Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry

[ssk7882]

No: HPFGUIDX 43427

I wrote:

> > By intervening to insist upon the recognition of a higher moral 
> > code than "he deserves it," Harry is acting as an agent of 
> > transformative and redemptive moral change, one which can serve 
> > to heal both the wounds of injustice and the wounds of the past. 

Dicentra replied:

> As true as all this is, it seems so incongruous that Harry was on 
> the verge of killing Sirius only an hour or so earlier. 

Ah.  But he *didn't,* now, did he?  Once he was actually armed and 
therefore could do real damage, he balked.  

Harry doesn't blast Sirius the instant that he gets his wand back.  
He stands there looking down at him.  He argues with him.  He tries 
to justify what he is about to do not only to himself, but to 
*Sirius.*  He tries to explain his actions.  He rejects Sirius' 
excuses.  He talks about what it was like hearing his mother's last 
pleas.  He repeats the base accusation ("You did that") more than 
once.

What he does not do, however, is actually take *action.*

Even before Crookshanks intervenes, thus raising the stakes 
significantly, Harry is hesitating.  He talks and he talks, trying to 
psych himself up to commit the act, but he never quite manages it.  
He hesitates.  He balks at killing an unresisting and unarmed man.


Jim wrote:

> You're touching on something extraordinary about Harry: We've seen 
> over and over how he's the "man of action," whose instincts (with 
> preparation from Hermione) lead him right and save him time and 
> time again; and his unwavering moral compass. He just can't be bad, 
> it seems.

Oh, he can be bad.  Just not when it really *counts.* ;-)

Yes.  It is a bit frustrating, that, as it raises so many unsettling 
questions about "choice," but I really do think that instinct comes 
into play here.  Harry isn't perfect by any means, but he does often 
seem to have heroic instincts.  They lead him to do things like 
stepping in to intervene on Neville's behalf at the flying lesson in 
the first book.  They lead him to speak up in Hermione's defense at 
their very first potions class.  They lead him to do things like 
offering to share the Triwizard prize with Cedric <pained wince>.

In this case, they lead him to balk at killing in vengeance someone 
who is unarmed and defenseless, and posing no immediate threat.


Dicey:

> His impulse to kill Sirius was pure hatred and vengeance, not at 
> all different from Sirius's desire to kill Pettigrew.

Exactly the same, I'd say.  

And yet he balks.


> So what changed? What persuaded Harry within that short time to 
> recognize this higher moral code? 

Well, I don't know that it's all that short a time, really.  I'd say 
that actually, Harry is dealing with the question of "desserts" 
throughout the entire novel.  It comes up over and over again: in his 
interactions with Aunt Marge and Vernon, in his conversation with 
Lupin.  It's a central thematic concept in PoA. 

So he's really been working on it all year, in a way.  By the time he 
hits the Shack, I'd say that he's already made a start on rejecting 
the moral code of vengeance.  He *does* balk rather than killing 
Sirius, after all.  He attacks Sirius out of fury when he is unarmed, 
and when Sirius seems to be an active threat.  But when he has a wand 
in his hand, and Sirius is doing nothing but lying there on his back 
staring up at him?

Nope.  He balks.


-- Elkins