Nineteen Years

[vegablack]

I agree that Lucious would see himself as a victim of others. I also agree with your picture of Malfoy's temperate public persona.

I wonder about Draco's psychology and his attitude to the beliefs he was raised with. He didn't want to turn Hermione in in book seven and tried to do his best even while in some danger to avoid doing it. Yet by the end of the book he is trying to bring Potter back to the Dark Lord. He seems to resent Potter at that moment. He earlier was obviously being forced to torture and we all know that in book six he can't kill Dumbledore.

The murder of Charity Burbage sickened him. How psychologically challenging was it to have to hurt people against his will? Was it enough to bring him to question his parent's values?

I never liked Draco during his Hogwarts years, but his post war character interests me.

[birdg]

They saved his life twice and all he could manage all those years later was a nod.

Said to me that Draco may have matured a little. He didn't go over there and insult them like he would have as a child and he didn't go over there to smarm or kiss-up like Lucius did. Maybe he grew some sense.

As for how Draco may have changed after the war - that depends on so many things! JKR tells us he's "humbled" and that he never would have killed and compares him again to Dudley. I actually tend to think he reformed himself a bit just because so many of the people he is compared to in the books - James Potter, Dudley Dursley and Severus Snape namely - did so once they grew up so it makes a sort of sense. There's seems to be a theme with Snape, the Marauders and Dumbledore that people can grow up, can change and change for the better.

Also, it seems like a terrible waste if he hasn't changed - even if just a little. As mentioned above, the Trio risked their lives for him twice, as did his parents and even Dumbledore and Snape tried to help him. A lot of people stuck their necks out for him (whether he realizes it or not).

[vegablack]

It is a little odd for me to defend Draco, who I never liked in the books as I am allergic to bullies, but as much as the trio helped him he did try to help others in book seven. He knew that the coins were being used as messaging devices and says so in his conversation with Dumbledore at the end of book six, yet he apparently never told on the DA. Given his fallen position among the DE that showed an effort on his part to protect other people. He tried his best to avoid identifying Hermione and Harry to Bellatrix in Malfoy Manor. He was living with people who tortured other people for making mistakes or for acts of disloyalty and yet he made an attempt to protect them.

At the end of the book when he attempts to capture Harry and declares himself a fellow DE he seems quite desperate. For most of the book he appears to be broken and defeated.

I see him as an adult following this line of thinking and really questioning his parents actions. As a matter of fact I wonder about his attitude toward his parents. He was forced to torture against his will. (That is a very damaging experience.) He was forced to kill Dumbledore something he couldn't do, but in the process he almost killed two fellow students. Greyback and other DE's were able to get into the school by his actions with the cabinet where they mauled Bill weasley and injured Neville.

I do not think it was a stretch to think he felt guilt over these actions.

He witnessed the murder of Dumbledore at the hands of a trusted teacher. He witnessed the mistreatment and murder of Charity Burbage at the hands of Voldemort. His parents were threatened and humiliated in front of him.

A fellow student, Luna and the wand maker, Olivander were held against their will in his house while he was there and Olivander was tortured there, possibly in front of him.

These are all damaging experiences which he had as a result of his father's decision to rejoin the DE. I wonder about his attitude toward his father as he thought about these things as an adult.

I think a nod toward Harry and Ron were the best he could do. Perhaps he had thanked them in some form in the 19 years that have passed. They weren't his friends; efusiveness would have been demeaning. He still seems bruised to me.

[pigwithhair]

A very telling moment to me is when Draco pleads with a Death Eater insisting "I'm one of you!" right before Ron punches him. Draco goes with whoever might save his skin - rather like Pettigrew.

In terms of the coins, what was there for him to tell? The only ones with the coins were members of the DA so it wouldn't have helped anyone else to know about that.

And not telling Bellatrix who Harry and Hermione were was, in my view, just more of Draco hoping that somehow they might help him and his family. He didn't say it definitely wasn't Harry, merely that he wasn't sure. He wasn't sure which way would be the best to defend to save his own skin.

[vegablack]

Well Neville says that the coins were useful to the DA's work and that Snape and by implication Carrow never discovered that they used them to communicate. If DRaco had told them that the DA communicated by coin then they could seize one and read DA information, take the coins thus leaving the DA without a way to comminicate until they devised another and had proof by searching a person for coins that they had a member of the DA in their hands. Keeping silent about the coins offered the DA help.

It was help without a great deal of risk to himself; I agree, but it was still help. It showed his sympathies weren't with Carrow and Snape.,

He is described in Malfou manor as scared but also reluctant. He tries to remain equivocal even when his father does identify the prisoners.

Malfoy is weak and unwilling to act against these people but he doesn't want to act against Potter either. At this stage Voldemort is winning. He is father is excited about the chance to turn Potter in and even fights with Bellatrix over who will get the honor. He believes that this is his chance to regain the Dark Lord's favor. Draco's attitude stands in marked contrast to his father's. Draco would have gained favor with what appeared to be the winning side if he had turned Harry in at that moment. Harry was defeated, captured, powerless. I don't see any gain for him by not turning Harry in other than one within his own heart.

