The Challenge for January 2011:
Lily revisited
Lily revisited
Years ago (we've been around for a while, oh yes!)we had 'Severus and Lily' as a monthly challenge.
![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
alicekinsno1 suggested to take a closer look at Lily's character:Maybe something that discusses the character of Lily more deeply? I'd love to see what some of your ideas are for just how Lily went from treating Snape so harshly and talking back to James, to being the stereotypical "saintly mother" at the end of her life. There's something about her personality that doesn't add up.
That is to say, how her apparently selfless decision to die for her baby makes sense in light of the way she treated Severus or even James. With possibly a side comment about how despite being so powerful and gifted she didn't really show any of that by dying pleading for her baby's life without even trying to take on Voldemort.
Please post your entries here or in a separate post. I'm looking forward to your entries.
If you have ideas for new challenges, please post them here. (This is a new list, your earlier suggestions are still in the old post).
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily
I'm an old woman, and see young Snape (at the time of the Werewolf Incident) as a deeply hurt and angry child, but I don't expect a young girl as Lily to understand that, or to help him, where the adults around him has failed. But they had supposedly been close friends for several years, thoug they might have drifted apart - so why isn't she more interested in his version of the story? You write "I can se, what JKR was trying to do..." Would you mind expanding this? What do you think, JKR was trying to show us, considering Lily (and Snape, of course).
Anna M
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily
I think that JKR was trying to show that Lily's concerns about the direction Sev's life was going in had led to strains on their friendship. We see this in the text when she challenges him (nicely) on his hanging out with Mulciber and Avery because she is concerned about the malicious pranking they are into, i.e. the 'evil' thing they do to Mary Macdonald (which is never spelled out, of course). I don't have a problem with that because I don't like being spoonfed by an author. We can surmise that it was Dark Magic or something very vindictive. Whatever it was, Lily is upset about it and upset that Sev hangs out with people who do stuff like this.
Rather than take on board what Lily is saying, Sev at once deflects the conversation to the Marauders and how awful THEY are. I'm not a Marauders fan and you will never hear me justify their behaviour to him (SWM appalls me). And I do see why readers find Lily cold in her reaction to Sev re: the Werewolf incident.
All I'm saying is, Sev had a case to answer for to Lily as well ... in that HE was hanging around with people who had no problem in insulting and persecuting people of Lily's blood heritage.
Now you can say that was because of peer pressure. I personally find that plausible speculation, especially when the likes of Lucius Malfoy welcome 11 year old Sev to the Slytherin table after his Sorting. But it IS speculation only, because there's no direct evidence for that in canon.
-- Pearlette
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily
RE what Mulciber did: from Lily's comment we cannot surmise that it was in fact supposed to be dark magic, evil, vindictive, or anything else. Just as from Severus' comment we cannot surmise that it was not any of those things. (And note Mulciber did not in fact do anything, he merely tried to do something - making it even more speculative as to what went down.)
All those comments tell us are what Severus and Lily each personally BELIEVE it to have been. It is all hearsay. And neither of them was present when it happened, so it is all belief, nothing grounded in direct witnessing. Since we do not see the incident itself or have a report of it from someone we have evidence to believe is telling only the facts, with no personal interest in the matter, we have no way of judging whether Severus or Lily is correct or not about it. We know absolutely nothing about what happened, except that Mulciber TRIED to do SOMETHING to Mary the other day and Mary did not find it nice.
This isn't about the relative morality of whatever Mulciber tried to do, I mean, it's about the fact that we can't make assumptions about what happened and treat them as fact based only on the testimony of characters not present at the time and who have clear emotional stakes in seeing it read one way or another. Lily thinks it was evil dark magic (and seems to think all dark magic is evil; whether all dark magic actually is evil is never directly answered in the text). Severus thinks it wasn't evil, whatever kind of magic it was (and doesn't seem to think all dark magic is evil), and wants to know why Lily finds it worse than what her own housemates do. Yes, he deflects, but so does Lily; they both have emotional stakes in this. Is Severus right? Is Lily? Are both? Is neither right? The text doesn't say, so it's all speculation and interpretation.
Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic
Presumably, since Mary is also in Gryffindor, Lily saw the direct after-effects of whatever was done to Mary. Maybe Mary went into the Gryffindor Common Room crying her eyes out and sought solace from her fellow girlfriends there, like Lily. Seeing a distressed Mary and comforting her would obviously colour Lily's take on things.
Lily thinks it was evil dark magic (and seems to think all dark magic is evil; whether all dark magic actually is evil is never directly answered in the text).
I disagree, I think it is answered in the text. The Unforgivables are obviously Dark Magic, so is 'Sectumsempra' (because its effects are so ghastly, it literally cuts people up). Of course none of that excuses Gryffindors behaving like pillocks to anyone else, or using 'ordinary' magic to be a pain in the butt.
But I believe the reason why JKR paints Dark Magic as evil in the series is this: she doesn't want her fictional witchcraft being perceived as evil. So she contrasts Dark Magic, i.e. magic that hurts people, with the 'ordinary' but powerful magic that her wizards use because that's what and who they are: they are magical people who can do magic! And there's nothing evil about magic in this universe, except when it's used to hurt people and when it is used deliberately in the service of evil, e.g. Dark Magic. As a practising Christian, I found this point quite an important one from the author.
The text doesn't say, so it's all speculation and interpretation.
Well, fine. I have no problem with that. Except I suppose that we have to come down on one side or the other, LOL. Either the reader gives Lily the benefit of the doubt, i.e. that her concerns about Mulciber and Avery had substance, or not.
-- Pearlette
Re: Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic
We also have evidence in the text that more than one definition of Dark Magic exists in Wizarding Britain. Barty Crouch Sr's words in chapter 9 of GOF imply that the Unforgivables are not Dark Arts if performed by Aurors/people who fight Voldemort/people aligned politically with himself/people he likes or something along those lines. And Arthur and Amos stand there listening and do not show any sign of dissent, nor does Arthur say anything critical of Bartemius to the kids later (something along the lines of 'not all those who were against You-Know-Who were also against the Dark Arts'). There is also the curious line by Xeno about the Hallows not being Dark in the crude sense - implying they might be Dark in the non-crude sense. And there even being a non-crude sense of Dark Arts.
Then contrariwise there are the things that are not Dark-Arts that are as bad as Unforgivables but get a pass because they lack the Dark label - love potions, Confundus, Memory Charms. So I join Severus in calling wizards out on their hypocrisy.
Re: Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic
Is she? Where does it say that? We don't even know that she's someone Lily knows personally. She could be just a face in the Great Hall crowd and Lily's going entirely on rumour.
"whether all dark magic actually is evil is never directly answered in the text"
"I think it is answered in the text. The Unforgivables are obviously Dark Magic"
1) And yet, Harry uses two of them and is still accounted "pure" and "gallant".
2) She said *all* dark magic. You reply with *some* dark magic. There is a lot more to Dark magic in canon than Unforgivables. Some characters use the term to mean anything forbidden or even just frowned upon by the ministry.
3) It's not even canon that *curses* are always dark magic, and they're certainly not always treated as evil. Some curses are taught or used at Hogwarts, for instance Body-Bind, Leg-Locker, Impediment... Dumbledore warns readers of a "Thief's Curse" on copies of QTTA, presumably placed by himself or Madam Pince. Harry and Hermione use Confringo or the Blasting Curse in DH and Gemino - the spell that multiplies copies of an object - is also a curse.
"so is 'Sectumsempra' (because its effects are so ghastly, it literally cuts people up)"
That's assumption on your part. We don't know if it was *created* for that purpose, or if Snape added the note "for enemies" as a secondary purpose. Is it worse than Diffindo? That cuts. Incendio? That burns. Confringo? That blasts. Conjunctivitis? That injures the eyes.
