Bang! You're dead.

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 86365

Kathryn Cawte:
<snip>  Although on the subject of Bellatrix I wonder why Harry
> didn't try and kill her rather than just hurting her - not that I'm
saying
> he necessarily *should* have tried to kill her, I'm just wondering
why he
> chose to try and cause her as much pain as he could (which turned
out to be
> pretty much none - but the intention was there, even if his
subconscious and
> his nature wouldn't let him follow it up)but not kill her.

Carol:
I think for one thing, he knew it was wrong, just as he had with
Sirius in PoA, but he still wanted to hurt her, to give her a taste of
her own medicine. (I'm glad for his sake that the curse failed, and
not just because I'm concerned with his moral well-being. He could
easily have been caught and punished. She probably would have screamed
as she left with Voldemort, "Potter Cruco'd me!" and all it would have
taken to prove her right would a Priore Incantatem of Harry's wand.)
If he'd AK'd her, she'd be dead, lying there for everyone to see as
evidence of his guilt. Even in his rage and anguish, he had sense
enough not to risk that.

> > Kneasy:
> > Well, Moody did use the AK. At least, Sirius says so.

Carol:
Does he? He says Moody killed when necessary, meaning Rosier and
possibly Wilkes, but do we know that Moody AK'd them? There could be
other killing spells which aren't unforgiveable because they can be
blocked. (If you've answered this already, just ignore it this time
around.)


> > Kneasy:
> > Please! I can't see  Harry as a parfait gentle knight, spotless in
> > thought, word and deed. I  suspect that his faults plus those bits of
> > Voldy buried in there somewhere are  necessary for his eventual
> > triumph, even though he  may not be around  to celebrate.
>
Kathryn: 
> Wouldn't he be boring if he became perfectly good? Although some basic
> understanding that rules are rules and apply to everyone not just
everyone
> *else* would be nice.

Carol:
He wouldn't be Harry if he were perfect. But I agree with Kathryn. He
does need to learn and respect the rules without being absolutely
bound by them like poor Percy. It's important for him to work within
the bounds of "Good" as JKR defines it. And that means, first,
acquiring some principles and standards that he will abide by, knowing
that his enemy has neither standards nor principles, and then acting
on those principles to do his duty and somehow destroy Voldemort. I
think and hope that he'll come to an understanding of the importance
of abiding by Hogwarts rules, first--which may alleviate some of the
tension between him and Snape (and help them to remember that they're
on the same side). But more important, he needs to understand the
nature of Good and Evil--what he is fighting to preserve and uphold
and what he is opposing. You can't preserve and uphold Good by doing
Evil, at least not in the world of children's literature. We're
talking about the WW, where the right choice may not be easy to
recognize, but it does exist--not always the case in the real world.

Carol