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: 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.)
The overall point was about your assertion that Imperius and Confundus should have equal status because they did, or could be used to do, the same thing.
The difference in mechanism compared with Imperius does not make it a lesser violation of the person
Ok, well, I think it does, so, end of discussion I guess.
Something more metaphysical, apparently.
Or, scenario 2 - the DE confunds Lily and causes her to move out of the way.
Or, scenario 3, he Imperiurizes her to move out of the way.
All scenarios end with dead Harry and surviving Lily. But how does she perceive what happened?
In the first case, she knows she did her bit to resist but was outnumbered, overcome by a hidden attacker.
In the third, she knows shew as under a foreign influence. She knows she wasn't herself that moment.
But I think in the second, she would always have lingering doubts that maybe she moved of her own initiative, maybe she didn't love her baby enough or maybe she was cowardly or whatever. And that's the poison of Confundus as I understand it.
(For completeness - scenario 4 - the DE memory charms Lily, so she doesn't remember that Harry was her baby. Or perhaps she doesn't even register that he exists. In the aftermath she won't even understand what happened. Yes, that's horrific.)
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.