BTW, "cuts people *up*" is a bit of an exaggeration. Sectumsempra cuts through skin but we don't see it cut through bone even when used with all Harry's strength.
"contrasts Dark Magic, i.e. magic that hurts people"
For instance, casting Scourgify to choke someone?
Werewolves are dark creatures. Would you say that using magical means to free a dark creature to roam the countryside, putting people at risk, is dark magic?
duj
Re: Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic
Re: Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic
AK: depends on your take on when killing is justified or not (see mercy killing). But the spell is completely legal on non-humans (even sentient non-human beings, if we take 'Moody' literally, but I don't know if that is indeed the case). So it's instant pesticide that doesn't go into the food chain as well as a humane way to kill food animals.
Sectumsempra: surgery. Amputating a gangrenous limb, removing a tumor. The original use of C-section - saving the fetus of a dying woman. With much practice and control - it can become the magical equivalent of laser surgery - no more glasses.
Sorry, can't come up with uses for Cruciatus. Not unmodified.
Why are there no limitations on memory charms? Love potions? Most other behavior modifying potions and spells?
Re: Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic
Re: Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic
2) Using the AK as a means of painless execution of animals? I suppose it could be done. Seems like a large waste of power for something that there is already a system in place for. There has to be a system in place, the WW by and large is not vegetarian.
3) The problem about using Sectumsempra for surgery is threefold. The WW does not do surgery. They use spells and potions to cure what is wrong with the body.
It is very inaccurate and the cuts do not heal unless you know the counter spell and your patient could very well bleed to death while you are doing the unnecessary surgery if you don't get the counter spell out quick enough.
A surgeon has to learn on the job, so to speak. I don't think I would want to be the patient someone was practising on. And as for using it on animals. I'm not a fan of using animals as a method of experimentation.
Re: Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic
Why are you allowed to generalize from your experience to conditions in the WW, but doing the same RE issues like parental neglect is not because these are 'fantasy books' and not comparable to the real world?
2) RE pests: it's not illegal to use the AK on non-sentient animals, and if we believe fake-Moody (talking about an issue that anyone could go look up, so he has reason to be factual) it's even allowed for use on sentient non-humans. It's merely killing another *human being* with it that is illegal. Plus, how do you know that the WW-equivalent of a pest control company is not a specialized group of guys armed with AKs? The book doesn't say one way or another, and that possibility fits within what we do know to be possible/allowed in canon. Same with the WW abattoir system: it might be a group of people AKing animals and chopping them up. That is a possibility not ruled out by canon. We do know that wizards aren't very mechanically-oriented, so it's far more likely that whatever 'system' is in place involves more co-ordinated spellcasting than mechanized slaughter. (The system need not be large; JKR claims there are 3500 wizards in Britain, and even adjusting upwards to fit what we see in the books with real population dynamics as Jodel does only gives about 10,000, not very large at all.)
3) We don't know for certain that nothing akin to surgery takes place in the WW; we just don't see or hear much of it. It is possible that while the vast majority of things can be healed with potions and spells, there are rare cases where physical intervention is necessary. We do know that occasional limb loss happens (Moody), and some form of amputation is not ruled out as having been the cause. So it's only an assumption that surgery is non-existent, it's not supporting evidence from canon. And Sectumspempra is not demonstrated to be by nature "very inaccurate." Quite the opposite: it depends upon the caster's precision. Severus' attack on James is quite precise. Harry's attack on Draco is wild because Harry is using the spell for the first time and in a very uncontrolled manner.
And your personal preferences RE experimentation, while fully understandable (I agree with the sentiment), have no relation to what may or may not be the case in the Potterverse. Wizards haven't proven themselves to be a particularly warm and fuzzy, animal-friendly lot. The possibility that animal experimentation takes place in the WW fits within what we do know from canon; indeed, we see the Weasley twins come rather close to it with their playing with fireworks and salamanders (one reason I dislike them is precisely this sort of casual cruelty to animals). They are not ever called out by even the most warm and fuzzy wizard or witch for harming an animal, and the general attitude of the WW seems to be that it's fine to do as you like to animals as long as you don't upset the owner. (The outrage over the dragon in DH stands as the single exception, and I find it hard to take seriously since the characters haven't exactly been animal rights fans before that.)
