Bang! You're Dead. (was:Voldemorts animus...)

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 86222

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
> <snip> 
> Carol: You still haven't answered Geoff's argument
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85985 regarding
> the canonical evidence against having good guys use the unforgiveable
> curses. Surely they are unforgiveable and illegal for a reason, and,
> if so, JKR will need to provide some alternative to having Harry
> perform a curse that would send him to Azkaban. I don't think she
> believes that "all's fair in love and war" and that she will put
> herself in the tricky situation of having defined the rules and then
> decided to change them. She has clearly established a distinction
> between good and evil in the WW and it seems to me that she needs to
> maintain it. Geoff's quotations illustrate that distinction quite
> clearly, as do certain statements by Dumbledore that I will hunt up if
> necessary when I have more time. JKR has said in an interview that
> Dumbledore is "the epitome of goodness,"
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2000/0700-cbc-
solomon.htm
> which I hope is sufficient evidence that his assertions matter in
> thies discussion.
>

Kneasy:
Hmm. So  by your reading of the canon Harry should start volume 6
in  Azkaban. He has used an unforgivable curse, hasn't he?

But  we both know that this won't  happen.

It's also canon that unforgivable curses were used by Aurors in old Barty's
day. Not a very popular character, I'll agree, but he was organising the 
fight for the survival of a free WW. The canon reads as if only Aurors were 
permitted to use the curses, though I doubt if Barty would have made a 
fuss if one were used in self defence.
The majority of the WW weren't comfortable with it, but accepted that it
was the only effective way to fight back. Until Godrics Hollow Voldy was
*winning*. 
Note also that Moody was supposed to be the star Auror. Is he evil or
stricken with a conscience that makes him run around chanting "Mea culpa?"
No. It's also canon that the old Order had other Aurors as members. Didn't
seem to bother Dumbledore much, so far as I can see. As the epitome of
goodness you would expect him to take an immovable moral stand, but I 
can't find any evidence of this. Moody is mentioned as one of his oldest
friends, not an untouchable pariah who participated in Dark Magic.

Dumbledore 'the epitome of goodness' is a very interesting concept.
I agree, but selectively. Then I can have it both ways. It certainly
supports  my contention that Elves are not enslaved. He has never given 
any encouragement to Hermione and her crusade, has he?
 
Carol: 
> I agree that the wands won't work, but I have nothing against Harry
> being healed a second time by Phoenix tears. And I never said that
> Voldemort would fight fairly, only that Harry should. The moment
> Voldemort raises a wand or other weapon against him or a friend, Harry
> has the right and responsibility to fight defensively. That's what
> DADA is for; Hogwarts, unlike Durmstrang, does not teach the Dark Arts
> themselves, only *defense* against them. So Harry must find a way to
> destroy Voldemort without resorting to Dark weapons, including
> unforgiveable curses, himself. I have never said that he should take
> pity on Voldemort, much less love his enemy. I have only said that he
> must not muddy the distinction between good (Dumbledore) and evil
> (Voldemort) that JKR herself has established.
>

Kneasy:
Fine. But doesn't  canon state that there is no defence against an AK?
No blocking it, no counter-curse.
Even Dumbledore had to be saved from one by Fawkes' interventional
sacrifice. Not many other wizards  have such protection. 

I'm pleased that you have no objection to Voldy being smeared across
the landscape; just the method used  causes you concern. Why? Dead is
dead. Harry has already stepped across the line with a Crucio! Can he
erase that from canon? Or will his teenage bloody-mindedness continue
or even increase? DD  may be the epitome of goodness, but is Harry?
Doesn't look like he is; the way he's written he's a flawed personality.
Harry has Voldy attributes - that is canon. Maybe there will be more of
Voldy in Harry than you will find comfortable. Be prepared!


Carol:  
> You may be right about Bellatrix's comments being a red herring, but I
> don't think so. She and Voldemort appear to enjoy inflicting pain and
> death. If, indeed, that feeling is required to make the curses
> effective, then the reason they're "unforgiveable" is clear. They can
> be cast only by someone who is already cruel and well on his or her
> way to becoming irreversibly evil.
> 

Kneasy:
Yes, Bella and her squeeze do enjoy inflicting pain. Is that relevant
to everyone else? Did the Aurors empowered by Crouch enjoy it? Did
they all irrevocably become Dark Magicians with no redeeming features?
I suspect that generalising from extreme examples could be misleading.
Moody and his  confederates are irreversibly evil by that argument and I
can see no evidence for it. I repeat my simile regarding the difference
between surgeons and sadists. 

> Carol, who hopes that you'll quote canon this time instead of calling
> those who disagree with you "touchy-feely New Agers." We just don't
> share your view of a satisfactory ending. And BTW, it won't hurt your
> argument to concede a few points. :-)

Kneasy:
Enough canon content for you?
The "touchy-feely new-agers" I rail against are those who decry the need
to destroy Voldy; who seem to think rehabilitation is the preferred ending.
Nah, it won't serve IMO.

Concede a few points? Good heavens! Why would I want to do that? Takes 
all the fun out of it. I concede unarguable canon, of course, but there's less
of this than most seem to believe. There's a lot of apparently conflicting, but
sometimes indirect evidence, such as Bella's statements and the acceptance
of Moody within the Order and Crouch, the man who authorised the use of
the unforgivables as being respected, though disliked. (Even then, the dislike
appears to be based on his treatment of his son more than for his methods
of dealing with the DEs.)

I welcome with open arms views contrary to my own, in fact I'd be sadly
disappointed if I wasn't challenged on a regular basis. It would be boring if 
we all thought the same way. By the same token you need some unregenerate, 
insensitive, "kill 'em all lest the evil persist!" hard-hearted types to deplore.

I suspect that we both start from the same basic philosophy:
I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain.