I understand what Lily is doing and it is realistic, but I still don't like her that much, because this isn't how you teach your values successfully.

The setting is kind of strange and I have to say a bit boring and uninteresting. So much could have been done with the "For the Greater Good!" motive of Dumbledore and Grindelwald, but it's apparently just your standard run-of-the-mill evil empire. (Albeit it is one with one of the leaders being misguided.)
There would have been more moral conflict if the wizards ruled as a kind of aristocracy over everything, but the average person actually led a pretty good life or having at least the wizards leading far, far improved lives. It's kind of easy to go the way of 'If we bring the evil empire down and establish freedom and equality, everything will improve!', instead of a more nuanced moral dilemma.

I still want to see more, but I will withhold judgment for now and wait until the first arc is resolved.

 

Tortured? In chapter 6 it says:

That was during Finals before Christmas. If she was being tortured, she wouldn't be smug even if she was still resisting (and I seriously doubt she would be resisting still). I haven't seen anything implying otherwise so I assume that she's getting no more than your run-of-the-mill detentions until told otherwise.

By fall from grace, I wasn't implying that she was Hogwarts' shining star or anything, I was referring to her attitude. She feels that her position is the correct one, and that there is no sliding scale or in-between. I think that is going to change, rather abruptly.

 

I don't think that means anything, really.

She might be smug to because she is able to resist. Or maybe she *needs* to be smug in order to resist.

But, yeah, there are lots of hints about Hermione being tortured weekly- and that she grew up starving, amongst other things.

Unless she is right that one needs to kill with other things than dark arts?

@Sesc:

-Snape: No, the point isn't Snape at all. It was pretty obvious in the chapter (as in, said at least five times in narrator voice) that Harry reacted that way because he lost control.

Lily couldn't give a fuck about snape being the one coursed. She only cares her baby boy of eleven who has been courted by AD for years is now casting curse on people much stronger for him without thinking.

-Dark Arts: i would agree if it was just a matter of using one's hatred to make the curse. Of course, if you actually read the times he uses it, and how the people are described, it's pretty explicit that in this fic using the dark arts isn't just about using your hatred, but about letting the dark art *accumulate/cultivate* it.

That was a joke, though honestly, Snape never did anything that bad to harry in this fic. Yeah, he was annoying and attacked harry's pride.

Attacking a teacher that is so much stronger than you *in public* and *without thinking* and *with potentially lethal spell*, however, is taking it *way too far*.

especially as, you know, Harry lost control there.

 

What's up with the Ratsel-love going on with some people here?

Yeah, I think that he's an awesome character, and I hope that he stays for awhile.

But there are a couple of people giving him props for, basically, advising Harry to burn Snape's eyeballs out the next time that the professor insults him.

 

I fail to see your complaint.

 

Your question.

Your answer.

 

Sesc wins this thread.

 

He continually harassed Harry and insulted his father. To an only child who's still a child, his father is his hero. You telling me you wouldn't beat someone up if he continued to harass you and insulted your old man?

 

No, for a variety of reasons including the fact that my father probably deserved it (which'd apply to James Potter, too). But also, there's a difference between punching him and trying to set him on fire.

That said, I'm not trying to argue, and I don't think that anyone else is trying to argue, that what happened was unrealistic. The point is, however, that trying to set somebody on fire because they insult your father is not proper, balanced, or correct behavior. It is something befitting, say, Voldemort (or Grindelwald) more than, say, a respectable, and emotionally and mentally well-balanced individual.

Harry is a young kid, so he's neither mentally nor emotionally well-balanced. But we shouldn't be thinking that this is great behavior, nor should we think that it's acceptable (or, for that matter, that cursing Hermione in a similar manner for being snobbish, smug, or stuck-up is acceptable, either).

And the guy who not only thinks that this is okay, but then encourages Harry to go for more vital and easy-to-damage areas?

Root for him by all means, if you're wanting a Harry who acts like Grindelwald. But most people here seem to be under a misconception that this is perfectly reasonable behavior, and that displaying this behavior is not something which should send warning bells.

 

Even if JP does deserve it, tell me why Snape is still taking his issues out on an 11 year old? In canon Snape seems to give as good as he got, which makes the whole JP deserved everything that happened to him seem like even more bullshit. In the OWL scene remember how Snape slashed JP's face open? Yea. JP was a dick but he was also 15 and lots of people are dicks at that age, he got over it and yet Snape still can't as a 40 year old man.

Also, in the wizarding world, setting someone on fire is pretty much the same as punching them.

 

Snape isn't justified, either. Don't think that I believe he's justified.

And I think that even in the wizarding world, setting someone on fire isn't the same as punching them. Crucio is better than setting someone on fire (have you been seriously burnt? it hurts like fuck, speaking from personal experience, and is apparently one of the most painful things you can feel, according to what I fully admit is hearsay).

But crucio, which, while it probably causes worse pain than getting burnt, is still not something which is permanently damaging except in prolonged use, is still banned. Until we see firm evidence otherwise, I think that it's safe to say that the wizarding world does not consider setting people on fire to be the equivalent of punching them in the face.

