[HPforGrownups] Re: OOP: Something that disturbed me (Cruciatus)

[Wendy St John]

No: HPFGUIDX 65534


I'm responding to several different posts here in this one message, to
avoid cluttering our mailboxes any more than necessary. :-)

This discussion started when another listee (name of Spedlegs, IIRC) posted
that he(she?) felt Harry was "completely justified" in casing Cruciatus at
Bella Lestrange, and I responded with the reasons I do not agree.

Then Beth asked:

"I'm just wondering, what would have been the 
appropriate response? They're in battle with DE's who have no 
compunction against using Unforgivable curses or killing. Bellatrix 
has proven that yet again and is escaping. Harry's supposed to 
rationally decide to use what? Petrificus Totalus?"

Now me (Wendy):

Yes - Petrificus Totalus would have been one option. Stupefy (the stunning
spell) would be another. IIRC (having read the scene only once) the DA was
successful in casting a number of defensive spells. And it's obviously not
a matter of Harry being restricted to using only spells he was familiar
with and had cast before - he tried this spell having never cast it before.
Why not try some other kick-butt defensive spell that he'd heard of but not
yet been formally taught or practiced?  And if he really wanted to *stop*
her, why not try Avada Kedavra? So, if he was trying to stop Bella, there
are several different things he could have done. Part of what bothers me in
his casting Cruciatus is the fact that his primary desire did not seem to
be to stop her, but to cause her pain. As I said earlier, I don't blame him
at all for those feelings. But I would like to see him get to the point
where he doesn't *act* on them in a destructive way. I also want to add
here that I'm not *blaming* Harry for what he did. I can understand his
reasons. I just question his . . . well, moral development, I guess would
be a term for it, in choosing to cast an unforgiveable curse. 

Then, Crissy commented:

"Ok for what it's worth, in PoA, it was said that the MoM approved of 
using unforgivable curses on known Death Eaters."

Me (Wendy) again:

Actually, in PoA we learned that during  Voldemort War , Barty Crouch Sr.
authorized *aurors* to use the unforgiveables against the Death Eaters. We
also learned that this was a controversial move, and not favoured by
everyone - including some of the aurors (Moody included). We don't know
whether or not this authorization was overturned after the last war, but in
any case Harry is not an auror, so it wouldn't apply to him, as far as I'm
concerned. I'm not saying that he wasn't actively and righteously fighing
the Death Eaters. Just that I don't think this particular argument has any
bearing on this situation. In my opinion.

Crissy again:

"Also, we might like 
to think that we would be "the enlightened" humans we are supposed to 
be in this situation.  But how many of us can actually say that if we 
saw a known serial killer, that is, we know they have killed before, 
and we know they will kill again, and they just killed our 
only "parent figure" that we wouldn't retaliate in some form.  In 
this post someone said having a wand is like having a loaded gun, yes 
you are right.  It is actually more like being trained in the martial 
arts.  You know you can do it, but are supposed to be confident 
enough in your abilities to not have to resort to use them except in 
defence.  If it's one thing that JK has shown us is that there are no 
absolute truths in this world... There are no definate right or wrong 
answers... and hindsight is 20/20."

Me (Wendy) again:

You make some good points here. However, my point is that I was disturbed
by Harry's action, not that I couldn't understand why he did it. As I said
in my first post (which perhaps you didn't read in its entirety, as I think
you made your response to someone else's post in which mine had been
snipped. I was the one who made the loaded gun analogy, btw), Harry was in
a heat-of-the-moment situation, under an incredible amount of emotional
stress. I don't blame him for what he did. And you'll notice that I'm not
saying he should be thrown into Azkaban for his action (although that is
the punishment attached by law to what he did, as far as we know). I just
said that I was disturbed by his action, and can in no way call it
"completely justified." 

