mentioned a few times that Avada Kedavra cannot be blocked or countered by any means. "Any means" here having the definition of any means other than being Harry Potter.

My pet theory that Avada Kedavra is the worst spell because of the damage it inflicts to the caster's soul.

Like, you might not be able to make a horcrux by drilling a hole in someone's skull with Reducto. Clever use of other spells to kill someone leaves them just as dead as the Killing Curse, but the Killing Curse is so unstoppably lethal that the act of casting it splits the wizard's soul in half, and I consider that a pretty significant distinction.

edited 25th Mar '15 8:48:46 AM by TobiasDrake

Bit like in the Dresden Files.

Is that splitting the soul of the caster of Av Kedav actually canon? If so, it's rather odd.