Harry is usually rather good avoiding making reckless commitments but he seems to have thrown that caution away. I refer here, of course, to the non-interference treaty he proposed with Hermione. When it comes to things like becoming a ghost-whispering Hermione’s rivals that is all well and good. That’s Hermione’s business. But if there is one scenario we can expect the treaty to cover—informally specified as it is—is that which prompted its very creation.
Asking the other girls if they wanted protection was more than just an excuse. If Harry was entirely unaware of the existence of Hermione he would have most certainly have protected one of his loyal Chaos soldiers.
Without Tracy’s involvement there is still no way he would have allowed 4 first year girls be beaten by 44 assorted thugs led by Snape if there was anything he could do about it.
Without the remaining 4 first year girls immediate safety threatened he still would have taken the same actions purely for the sake of the massive impact it would have on the culture of violence and bullying.
Even if he wasn’t an obsessive altruist trying to Change The World he still would have done it so that people don’t get it into their heads that interfering do-gooder first years with far too much success to their name than their strength warrants can be crushed with the simple application of force in moderate numbers.
If situations such as this one are encountered in the future then Harry has lost the freedom to do what seems fundamental to Harry. Not just in regards to Hermione specifically but to anyone who has the misfortune of being in her Aura of ImPotence. He will, unless Hermione’s ego happens to be sane that day, let barrages of fire and pain fall freely up that which he (supposedly) Protects.
Harry has been wondering with incomprehension how a community could endorse unjust cruelty and violence. He has self righteously condemned those who go along and do nothing. Yet now he should begin to see the temptation. He has just conceded to allow groups of ten year old girls to be beaten, permanently injured and possibly killed lest he step into the political territory claimed by an ally and with the hope that by doing so he will—in the future when they are physically capable of it—get laid! Now Harry is starting to act like a Grown Up.
I don’t suggest opening with “woulda dun it anywayz” would be a particularly wise conversation move but do assert that the deal he made here would have been far more appropriate to make when Harry was interfering with Hermione, not with something more general that also included her. In this case it deserved at least a pithy one sentence disclaimer. Which is far less than the multi-point verbal contracts he has spoken up every other time he made a deal.
I would read more into it if I didn’t think this was the Author forcing in a deep conversation that he thought through earlier into this situation without thinking the details through clearly. Where by ‘more’ I probably mean “like the above except not being flippant”. It only becomes in ernest if (or when) Eliezer interjects and declares the commitment with its undisclaimed recklessness canon.
Led by Snape? I relatively certain that Snape engineered this entire scenario from the get-go to cause the situation to escalate to the point that the school would have to crack down hard on bullying. Snape just arranged it in such a way that he could get what he wanted and still come off looking like the bad guy. Snape is, in fact, fanatically anti-bullying.
Good point. I have no idea what Snape is thinking (to be honest I glaze over at Snape parts). I guess he is anti-bullying except when done by people he likes to people he doesn’t like?
I’m probably missing an tag, but consider the evidence.
Dumbledore told Harry that Quirrell intervened so Daphne could take down Astorga
As I understand it, all the bullies have been under Snape’s tutelage, their entire Hogwarts careers,
with the Slytherin bullies having had him as head of house.
Prof. Sprout was warned off after dealing with Slytherin bullies on Harry’s first day
Quirrell’s “they have tolerated worse in their hallways” and give a finger from my wand hand, suggest that bullying has been tolerated for a long time.
What are Snape’s adult motives and goals?
How much of a panopticon is Hogwarts or House Slytherin there?
When he tasked 7th-year Rianne Felthorne, presumably with sending the message back via Bullstrode,
she lost count of the charms cast and didn’t show recognition of them. Harry would have recognized them from
Bester and Quirrell.
Hogwarts is a centre of power, perhaps funds his Potions research and precautions againts Voldemort’s return.
Is conditioning Hogwarts students to fear him defending his future position or building a power base.
