ignoring text
(Anonymous)
"to me this is on the samel level as an argument I've seen from Snape-bashers, i.e. that Snape COULD have hurt James badly during SWM when he threw a hex at him, cutting his cheek"
Nonsense. The Snape-bashers are ignoring the text, which clearly states that "Snape had directed his wand straight at James." Any injury that was subsequently produced was what Snape intended to produce: a slight temporary gash that did not continue bleeding after the first spatter.
Whereas there are plenty of occasions that we see wizard-children get hurt. If falls were not a problem then PS wouldn't have had "The whole crowd were on their feet, watching, terrified, as the Weasleys flew up to try and pull Harry safely on to one of their brooms" - what's to be terrified about if magic will protect him from the fall? - nor would PoA have had:
'He was falling...
"Lucky the ground was so soft."
"I thought he was dead for sure."
... He didn't have a clue where he was, or how he'd got there, or what he'd been doing before he got there...
..."You fell off..."
"We thought you'd died."
And note that this is *after* Dumbledore "waved his wand, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground."
Falls are dangerous for wizard children? Pure canon.
" I don't read Harry Potter for its gritty realism. So no, I don't feel inclined to tut-tut at a wizarding mum who allows her wizarding baby to fly around on his broomstick."
Characters have to be judged through the prism of the canon-verse. HP-canon is that falls can be dangerous for wizard-children and their magic cannot be relied on always to protect them from injury. Therefore Lily is an irresponsible parent.
Is she more irresponsible than the generality of wizarding parents? We don't have enough evidence to be sure. They're an irresponsible lot, but we don't see any other one-year-olds on brooms. (We do see two toddlers on child-brooms in GoF, but they're two or three years old, not one.)
duj
Nonsense. The Snape-bashers are ignoring the text, which clearly states that "Snape had directed his wand straight at James." Any injury that was subsequently produced was what Snape intended to produce: a slight temporary gash that did not continue bleeding after the first spatter.
Whereas there are plenty of occasions that we see wizard-children get hurt. If falls were not a problem then PS wouldn't have had "The whole crowd were on their feet, watching, terrified, as the Weasleys flew up to try and pull Harry safely on to one of their brooms" - what's to be terrified about if magic will protect him from the fall? - nor would PoA have had:
'He was falling...
"Lucky the ground was so soft."
"I thought he was dead for sure."
... He didn't have a clue where he was, or how he'd got there, or what he'd been doing before he got there...
..."You fell off..."
"We thought you'd died."
And note that this is *after* Dumbledore "waved his wand, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground."
Falls are dangerous for wizard children? Pure canon.
" I don't read Harry Potter for its gritty realism. So no, I don't feel inclined to tut-tut at a wizarding mum who allows her wizarding baby to fly around on his broomstick."
Characters have to be judged through the prism of the canon-verse. HP-canon is that falls can be dangerous for wizard-children and their magic cannot be relied on always to protect them from injury. Therefore Lily is an irresponsible parent.
Is she more irresponsible than the generality of wizarding parents? We don't have enough evidence to be sure. They're an irresponsible lot, but we don't see any other one-year-olds on brooms. (We do see two toddlers on child-brooms in GoF, but they're two or three years old, not one.)
duj