[HPforGrownups] Cruciatus (was: I am somewhat less disturbed than Wendy <G>)

[Wendy St John]

No: HPFGUIDX 66270

Sorry to have taken so long to respond to your post, Joe, but you said some
really interesting things that I wanted to think through properly before
responding. So, onward!

Joe in SoFla wrote:

"It is my cross to bear that impressive numbers of people disagree 
with me, with all my brilliance somehow unable to convince them I am 
right."

Now me (Wendy):

Hah! I know what you mean! <g> Can we both be brilliant even if we fail to
sway one another to our view of things? (I think we can) ;-)

Now, back to the discussion of Harry's Cruciatus:

Joe wrote:

"I am of the mind the laws--for better or worse--reflect the moral outlook
of a society at a given 
point in time."

Wendy again:

OOH! Very good point! Especially the bit about better or *worse.* <g> I
think in regards to the Cruciatus, this might go two ways. First, it is a
highly illegal curse, punishable with a severe prison sentence. Wizarding
society seems to be saying that it's not okay to cast Cruciatus. There was
a time, however, in the not-so-distant past in which at least some segment
of society felt it was okay for aurors to cast unforgiveables at Death
Eaters. Not sure exactly where the majority of Wizarding society would
stand on this right now. 

But now I digress . . . as I've said, I'm concerned with the moral
implications for Harry, so it is entirely possible for me to recognize that
something is accepted by the society in which I live (or the one in which
Harry lives), and still feel that it is not morally appropriate. The death
penalty is legal in my country, and a great many people here agree with it.
Apparently, it does reflect the moral outlook of my society, and I still
don't find it morally acceptable. So that's not an argument which is going
to sway *my* feelings about Harry's casting of the curse. 

But let's move on to the really interesting stuff:

Joe wrote:

"I am not AS disturbed about this because I see a 
distinction between wanting to cause pain out of blind fury vs. out 
of sadism. This is why HP can NEVER (as things stand now, anyway) 
use such an Unforgivable Curse, because even in the case of a richly 
deserving target (such as Bellatrix) he cannot bring himself to 
enjoy it."

Now Wendy (c'est moi):

Reading this I had a bit of an AHA! moment as I think I finally got the
point of what you'd been trying to say. Blind fury vs. sadism. <nodding
thoughtfully> This, I think, is a very good way to look at it. So, do I
think Harry is a sadist (or even a potential sadist) for casting an
unforgiveable? No. HOWEVER (you knew that was coming, didn't you <g>) I
will also say that Harry does seem to be developing a bit of a mean streak.
<donning asbestos suit in anticipation of flames <G>>. In the beginning of
the book, we watched him push Dudley's buttons without any real provocation
(well, any recent provocation - certainly Dudley is no saint <g>). And
there are other moments when Harry takes some pleasure out of the
discomfort of others. I'm thinking specifically of the scene when he
arrives at Grimmauld Square and sees that Hedwig did as he asked, and
chewed a bit on the fingers of Ron and Hermione (urging them to write Harry
a proper letter), and Harry finds that "he was not at all sorry." (OoP, p
63, UK edition). I'm not suggesting this is sadism (please don't flame me,
anyone). The most applicable definition in my dictionary for the word is
"delight in cruelty." Harry hasn't been "delighting" in cruelty. He's been
through h*ll and I would be utterly amazed if he wasn't royally honked off
most of the time. Even so, he's not still the sweet little boy we met in
the first book. Which is great. I don't want him to stay 11 forever. And
myriad comments have been made on this list about his anger, which *right
now* I see as a perfectly acceptable reaction to what's been happening in
his life, as well as an age-appropriate behaviour. What concerns me is that
this anger will not prove to be a phase, but will become a habit. Anger is
a really ugly emotion to carry around with you unchecked for long periods
of time, and I'm afraid that if Harry succumbs to too much blind fury and
continues to indulge his emotions instead of learning to control them, it
might morph into sadism at some point. He's already capable of taking his
anger out on others in what seeems to me a mean-spirited way (hey - I've
certainly done this myself many, many times. Not abnormal, but also not
something of which to be proud). So, IMO, Harry has a lot of resentment and
anger to work through before I'll feel he's completely out of danger.  

<major snippage>

I wrote:

" Again, this isn't about the legality of what 
he did -
> it's about what might or might not be going on in Harry's heart 
and mind
> when he's making these decisions.

To which Joe responded:

"Ah. (That's the sound of two paths diverging) But I make a 
distinction--feel free to do otherwise--between HP feeling hatred 
and HP feeling sadistic. I took that passage to mean HP wanted to 
punish Bellatrix, and the best his mind could do under the 
circumstances was this unforgivable curse...but his heart (!) wasn't 
in it."