Are Dumbledore & Snape treating Quirrell as a bird in the hand, under close observation—Bellatrix’s escape is still
under investigation after all.
Who set up the ambush outside the library? Snape or Quirrell? 2PM is too early for Harry’s Time-Turner unless the shield was circumvented. Was testing for The cloak of Invisibility a hint from Snape?
My pet theory is that every display of anger Snape ever makes in MOR is part of his act. In fact, the only two genuine displays of emotions we’ve seen have been his private smile after chewing out Jaime Astorga and his involuntary smile when Harry accused Dumbledore of being a Nazgul. (Snape is the secret Xanatos behind Self Actualization, which is why both Dumbledore and Quirrel keep acting surprised when people assume they’re involved.)
Everything actually went according to his plan, except, possibly, being revealed from his Disillusionment as he shadowed the SPHEW members to the ambush. And he DID crack down on all the bullying, he threatened the Slytherins with horrors in private before he publicly punished Hermione.
This is a masterstroke on his part because it removes all incentive the Slytherins and bullies at large might have to seek vengeance against Hermione; she’s already being punished severely. The bullies are shamed and fearful, and the one who shamed them is cowed as well. Equilibrium is restored. Hermione pays the price, but it is a fair price, as far as Snape is concerned.
Snape’s original plan was to let the bullies beat the crap out of the girls, then Dumbledore would be forced to confront the issue directly. Quirrel may have even been the one who revealed Snape’s invisibility just to embarrass him.
Thanks, that makes sense. Personally, I’d be very suspicious of any plan that required Dumbledore to react reasonably, but Snape trusts D more than I do. (And I always assumed, once his involvement became clear, that Quirrel was the one who revealed Snape.)
Harry trusts Hermione. Or Harry finds the idea of failing to signal trust in Hermione even more abhorrent than possibly abandoning the girls to their fates. He needs Hermione to keep his ego sane, whether or not she’s guaranteed to be able to keep her ego sane. Saying “I will override you rather than ask you for your opinion” is saying “I will be right and you will be wrong, when we disagree.” That’s a foolhardy claim for him to make. Hermione stopped him from doing Mad Transmutation Science without so much as doing the magical equivalent of wearing safety goggles, she’s an important check to keeping his ego from driving him straight off a cliff.
Or Harry finds the idea of failing to signal trust in Hermione even more abhorrent than possibly abandoning the girls to their fates.
Exactly. Now he should begin to see why most people in magical Britain allow Azkaban to go on, without protest.
I suggest that Harry could perhaps have managed to send a good signal—possibly even a better and visibly more sincere signal—by making his commitment with something like his typical discretion.
Well, the deal certainly seems risky. And his judgement is suspect—we know he’s already risked his life in a stupid way (at least once) to prove his ‘intelligence’ to Hermione.
But on that occasion, Hermione with her trust in authority pointed out the flaw. Later Harry correctly decided that her advice (or at least, the act of thinking about what she might say) would have saved him from making a big mistake with Azkaban. Since she now appears capable of listening, asking her could yield a net increase in expected value.
I don’t even know if Harry made the right decision by protecting her and her friends. We’ll see if Quirrell merely increased Harry’s reputation or if, thanks to his action in ch. 75, the events of these chapters will ultimately make staying at Hogwarts unsafe. (I’m embarrassed to admit I missed this possibility until I saw an FF.net reviewer make a related point.)
Since she now appears capable of listening, asking her could yield a net increase in expected value.
Asking seems valuable any time there is time for information-gathering. Hermione is smart (and even more valuable than Harry’s inner Founder personas.)
Asking for permission seems appropriate when it applies to interfering with Hermione specifically.
Asking Hermione for permission when other people’s lives are at stake and Hermione happens to be in the room is not appropriate.
Asking Hermione for advice and preference when other people’s lives are at stake and Hermione happens to be in the room is basically essential.
When the decision is already obviously determined without even needing Hermione’s input warning her is obviously essential.
I don’t believe Harry explicitly said he will do what she says whenever he asks her. It isn’t quite asking for permission, even though that is the implication. Non-compliance would not be a technical breach but a real insult.
As it stands Harry saving Tracy and Hannah after Hermione said not to would be way, way more disrespectful than just doing it without asking.
With a simple disclaimer that represents even a tiny fraction of what Harry usually considers when making commitments Harry saving Tracy and Hannah despite having a negative response would be frustrating to Hermione but not a defection on an implied agreement and probably far less insulting than if he had just not asked at all.
Hermione knows Harry well enough that a mild when-it’s-not-about-you disclaimer should be expected from Harry—even reassuring. People doing things that are totally out of character and sabotage their own goals just to please you is (usually) creepy.
I don’t think this is in-character for Harry—or at least it isn’t unless in-character Harry is totally whipped and this is a flaw he needs to overcome.
Eliezer saying “No, that’s what Harry meant to do and he was Right to do it” would make me sad.
I, for one, take it as a sign of Harry’s growth that he’s willing to put his alliances ahead of his utilitarian calculations, and him doing that appears to be cementing his alliances nicely.
I don’t even know if Harry made the right decision by protecting her and her friends. We’ll see if
Harry made the right decision by protecting her and her friends. Given what he knows and even given human (and Hogwarts) behavior it gives the best expected outcome.
Yes, Eliezer may construct negative consequences for Harry and try to teach a Deep Lesson but I basically wouldn’t buy it[1]. You can’t get much better bullying deterrent than seeing them visibly humiliated by first year girls. Add in some naked wall sticking and nobody would want to affiliate with such a degraded role. (They’ll move on to more successful dominance displays.)
[1]ETA: Unless the Deep Lesson was one about decisions still being the correct decision at the time even if hindsight revealed an unpredictable outcome. But there are easier ways to communicate that.
You can’t get much better bullying deterrent than seeing them visibly humiliated by first year girls. Add in some naked wall sticking and nobody would want to affiliate with such a degraded role. (They’ll move on to more successful dominance displays.)
You’re addressing the wrong question. We know that at least one apparent sociopath (Belka) wanted to hurt/kill Harry and Hermione before Snape’s angry intervention. So we have to ask if likely Legilimens Q. Quirrell, who interferes with Snape’s damage control in ch. 75, wants Belka or someone else to commit murder.
More broadly, we have to ask if it made sense for Harry to get help from Quirrell or to try and cheer up the unFriendly AI.
Now that you mention it, that promise does seem rather off-balance compared to Harry’s usual standards.
Boring hypothesis: He’s falling in love with Hermione.
Interesting hypothesis: He started out very isolated. His family wasn’t abusive, but he didn’t connect to anyone. Now he’s having to navigate having personal connections, and it’s harder for him to make abstractly good choices.
Harry is usually rather good avoiding making reckless commitments but he seems to have thrown that caution away. I refer here, of course, to the non-interference treaty he proposed with Hermione.
Really? His commitment to Draco regarding Dumbledore is at least as reckless.
That is exactly what springs to mind as an example of how Harry usually goes about making commitments. In that case he was sane enough to mention all of 5 disclaimers, and at a time when Draco was more emotionally destabilized than Hermione is here. I suggest he could have managed to casually include just one this time.
Wrote the quadruple-disclaimerized version of that conversation, deleted the disclaimers because it didn’t flow as writing. Justification: Harry finds it very easy to imagine that Hermione is just as terrified of losing control as he is, even though that’s not quite what’s going on at the other end.
Should I vote this comment down because I wish you really had put the disclaimers in there and don’t find the justification satisfying? (Answer to my own question: no.)
Should I vote this comment down because I wish you really had put the disclaimers in there and don’t find the justification satisfying? (Answer to my own question: no.)
I voted it up because at least he acknowledged he tried. I’m going to pretend I didn’t read the justification—it’s terrible!
Yes, this alone (just the part that I quoted) is enough to vote it up, on the principle that one votes up what one would like to see more of. Thanks for reminding me to do that!