In someways Neville and Draco are courterparts in the book. ONly Neville grows stronger and Draco weaker. Neville at the end confronts Voldemort; tells him off; risks death and the safety of his grandmother; becomes the leader of the DA and refuses to torture other people even if it means torture for himself.

DRaco by the end of the book is forced to torture others, does out of fear what ever Voldemort wants to save his family though he seems to hate doing it. Falls within Slytherin and the Death Eaters to the pont that Crabbe and Goyle bully him and he and his family are treated with contempt, and is generally a weak mess.

Neville's star goes up and Draco's down. (Though you wouldn't see that by reading fanfiction. )

[mo]

I take Draco's waffling on identifying the trio as less of a point that shows a change of heart, and more that he is simply weak...he lacks conviction and does not have the inner strength to take any kind of stand at all.

I also notice that he was the least ambiguous about Ron's identity. I've always extrapolated (from the relatively small world of pureblood wizards and Malfoy's quick identification of Ron on the train in Book 1) that Malfoy has probably bullied Ron at Ministry Family Gatherings from the start...and there is some petty childhood grudge at play beneath it all.

I think that some Draco fans have felt that the Epilogue was "cheesy" because of the continual unredeemed nature of Draco's character. I actually think that making him the "poor little abused and misunderstood villain" would have been the cliche.

[vegablack]

As I said I am not a Draco fan but I did have sympathy for him and the very difficult situation he was in the year. I agree that Draco is weak, too weak to act on his sympathies. I felt he had some.

As to being a poor misunderstood boy that is a laugh. If you've ever seen the movie Metropolitan there is a scene where a girl is describing an arrogant rich boy who rules the social roost as being really very shy and behaving arrogantly as an act to cover his insecurity and shyness.

A boy responds that the guy isn't shy at all he is what he is and that a real boy who was like she described would never interest her anyway. I laughed when I saw the movie and thought of many Draco fangirls.

[birdg]

A very telling moment to me is when Draco pleads with a Death Eater insisting "I'm one of you!" right before Ron punches him.

Er, maybe I'm missing something but, what else was Draco to do when he didn't have a wand on him? Have a healthy debate about the direction this whole Death Eater enterprise was heading in? I sincerely doubt Draco could have taken him (or a wet paper bag) in a physical fight so that was out.

[pigwithhair]

Is that what Ron or Harry would have done without a wand? Cried out "I'm a Death Eater, too!" No, I don't think so. Draco never really left the Death Eaters - unless it served him to.

[birdg]

Is that what Ron or Harry would have done without a wand? Cried out "I'm a Death Eater, too!"

That's probably because Ron and Harry are different people. They're brave and have integrity, no they wouldn't have said that but then they would never be Death Eaters in the first place!

Draco has never shown any signs of moral courage and I suspect has little in the way of integrity. He was wandless and cornered and said what he did to survive. Sure, it wasn't brave but really, the chance for Draco to be brave and have it matter[/u] had long passed - he had many chances over the books and DH especially to take a stand like that and never did.

What good would saying anything else have done? He would have gotten himself killed and for what - some stupid, empty attempt at taking a stand?

[pigwithhair]

Mar 16, 2009 16:47:01 GMT -5 birdg said:

That's probably because Ron and Harry are different people. They're brave and have integrity, no they wouldn't have said that but then they would never be Death Eaters in the first place!

That was my point exactly.

[maraudercat]

As both of you have implicitly said, he acts as any true Slytherin would. Not necessarily cowardly, just willing to use any means to achieve what he needs to.

[vegablack]

What stands out in my mind about Draco is his change in thoughts and attitude. Before book six he brags about knowing
Greyback, threatens others with his connection to the Werewolf, He is said to look excited by the prospect of Dolores Umbridge using the Cruciatus curse on Harry. By the end of the sixth book he is visibly disgusted and frightened by Greyback and the thought of him being in the school, the Cruciatus curse, killing and Voldemort and the Death Eaters. His father wants to pleas Voldemort so he can be a death eater again. Draco wants to protect his dad from Voldemort so he does what he asks.

I found the change striking. He is too afraid for his parents and too afraid of Voldemort and the Death Eaters to do anything but meekly follow. He can't stand up to them the way Neville does at the end of the book. I think this has left him very weak and broken, by the end of book seven.

I think he seemed subdued at the end of the epilogue and still broken and subdued. I'm not sure Draco ever recovered completely from the war.

[Ilene Bones]

Hmm, seems there are two topics now, one being how the WW would have evolved in 19 years post-war, and how Draco would have. Let me try to answer both.

Regarding the WW, I think the problem Kingsley and others in his adminstration would face is how far to take the post-war purge. They would have to resist the temptation to dispense "victor's justice" that is more revenge in disguise, like Crouch Senior did. And Crouch's task was not as large since in the first war the Ministry was never actually taken over by DEs. This is a problem in the real world as well, being confronted in countries like Afghanistan, where there are debates about whether amnesty should be offered to some of the members of the Taliban. The problem is that if you lock up or punish every single person who ever collaborated with the former regime, you'd need to lock up at least half the people in the country, and likely even more. Obviously that's not practical, or fair to people who did what they did mostly to remain alive, or keep their families safe.