I don't expect him to be an entirely "enlightened" human at this point in
his life, but isn't the point that he is trying to move in that direction?
(As are we all, ideally). It is beginning to appear as though this is most
certainly the direction in which Harry *must* move in order to succeed
against Voldemort. It seems to be the point of so much in these books -
it's our *choices* that count, all the emphasis in this book on controlling
ones emotions, etc.  I strongly feel that if he *can't* find a way to
control his emotions and responses (especially as regards to him and Snape
finding a way to heal their relationship) he will simply *not* be able to
vanquish Voldemort. In any case, I'm entitled to be disturbed by behaviour
that I find morally questionable.  I am hoping that his experience of
casting Cruciatus will prove to him that the Dark Arts are NOT the way to
go. But right now it's too soon to tell just how he feels about having cast
it. I'm also concerned about Harry's own integrity here from the standpoint
of not wanting to see him do things which he'll later regret. I suspect
that casting an unforgiveable curse would fall into that category (I
believe it would fall into that category for me if I were to use one in a
moment of passion). Of course, you may not agree with me about the moral
implications of his actions, and you are certainly entitled to those
opinions. :-) 

And, touching for a moment on your apt martial arts comment, part of 
proper (IMO) martial arts training is about mentally and emotionally
developing the *discernment* to use one's skills appropriately. I also
think we have seen this touched on in the books, for example with
McGonagall's comment in PS/SS that Voldemort was only more powerful because
he was willing to use powers that the morally superior (my interpretation,
anyway) Dumbledore would not use. I'm not sure that we've really seen Harry
be given a lot of instruction in this aspect of DADA, though. Especially
this year, when he was actually the one *teaching* the skills. Having
magical powers without being given any guidance as to when and how to use
them appropriately can be dangerous, so I hope that at some point
Dumbledore finds a DADA professor who will help Harry and the others learn
this.

Moving on . . . Joe in SoFla wrote:

"I disagree that it was a "default" but rather it was a reflexive 
action."

Wendy again:

This may be getting into semantics, but I would consider those two words to
mean approximately the same thing in this context: Default - meaning an
automatic selection in the absence of a choice made by the user; Reflexive
- meaning habitual and unthinking behaviour. In some ways, I think your
word actually makes it sound *less* noble - that Harry is in the habit of
unthinkingly casting unforgiveable curses. <G> But I guess that's actually
one of things of which I'm afraid - that this sort of action *will* become
his habitual response. I'm not saying that's where he's headed. But we
don't know yet that he won't. 

Joe again:

Also, IIRC, the unforgivable curses are permitted to be cast 
against DEs and, moreover, it is my view that in order for the curse 
to be an unforgiveable one, it has to have unforgivable result. If 
HP had cast the AK curse on BL and she had developed a dull ache as 
a result...would that be an unforgivable curse? There is, IMO, a 
difference between wanting to cause pain, and wanting to TORTURE 
someone.

Wendy (me) again:

I've already addressed your first point here - I don't think an argument
can be made that Harry, who is not an auror (wonder boy though he may be
<g>) is in any way sanctioned to cast unforgiveable curses. I also
respectfully disagree that a curse must have an unforgiveable result to
"count."  Harry's intent was to cause pain (and no, in this case I do not
see anything which distinguishes "pain" from "torture." I just don't). For
all we know you may be *right* from a legal standpoint (perhaps he didn't
actually commit a crime because she didn't end up writhing on the floor).
But I'm not concerned with legality here, rather with what I perceive to be
the moral implications for Harry. The fact that he wanted to cause pain and
chose to cast an unforgiveable curse in order to acheive that end distubs
me. For his sake. Again, this is all just my opinion, and we're both
entitled to view this issue however we prefer. :-)

Finally, Oryomai wrote:

"I was actually happy to see Harry use Cruciatius.  Notice it didn't really 
work?  I kind of took this to mean that Harry couldn't be evil.  He
couldn't do 
an Unforgiveable on the woman that killed his beloved godfather.  Even in
his 
state of complete fury, Harry wasn't able to do it.  And that's a good
thing."

Me again (Wendy):

While I think by now you'll have noticed that I don't agree with your
sentiment of "happy" <g>, I do agree that the fact he was unable to do it
is a VERY GOOD sign. This is certainly the lesson I hope he takes away from
this experience - that he just doesn't have whatever it takes to really
cast Dark curses. I really, really, really hope that our lovely Harry isn't
going to go down the wrong path for a while. I don't doubt that he'd return
to the "light" eventually, but I would really rather have him not go to the
dark at all. We've all seen what that sort of thing has done to our darling
Severus <g>.

Hope this explains my point of view - it is, after all, just *my* point of
view. I was disturbed. I don't see how his action could be considered
"completely justified." I hope he doesn't do it again. :-)


Cheers!

Wendy