--

And, for that matter, even if Harry did nothing but actually punch Snape, and did so literally, rather than commit an action which was the equivalent of punching him, it still is something which he should correct. Punching somebody because they were insulting your old man? I'll not get into that. But it shouldn't be so instinctual that you don't even think about it before your fist starts flying. Violence is the answer in certain situations, yes, but even where it's the answer, in most situations it should only be carried out after you have consciously decided to carry it out. Making it an automatic reaction will not end up well for you.

 

Wow ... I really hope your old man never reads this. Especially since you're immediately assuming the worst of him. Also,you're ignoring the fact Harry knows shit all of the issues between Snape, Lily and James and no one is willing to let him into the story. All he know is the dick professor insulted his old man, and acted accordingly.

You're applying the standards of a muggle world to a wizard world where burns and missing bones can be healed over night and a single wrong ingredient in potions could fuck someone up very easily. A small flame from the sole offensive spell Harry is shown to have learned is hardly unbalanced behavior.

 

No, he lost control against a superior foe in a society where it could be a death sentence (and almost was).

You do remember that Dark Arts can't be healed by magic right? So, yeah, it's not just a *bit* unbalanced, it's completely insane.

 

Wasn't it *just* sectumsempra curse? Besides, they wouldn't teach them dark arts if it was insane or if they didn't want them to use their knowledge.

 

Snape had it coming. Even Riddle said as much.

And Harry's wasn't an immediate or automatic resolution towards violence; this was the last straw, after weeks of steady insults, making him feel as impotent and helpless as possible. Anyone who could put up with that kind of steady abuse without responding is certainly praiseworthy, but in no way is that kind of patience normal.

 

Or maybe they want them to use it because it's insane. This is not exactly a sane school or government we have here.

Beside, it's not just sectusempra that can't be healed- every curse are like that.

heheheh, which side are you on? :awesome

Really? it was quite explicit it wasn't *snape* who built up all that tension.

that harry snapped after being worn down is definitely true, but he did snap, and he did snap at Snape just because he rubbed him the wrong way.

What Snape did right there is laughingly tame compared to what is hinted at happening around (Neville and his Parents, Hermione being half-starved and possibly tortured, etc).

Harry's pride got hurt. Big Deal.

 

Awesome, I can understate as well:

"Snape's robes got scorched. Big Deal."

But since it's obviously a bit more than a case of pride or burnt robes...

So what if other people have ostensibly harder issues ? That doesn't make Harry's response to his situation more unreasonable. Neville's parental issues are sad, but not a reason for him to respond violently (absentee parents + trading in his toad for an owl != verbal or physical abuse). In regards to Hermione, I'll highlight it for you again:

Most normal, well-adjusted children do not take kindly to having their parents insulted. That's, like, Child Development 101. Also, kids who handle adult weaponry without proper training are more than likely to do something stupid - also, Child Development 101 (Google "child accidentally shoots_____" and see how many results come up).

So: Repeatedly insulted child + armed child = Snape had it coming.

And where does it say that Sectumsempra isn't healable ? Snape had no trouble closing up the wounds left by the curse when Harry used it on Draco.

 

Put in the sense of "Snape should have expected it," then yes, Snape had it coming. But put in the sense of "It is entirely acceptable for an eleven-year-old child to set someone on fire in a manner which, if done properly, will prevent the fire from being put out except through the use of one specific spell, simply because his dad was insulted, and he reacted in a manner typical for this situation," then no, Snape did not have it coming.

It's something which you could have expected out of Harry, mayhaps, but not behavior which should be condoned or encouraged.

 

Just because it doesn't have a particular aim doesn't mean that such a thing might not happen. We already see Harry trying to figure out something which he hates more than Snape, or whether he should try to hate Snape more, in order to increase the potency of the spell.

I don't foresee good things coming out of this. Hate can be a useful emotion, but when you're trying to figure out how to hate more powerfully in order to create a more powerful spell...

It starts at Snape. What if Draco starts insulting Harry's dad next? Or if [insert other situation].

My apologies.

No, I was meaning in canon. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No. And that's my point. If Crucio is too much for this situation (and I think that it is), then so would trying to set the teacher on fire with a spell which can only be countered by one other spell, because he insulted your old man.

Harry acted like an eleven-year-old child. Yes.

But then, eleven-year-old children often do stupid things which they should not do.

And, furthermore, the guy who says "Good job, but next time, burn out his eyes instead," is not somebody who you consider to be an appropriate guide and role model, unless you want Harry to turn into a Grindelwald.

Ratsel is an awesome character and I hope that he lasts for a long time, but I'm also hoping that Harry turns into, say, somebody who doesn't burn out someone's eyeballs because they looked at him funny.

When that curse sets someone on fire, then you are approving of the act of setting someone on fire. Yes, it's a curse, but it's also setting someone on fire.

A minor curse which does not involve setting someone on fire? Sure. Equivalent of punching them. But there's also a killing curse, too. If that were the only curse which Harry knew, would you approve of Harry using that?

Me? I'd figure out a way to deal with Snape without getting caught, if I were really that pissed about it. I wouldn't set the man on fire, and do it in front of witnesses no less.