Now Wendy (me) again:

I definitely do see a distinction between the two, as I've just discussed
above. And I am not saying I think Harry is being sadistic. But I do
disagree with you that Harry was trying to "punish" her (at least by the
definition I *think* we're talking about - retribution). Yes - what he was
doing was in response to her evil actions. But I think in casting the curse
he was lashing out in a desire to cause pain (punish in the "inflict injury
upon" sense of the word) - not because he thought she deserved retribution,
but because he was so angry he wanted to hurt her. So, it seems you and I
can agree to interpret this scene differently and be happy with that, yes?
:-) 

Joe again:

"I'll also ask you this, out of curiosity and not for any rhetorical 
purpose, let us assume the Cruciatus Curse was, for whatever reason, 
NOT unforgivable...would your views be modified? (I don't think mine 
would be, but I haven't scrutinized them that fully as re. 
hypotheticals.) I'm wondering if people (you in specific) are more 
concerned about the unforgivable aspect, or the "pain" aspect or the 
reflex aspect, etc."

It's me again (Wendy):

Well, my views would be ever-so-slightly modified. I would still feel that
it was morally inappropriate to cast a curse designed solely to cause pain.
I would still be concerned that Harry did so as a "reflex" (giving into his
anger without seeming to think first). But at least the spectre of any
possible legal ramification would be lifted - right now, I also question
Harry's judgement in casting a highly illegal curse (especially in light of
his recent experiences with the WW justice system). That one piece would be
gone, but I am primarily concerned with the fact that he tried to use a
method of torture on another human (even one as despicable as Bella). And
before the flames start (not from you, Joe, but I'm concerned there might
be people reading this who haven't followed the thread from the start), let
me just repeat that I am not blaming Harry for his action, and I can
entirely understand what brought him to cast an unforgiveable. I am
concerned with his action because I think it showed poor judgement and I
want Harry to develop into a happy and morally responsible person. I don't
expect Harry to be perfect. But I do think it is interesting to look at his
past actions and try and guess where they might take him in the future.
That's why I'm worried about his casting the curse. If I was sure it was a
one-off, I wouldn't give it much thought. But if it turns to be Harry's
first step down the path of Dark Arts, well I would find that very
disturbing, indeed.

Joe again:

"I am not HAPPY about HP having to end LV's life, but if we 
take "comfortable" to have overtones of resignation...then I guess I 
would say I am "at peace" (albeit VERY reluctantly) with the idea. I 
took my views of the prophecy from bit about "neither shall live..." 
And while I firmly believe LV is about as deserving of capital 
punishment as anyone ever could be, I would hope it wasn't HP who'd 
have to do that."

Wendy (me) again:

I'm not at all "comfortable" with it (as I'm sure you've already guessed
<g>). I, too, am disturbed about the "neither shall live" bit of the
prophecy. It sure sounds like Harry's destiny is to kill or be killed. It
is also worth pointing out that Dumbledore seems to agree with your
intepretation:

(Page 744 of OoP, UK Ed) - "So, said Harry, dredging up the words from what
felt like a deep well of despair inside him, "so does that mean that . . .
that one of us has got to kill the other one . . . in the end?" 

"Yes," said Dumbledore.

But I am still holding out hope that Dumbledore is wrong about this, and
that Harry will find a way to vanquish Voldemort without becoming a killer
himself. Hey, I hope for this stuff all the time in the real world, and am
usually disappointed (at least by the actions of my own US government). But
this *is* fiction. I can hope, can't I? <GGG>

Joe added:

"Oh, and I have a good hypothesis for how HP could make LV join 
Regulus Black WITHOUT using an unforgivable curse: Somehow he uses 
the stunning spell and sends LV careening through the veil."

Wendy again:

Yes, but he'd still be actively ending Voldemort's life. It's not the
unforgiveable aspect as much as the Harry taking a life aspect that bothers
me. I am hoping for something more along the lines of Harry manages to
exorcise all the evil from Voldemort, leaving a
once-again-purely-human-all-nasty-snake-thing-stuff-gone Tom Riddle.
Something corny like that. <G>

Thanks again! Love the discussion, and, for the record, chatting about this
with you has lowered *my* disturbance level a bit. The more I think about
it, the more I realise I do have faith in our lovely Harry to do the right
thing in the end. :-) Or is it JKR I have faith in . . . Nope, she is
*obviously* a sadist (proof - she killed Sirius <g>). 

Cheers!
Wendy