Impossible timetable/Unforgivable Curses

[grey_wolf_c]

No: HPFGUIDX 38463

Nuria commented on one of my posts:
> And speaking of full moon, Grey Wolf observed:
> >>>>The real trouble is when you realise that Snape has 14 different 
> clases to teach each week, at the very least, and that (as canon 
> itself seems to point), he's actually got two double classes with 
> each group each week, for a grand total of 56 hours to fit into a 50-
> hour week (allowing for 10 hours worth of lessons each day, which is 
> barbaric, if you ask me) AND still find time to spend time in the 
> staff room and teach DADA lessons when Lupin is out cold (which are 
> another 2 hours/group and week, with only one group [not two groups 
> at the same time], for another 56 hours/week). This means that, the 
> week out of four that Lupin has moon-sickness, Snape has 112 hours 
> worth of class to fit into 168 hours worth of week.<<<<
> 
> Oops!, I say. Doesn't Lupin transform *one* night a month? Anyone can 
> clarify what evidence is in canon about how long does poor old Remus 
> have to stay curled up in his office? 
> ***

Yes, he seems to turn onto a wolf only one night every few months (it 
takes three months since start of the year for him to be absent), but 
when he *does* change he's pretty sick for a few days and, until he 
recovers, Snape does his lessons (whether or not his sickness is an 
after-effect of Snape's wolfbane potion is beside the point). I don't 
think it actually happened, but it is theorically possible that if he 
changes on a Monday, he's away until Friday, thus making Snape double 
the number of hours he has to impart. At any rate, no-one has commented 
on the fact that he seems to teach 56 hours/week, when most of you only 
assign 20 hour-slots a week (two slots before lunch and two afterwards)

catlady_de_los_angeles "cat" wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> 
> > OK, before I get into the more technical matter of the morality of 
> > forgetting and making forget, just a little canon here (just so the 
> > rest of the post makes sense in HP4GU). *Technically* the memory 
> > charm cannot be one of the unforgivable, because in that group the 
> > only spells included are those that are unblockable. Maybe they're 
> > counterable (like the Imperious), or maybe you can dodge them (like 
> > AK), but there is no magic shield that can stop them. Any other 
> > curse can be blocked with some spell or another, like the ones 
> > H/R/H practiced before the last challenge in GoF. Those three 
> > happen to be  pretty inmoral spells, but it's the fact that a 
> > wizard can do nothing to protect himself from them is what makes 
> > them unforgivable. 
> 
> Hey, Grey Wolf! I keep wondering WHAT makes the Unforgiveable Curses 
> unforgiveable. IS there someplace in canon that states that the 
> reason is that they are the only three spells that cannot be blocked? 
> I recall "Moody" saying that the AK cannot be blocked but do not 
> recall him saying that Crucio or Imperius cannot be blocked. Do we 
> know whether there are any other spells, beside the 3 Unforgiveables, 
> that cannot be blocked? 

There is no such thing as a direct canon statement of the reason they 
are unforgivable. My theory spawned out of the comment that AK is 
umblockable and that they are taught to resist the Imperio (not block 
it). It makes sense, anyway, since we are told that unforgivable are 
just a sub-class of prohibited curses. That would mean that the 
prohibited are, in general, "pretty immoral", and that the three most 
feared/hated are the umblockable or "unforgivable". And no, we don't 
know of any other spell that is unblockable. We do know, however, 
several that *can* be blocked (like the jelly-leg curse, IIRC).

> Some other explanations have been proposed for why the Unforgiveables 
> are unforgiveable. Some say, because they accomplish pretty immoral 
> (your phrase) effects, but I disagree, because there are a lot of 
> spells that accomplishment pretty immoral effects. 

As I've already said, I don't think that the apparent morality of the 
spell makes it unforgivable (a spell is just a weapon; it's got no 
intrinsic morality, just a dangerous level, like a gun or a sword). If 
someone used the AK to kill a charging, froathing at the mouth dragon, 
I don't think no-one would complain (allowing to the supposition that 
there *was* someone to complain, since dragons are basicly inmune to 
magic ;-) ).
 
> All the other explanations hypothesise information not given in 
> canon, such as, the 3 Unforgiveables damage the recipient's soul
> not just hiser body. 

I don't think that would work. I agree that AK possibly damages the 
soul (although they seemed pretty complete when pouring out of 
Voldemort's wand) when it wrenches them out of their bodies, and Crucio 
could, maybe, damage it too (although the best pain curses shouldn't 
damage at all, but keep the subject perfectly sane while yet in 
increadible pain), but I can't buy that Imperio damages the soul: it 
looks more like a drug to me ("look at the pretty colours", Harry was 
thinking -almost- when subjected to it in Moody's class), one that 
makes you feel so good that you'll do anything to keep it going.

> Or casting an Unforgiveable requires summing up a level of hate and 
> arrogance (or some other set of Bad feelings) in oneself; no wizard, 
> no matter how magically powerful, can cast an Unforgiveable unless 
> heesh has this internal Badness. 

I hope not, since that would mean that Moody and all other Aurors are 
bad, since they could use them. No, I'm not buying that one.

> Or the one I sort like, that casting an Unforgiveable leaves a 
> residue of Badness in the caster, so that a previously okay person 
> can become as evil as Voldemort by repeatedly casting Unforgiveables.

I don't like this one either, since it put's morality outside the realm 
of consciousness: by allowing people to "become bad" by using a spell, 
you're introducing an external element to morality. I prefer that the 
goodness or badness of a person is dictated only by it's inner self.

In fact, the most simple explanation is that unforgivable curses are 
those curses that earn you a life-sentence in Azkaban when used against 
a fellow human (no pardon -or forgiveness- possible) (note that you can 
use them freely against other beings, including giants, mermaids, 
elves, centaurs...). What curses are unforgivable would then change 
with time, sometimes being more than three, sometimes being just one or 
two.

I still prefer my unblockable theory, though.

------OT warning------
Finally, Amy Z "lupinesque" said:
> And as long as I'm making OT comments about other writers' 
> memory incidents, if you don't like Total Recall, Grey Wolf [and it 
> was horrifically bloody], read the original, by the great Philip K. 
> Dick.  It's a story called "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale."
> 
> Amy Z

I didn't like the film because it looked "plastic" and unreal to me (I 
prefer secial effects to be better done). I don't mind the blood (after 
all, I *am* a wolf). It was just too Hollywood-like for my tastes. 
Ironside is great, though (as in Starship Troopers, which I DO like). 
I've been recommended Philip K. Dick several times, but I'm reluctant 
(too *hard* for my tastes, I believe, like in Blade Runner).
------End of OT-------

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who's looking forward to chatting with Cat this Sunday, and 
maybe having Nuria along so he can practise his Spanish