RE: Chapter 75.
Harry is usually rather good avoiding making reckless commitments but he seems to have thrown that caution away. I refer here, of course, to the non-interference treaty he proposed with Hermione. When it comes to things like becoming a ghost-whispering Hermione’s rivals that is all well and good. That’s Hermione’s business. But if there is one scenario we can expect the treaty to cover—informally specified as it is—is that which prompted its very creation.
Asking the other girls if they wanted protection was more than just an excuse. If Harry was entirely unaware of the existence of Hermione he would have most certainly have protected one of his loyal Chaos soldiers.
Without Tracy’s involvement there is still no way he would have allowed 4 first year girls be beaten by 44 assorted thugs led by Snape if there was anything he could do about it.
Without the remaining 4 first year girls immediate safety threatened he still would have taken the same actions purely for the sake of the massive impact it would have on the culture of violence and bullying.
Even if he wasn’t an obsessive altruist trying to Change The World he still would have done it so that people don’t get it into their heads that interfering do-gooder first years with far too much success to their name than their strength warrants can be crushed with the simple application of force in moderate numbers.
If situations such as this one are encountered in the future then Harry has lost the freedom to do what seems fundamental to Harry. Not just in regards to Hermione specifically but to anyone who has the misfortune of being in her Aura of ImPotence. He will, unless Hermione’s ego happens to be sane that day, let barrages of fire and pain fall freely up that which he (supposedly) Protects.
Harry has been wondering with incomprehension how a community could endorse unjust cruelty and violence. He has self righteously condemned those who go along and do nothing. Yet now he should begin to see the temptation. He has just conceded to allow groups of ten year old girls to be beaten, permanently injured and possibly killed lest he step into the political territory claimed by an ally and with the hope that by doing so he will—in the future when they are physically capable of it—get laid! Now Harry is starting to act like a Grown Up.
I don’t suggest opening with “woulda dun it anywayz” would be a particularly wise conversation move but do assert that the deal he made here would have been far more appropriate to make when Harry was interfering with Hermione, not with something more general that also included her. In this case it deserved at least a pithy one sentence disclaimer. Which is far less than the multi-point verbal contracts he has spoken up every other time he made a deal.
I would read more into it if I didn’t think this was the Author forcing in a deep conversation that he thought through earlier into this situation without thinking the details through clearly. Where by ‘more’ I probably mean “like the above except not being flippant”. It only becomes in ernest if (or when) Eliezer interjects and declares the commitment with its undisclaimed recklessness canon.
Led by Snape? I relatively certain that Snape engineered this entire scenario from the get-go to cause the situation to escalate to the point that the school would have to crack down hard on bullying. Snape just arranged it in such a way that he could get what he wanted and still come off looking like the bad guy. Snape is, in fact, fanatically anti-bullying.
Good point. I have no idea what Snape is thinking (to be honest I glaze over at Snape parts). I guess he is anti-bullying except when done by people he likes to people he doesn’t like?
I’m probably missing an tag, but consider the evidence.
Dumbledore told Harry that Quirrell intervened so Daphne could take down Astorga
As I understand it, all the bullies have been under Snape’s tutelage, their entire Hogwarts careers, with the Slytherin bullies having had him as head of house.
Prof. Sprout was warned off after dealing with Slytherin bullies on Harry’s first day
Quirrell’s “they have tolerated worse in their hallways” and give a finger from my wand hand, suggest that bullying has been tolerated for a long time.
What are Snape’s adult motives and goals? How much of a panopticon is Hogwarts or House Slytherin there? When he tasked 7th-year Rianne Felthorne, presumably with sending the message back via Bullstrode, she lost count of the charms cast and didn’t show recognition of them. Harry would have recognized them from Bester and Quirrell. Hogwarts is a centre of power, perhaps funds his Potions research and precautions againts Voldemort’s return. Is conditioning Hogwarts students to fear him defending his future position or building a power base.
Are Dumbledore & Snape treating Quirrell as a bird in the hand, under close observation—Bellatrix’s escape is still under investigation after all. Who set up the ambush outside the library? Snape or Quirrell? 2PM is too early for Harry’s Time-Turner unless the shield was circumvented. Was testing for The cloak of Invisibility a hint from Snape?
That’s how I’d characterise his attitude in canon. ETA: This includes, in particular, his own bullying of students.
But wasn’t the point of the chapter’s end that didn’t crack down on the bullying, but just on SPHEW?
I don’t know what Snape gained by all the escalation he engineered.
My pet theory is that every display of anger Snape ever makes in MOR is part of his act. In fact, the only two genuine displays of emotions we’ve seen have been his private smile after chewing out Jaime Astorga and his involuntary smile when Harry accused Dumbledore of being a Nazgul. (Snape is the secret Xanatos behind Self Actualization, which is why both Dumbledore and Quirrel keep acting surprised when people assume they’re involved.)
Everything actually went according to his plan, except, possibly, being revealed from his Disillusionment as he shadowed the SPHEW members to the ambush. And he DID crack down on all the bullying, he threatened the Slytherins with horrors in private before he publicly punished Hermione.
This is a masterstroke on his part because it removes all incentive the Slytherins and bullies at large might have to seek vengeance against Hermione; she’s already being punished severely. The bullies are shamed and fearful, and the one who shamed them is cowed as well. Equilibrium is restored. Hermione pays the price, but it is a fair price, as far as Snape is concerned.
It was Snape that Harry called a Nazgul.
In your theory, what was Snape’s original plan with the 44 bullies before Quirrell interfered at Harry’s request?
Snape’s original plan was to let the bullies beat the crap out of the girls, then Dumbledore would be forced to confront the issue directly. Quirrel may have even been the one who revealed Snape’s invisibility just to embarrass him.
Thanks, that makes sense. Personally, I’d be very suspicious of any plan that required Dumbledore to react reasonably, but Snape trusts D more than I do. (And I always assumed, once his involvement became clear, that Quirrel was the one who revealed Snape.)
Harry trusts Hermione. Or Harry finds the idea of failing to signal trust in Hermione even more abhorrent than possibly abandoning the girls to their fates. He needs Hermione to keep his ego sane, whether or not she’s guaranteed to be able to keep her ego sane. Saying “I will override you rather than ask you for your opinion” is saying “I will be right and you will be wrong, when we disagree.” That’s a foolhardy claim for him to make. Hermione stopped him from doing Mad Transmutation Science without so much as doing the magical equivalent of wearing safety goggles, she’s an important check to keeping his ego from driving him straight off a cliff.
Exactly. Now he should begin to see why most people in magical Britain allow Azkaban to go on, without protest.
I suggest that Harry could perhaps have managed to send a good signal—possibly even a better and visibly more sincere signal—by making his commitment with something like his typical discretion.
Well, the deal certainly seems risky. And his judgement is suspect—we know he’s already risked his life in a stupid way (at least once) to prove his ‘intelligence’ to Hermione.
But on that occasion, Hermione with her trust in authority pointed out the flaw. Later Harry correctly decided that her advice (or at least, the act of thinking about what she might say) would have saved him from making a big mistake with Azkaban. Since she now appears capable of listening, asking her could yield a net increase in expected value.
I don’t even know if Harry made the right decision by protecting her and her friends. We’ll see if Quirrell merely increased Harry’s reputation or if, thanks to his action in ch. 75, the events of these chapters will ultimately make staying at Hogwarts unsafe. (I’m embarrassed to admit I missed this possibility until I saw an FF.net reviewer make a related point.)
Asking seems valuable any time there is time for information-gathering. Hermione is smart (and even more valuable than Harry’s inner Founder personas.)
Asking for permission seems appropriate when it applies to interfering with Hermione specifically.
Asking Hermione for permission when other people’s lives are at stake and Hermione happens to be in the room is not appropriate.
Asking Hermione for advice and preference when other people’s lives are at stake and Hermione happens to be in the room is basically essential.
When the decision is already obviously determined without even needing Hermione’s input warning her is obviously essential.
I don’t believe Harry explicitly said he will do what she says whenever he asks her. It isn’t quite asking for permission, even though that is the implication. Non-compliance would not be a technical breach but a real insult.
As it stands Harry saving Tracy and Hannah after Hermione said not to would be way, way more disrespectful than just doing it without asking.
With a simple disclaimer that represents even a tiny fraction of what Harry usually considers when making commitments Harry saving Tracy and Hannah despite having a negative response would be frustrating to Hermione but not a defection on an implied agreement and probably far less insulting than if he had just not asked at all.
Hermione knows Harry well enough that a mild when-it’s-not-about-you disclaimer should be expected from Harry—even reassuring. People doing things that are totally out of character and sabotage their own goals just to please you is (usually) creepy.
I don’t think this is in-character for Harry—or at least it isn’t unless in-character Harry is totally whipped and this is a flaw he needs to overcome.
Eliezer saying “No, that’s what Harry meant to do and he was Right to do it” would make me sad.
I, for one, take it as a sign of Harry’s growth that he’s willing to put his alliances ahead of his utilitarian calculations, and him doing that appears to be cementing his alliances nicely.
I would’ve thought that he is increasing the influence of his “alliance” term in his utilitarian calculations.
Harry made the right decision by protecting her and her friends. Given what he knows and even given human (and Hogwarts) behavior it gives the best expected outcome.
Yes, Eliezer may construct negative consequences for Harry and try to teach a Deep Lesson but I basically wouldn’t buy it[1]. You can’t get much better bullying deterrent than seeing them visibly humiliated by first year girls. Add in some naked wall sticking and nobody would want to affiliate with such a degraded role. (They’ll move on to more successful dominance displays.)
[1]ETA: Unless the Deep Lesson was one about decisions still being the correct decision at the time even if hindsight revealed an unpredictable outcome. But there are easier ways to communicate that.
You’re addressing the wrong question. We know that at least one apparent sociopath (Belka) wanted to hurt/kill Harry and Hermione before Snape’s angry intervention. So we have to ask if likely Legilimens Q. Quirrell, who interferes with Snape’s damage control in ch. 75, wants Belka or someone else to commit murder.
More broadly, we have to ask if it made sense for Harry to get help from Quirrell or to try and cheer up the unFriendly AI.
Now that you mention it, that promise does seem rather off-balance compared to Harry’s usual standards.
Boring hypothesis: He’s falling in love with Hermione.
Interesting hypothesis: He started out very isolated. His family wasn’t abusive, but he didn’t connect to anyone. Now he’s having to navigate having personal connections, and it’s harder for him to make abstractly good choices.
Really? His commitment to Draco regarding Dumbledore is at least as reckless.
That is exactly what springs to mind as an example of how Harry usually goes about making commitments. In that case he was sane enough to mention all of 5 disclaimers, and at a time when Draco was more emotionally destabilized than Hermione is here. I suggest he could have managed to casually include just one this time.
Wrote the quadruple-disclaimerized version of that conversation, deleted the disclaimers because it didn’t flow as writing. Justification: Harry finds it very easy to imagine that Hermione is just as terrified of losing control as he is, even though that’s not quite what’s going on at the other end.
Should I vote this comment down because I wish you really had put the disclaimers in there and don’t find the justification satisfying? (Answer to my own question: no.)
I voted it up because at least he acknowledged he tried. I’m going to pretend I didn’t read the justification—it’s terrible!
Yes, this alone (just the part that I quoted) is enough to vote it up, on the principle that one votes up what one would like to see more of. Thanks for reminding me to do that!
Glad to hear that! And I can certainly imagine 4 disclaimers not fitting there at all. (One, on the other hand, mentioned as an afterthought...)