Re: Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic
Re: Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic
And I know you were answering oryx's question; I assumed you were not averse to other people replying however, and when I ask questions I am interested in actually hearing the other person's response to them, which is why I asked. You don't have to answer but I'm still curious what you make of any of my points/questions.
Regarding practicality: we seem to be talking at cross purposes. You now claim you are interested in 'practicality' in the use of spell casting whereas the discussion to me had seemed to be about whether or not your theory of dark magic is supported as 'the right' theory in canon. Maybe you aren't interested in having that discussion and I and oryx just aren't getting it?
Re: Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic
You can track the whole post, of course, and receive notification of every comment to it in email (anon comments included), but you might find the barrage to be too much. (And without doing so it's nearly impossible to dig down and read everything everyone's said on a high-traffic post, I agree.)
Re: Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic - part 1
So why should one be illegal and not the other? Both spells cause their victims to do things they would never do when in their right mind. If Confundus can result in a multi-step behavior against one's normal judgment as in the case of Severus and Mundungus, then I don't see the difference between the two spells. The two spells should have the same legal status because they have the same outcomes.
How often do we see a raging lunatic roaming the streets though?
Rarity of circumstances should not be a consideration. If a spell has at least one legitimate use it should not be made categorically illegal. Legality should be based on specific circumstances. One may want to limit the use to licensed experts or investigate each use after the fact, but there should be ways to allow such legitimate use.
Rather than break the law I would rather use an exterminator.
I'm not arguing about what the legal status is but on what it should be. Give me a convincing reason for Imperius to have a different legal status than other mind-control spells. And note that you are arguing on legality, not on whether the spell is Dark or not, which is a different thing. Dark Magic per se isn't illegal, though some Dark spells and some Dark artifacts are, while at the same time some artifacts are illegal for other reasons (we have no information on spells that are illegal for other reasons though we have information on circumstances when magic is illegal - underage magic outside school, magic in front of Muggles, both with their work-arounds). In any case, you won't be breaking the law to use Imperius on non-humans. Hermione protests that Imperiurizing students would be illegal, but has no qualms about the spider.
Using the AK as a means of painless execution of animals?
And just plain butchering. Instantaneous, painless, bloodless. Very humane. (What waste of power? Potterverse magic sometimes requires effort to master, but once a spell is mastered it requires little to no effort. Probably less than wielding a knife. If Molly can use magic to cook meat, why not start the use one step earlier?)
The WW does not do surgery.
Maybe they should look into it. We know there are conditions magic can't heal completely or sufficiently. Do we know how effective magical cancer treatment is?
It is very inaccurate
Insufficient canon support for this claim. We see the spell used certainly 2 times, and very likely a third. Harry used the spell without knowing what he was doing, so obviously he couldn't control the effects. In the 7P battle Severus was going for full strength (he was going for a full amputation - most likely of the DE's wand arm) - but both him and his target were moving so obviously he couldn't aim properly. But if the nonverbal spell he cast at James was Sectumsempra then obviously the spell can be controlled to cause as little damage as the caster wants and can be aimed at a very small part of the body. Should be even easier at close range with an immobile target.
the cuts do not heal unless you know the counter spell
Not true. George's injury healed. The bleeding was stopped successfully by normal means (whatever they were, didn't even require a specialist healer) and the injury site is not described like anything different from what one would expect from a non-magical amputation. (Supporting whitehound's theory that Severus developed or adopted the spell because it mimicked a non-magical knife and therefore could be used in the Muggle world without raising suspicion that anything unusual was happening.) If the amputated ear had been recovered then perhaps the counterspell would have been used to reattach it, but we don't know either way.