Jo mentioned that Umbridge is caught and imprisoned for her crimes against Muggleborns, so it seems she was punished. But what about the wizards and witches working under her who grumbled, but meekly carried out her orders? Should they all be imprisoned too? I suppose one criteria for amnesty might be if the person fought against the DEs during the last battle, like Percy did. And certainly, not everyone deserves the same punishment. This is even without the Imperius issue that makes everything even more confusing.

It is interesting how the Aurors are pretty much MIA in DH, and it's really open to interpretation why. I'm sure some did voluntarily collaborate with the new regime. However, I tend to think that most were Imperiused, especially since Pius Thicknesse was head of their department and would have had many opportunities to Imperio his subordinates before the DE takeover. Many of those who were not Imperiused likely died along with Scrimgeour. Dawlish may or may not have been Imperiused; he is portrayed as an Umbridge sycophant earlier in the series, and I could see him following her lead in joining with the DEs.

As for Draco, my impression of him is that he unfortunately never moved much beyond the point in HBP where he is standing in front of the helpless Dumbledore, and the tip of his wand falls ever-so-slightly, before Snape runs in and yanks him out of the way. He's not for Voldemort, and what he represents, anymore, but he never quite goes over to the "good side", either. As for his supposed attempt to capture Harry in the RoR, it seemed Crabbe was really the most gung-ho one in that scene, and I'm not sure that capturing Harry was Draco's idea in the first place. He does try to stop Crabbe from killing anyone, and that was reminscent of how Snape stops anyone from killing Harry at the end of HBP by saying that he is "for the Dark Lord". So, I think Draco did mature a little. His beliefs in pureblood superiority likely didn't change, but I personally think there is a big difference in feeling superior to someone, and trying to hurt or kill them.

Another part of that scene that made me think Draco had matured is how he tries to save Goyle from the Fiendfyre, and looks for Crabbe too. He didn't just run away by himself to save his own skin, and I think the Draco of the earlier books would have. Perhaps Draco himself was surprised about how much he actually cared for Crabbe and Goyle, instead of seeing them as expendable henchmen. I think Draco and Goyle likely had a more equal friendship as adults than they did as children.

[vega black]

I wonder if more Aurors collaborated then we want to think. When Remus Lupin tells Harry of the attacks on the wedding and the house of the different Order families Harry asks if they were Aurors or Death Eaters and Remus says both. At least that is how I remember it. It was such a big deal that Pius Thicknesse had the Imperio placed on him I wonder if an entire department could be Imperiused. At least at the very high level getting them to behave as collaborators would require.

[pigwithhair]

The problem with the Imperio thing is that it would impossible to tell, afterward, who was under the Imperio influence and who acted under their own will. Either way, I definitely came away from DH with the impression that most Aurors had been killed or dealt with in such a way as to impede them from assisting during the battle at Hogwarts. And JKR indicated that Harry, at 17, was the youngest Auror, so it appears they skipped all the normal requirements of five NEWTs and three years training, etc..

I see Draco as weak and self serving.

[birdg]

I see Draco as weak and self serving.

I don't think you'll get any arguments there. More of the arguments seem to revolve around what, if any, change of heart did he have 1.) during DH and 2.) after that.

You know, I'm going to go ask about making threads for individual characters and/or families because I have this dangerous urge to hijack two threads to babble on about Draco and Ginny, respectively.

More on topic - what changes does everyone think Hermione made in regards to elf rights during those 19 years? And why does everyone in fandom think she became a lawyer? (Or that they'd even be called lawyers and not Juriswizards or the like. Wait, that's probably another topic.)

[vegablack]

Hermione thinks like a lawyer rather than a scientist. One of the most amusing things about Hermione is seeks all her answers in books rather than experimentation. That was the one criticism of her by Snape that was valid though it was given in a thoroughly inappropriate and unkind way.

[birdg]

I agree with you on Hermione though that kind of recall and memory can certainly help in law classes. I took a few and while I'm great at arguing and making connections, I have a horrible memory and you really have to be able to remember the name of the case and details and how people argued. I could see that as being Hermione's strengths.

But it sounds to me like Hermione is more of a bureaucrat and probably Ron and Harry's boss - or one of them

[Rugi]

Apr 2, 2009 5:42:51 GMT -5 birdg said:

More on topic - what changes does everyone think Hermione made in regards to elf rights during those 19 years? And why does everyone in fandom think she became a lawyer? (Or that they'd even be called lawyers and not Juriswizards or the like. Wait, that's probably another topic.)

Didn't JKR say in an interview that she ended up as a lawyer? I remember thinking, at the time, how perfect that was since Hermione struck me as a perfect-lawyer type - strong research skills, exhaustive memory, passion for justice but with a corresponding instinct to uphold law-and-order and follow the rules - all skills/personality traits which match up well with a career in law.