Similarly, if what Severus cast at James was indeed Sectumsempra then he healed normally (Harry saw later photographs of James so he would know if there was any permanent scarring and he would be able to make the connection to SWM if he knew of any).
A surgeon has to learn on the job, so to speak. I don't think I would want to be the patient someone was practising on.
The same applies to our kind of surgery. Somehow we worked out a method to teach it. Wizards could too, if they wanted to.
I disagree. You could, potentially, achieve the same end result with either in some cases, but their method of action is different. Imperius directly subverts the will of the victim - who is aware it's happening - and imposes that of the caster, enabling him or her to direct the victim like a puppet. Confundus is more like the popular idea of post-hypnotic suggestion, a kind of magical trickery. Severus implanted an idea that Mundungus should suggest a certain plan of action, but he did not control his steps, speech, etc. as he would have done with Imperius.
If a spell has at least one legitimate use it should not be made categorically illegal.
I'm picturing a kind of "drug scheduling" for spells...
What waste of power? Potterverse magic sometimes requires effort to master, but once a spell is mastered it requires little to no effort.
In the case of Avada Kedavra specifically, Barty!Moody says "Avada Kedavra’s a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it – you could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I’d get so much as a nose-bleed." I don't think "waste" is the right word, though; Potterverse wizards don't have a "mana pool" or similar kind of limitation, and Barty seems to be talking about overall development of magical strength as a wizard matures.
We see the spell used certainly 2 times, and very likely a third.
Certainly 3 times and possibly a fourth, actually; don't forget Harry's use on the Inferi in the cave.
I don't see why Imperius is worse. This too is a subversion of the will, or perhaps more accurately - the won't. It causes one to lose judgment while the spell is in effect. Not being aware that one is acting on suggestion of another rather than one's own initiative is probably harder to recognize and therefore harder to counter.
In the case of Avada Kedavra specifically, Barty!Moody says "Avada Kedavra’s a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it – you could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I’d get so much as a nose-bleed." I don't think "waste" is the right word, though; Potterverse wizards don't have a "mana pool" or similar kind of limitation, and Barty seems to be talking about overall development of magical strength as a wizard matures.
Which means that for an adult, especially one who is practiced with the spell, there should be no meaningful limit in how many chickens or cows one AKs in a sitting. Though it would get tedious after a while.
Certainly 3 times and possibly a fourth, actually; don't forget Harry's use on the Inferi in the cave.
Right. Which proves the spell can work equally well on non-living objects. It's just another knife.
In my opinion it's the fact of direct force which can compel someone to do something they absolutely would not have otherwise done. Confundus is confusion.
Not being aware that one is acting on suggestion of another rather than one's own initiative is probably harder to recognize and therefore harder to counter.
I don't think we have any evidence whether Confundus is easier or harder to resist. Harry doesn't experience it from the inside, does he? (His resistance to Imperius is picked out as unusual.)
Re: Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic
While I'm all for close scrutiny and critical review of animal experimentation, the current level of health enjoyed by residents of countries within western civilization would have been impossible to achieve without any research using animals whatsoever - both basic and applied. However, we are speaking of the wizarding world, that supports routine killing of animals by secondary school children in the course of their studies (case in point - Vanishing spells in 5th year Transfiguration; also the Transfiguration of animals into inanimate objects and unsuccessful Transfiguration resulting in partially transfigured animals). I don't see a coherent argument against using animals in magical medical research at all.
Is she? Where does it say that?
She is able to go into the Gryffindor common room to get Lily when Severus is "threatening to sleep out [there]", so either she's a Gryffindor or someone has leaked the password to her (in which case, why would she be heading there around bedtime, and not to her own common room?).
We don't even know that she's someone Lily knows personally.
It's true that we don't know whether they are really friends or what, but Mary is personally acquainted with her enough for Lily to refer to her simply by first name ("Mary told me") and for it to be ok for Mary to go into her dormitory either around bedtime or after (Lily is wearing a dressing gown). The simplest conclusion is that Mary and Lily are both Gryffindor girls of the same year.
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily