[HPforGrownups] Wendy is disturbed <G> Re: OOP: Something that disturbed me (Cruciatus)

[Wendy St John]

No: HPFGUIDX 65561


Hiya, Joe in SoFla,

You're lucky I'm in a good mood - else I might come after you with my handy
Swiss army knife for *daring* to call me disturbed. (No matter you could
probably find a large number of people to agree with you <GGG>).

I think that at the end of this discussion, you and I will probably have to
agree to disagree on some things - I am guessing that we may have a
different "basic philosophy" in regards to some of these things. So, I am
very nearly ready to let this go for now, but there are a few points upon
which I want to comment:

Joe wrote:

"The crux of the disagreement is whether HP is (or will be) in the 
HABIT (emphasis mine) of this sort of behavior. When I 
wrote "reflexive" I meant to emphasize the unthinking aspect. It's 
not unlike being in an argument with someone one dislikes and 
blurting out a bit of profanity. Clearly this would be an unthinking 
behavior, but hardly a default (as in: "If X happens, I will always 
do Y") behavior."

Now me (Wendy, the disturbed one):

I'm not sure I get the distinction you are trying to make. Again, I think
perhaps it's just semantics. Maybe default was the wrong term for me to use
from the start, as it is, indeed, the "reflexiveness" (ie unthinkingness)
of Harry's action in casting the curse which disturbs me. And my point is
that I'm afraid that the very unthinkingness of it might mean that at some
point it *could become* habit. I'm not suggesting that it has become habit
at this time, just that I'm worried it might. Does this make sense? I think
we can just take "default" out of the discussion and go with reflexive and
my point remains basically the same.

Joe continued:

"Let me take this, for the purpose of analogy, to an extreme. Let's 
say you carry a knife, one of those handy-dandy Swiss Army types. 
Let's further say you and your friends get into a scuffle with some 
Very Bad People. In the middle of the melee, you take out your SAK 
and stab at someone, who dies. Have you committed 1st Degree/Capital 
murder? No. You have committed manslaughter (sorry for the Amero-
centric terminology), which carries less severe penalties. Why? 
Premeditation is the key ingredient."

Now Wendy (me) again:

Hmnh. Your analogy isn't perfect, as I'm presuming you don't have me going
out looking for the Very Bad People. Harry certainly did not premeditate
his use of Cruciatus, but he did go to the Ministry armed, expecting to
meet up with Very Bad People, and prepared to fight them. And I did say
that I am not concerned with the *legality* of the issue, so the penalties
for the offense are not what concern me  - it's the moral implication that
gets me. Here's where I think our paths may diverge philisophically. I'll
let you in on my dirty little secret (there may be a couple of people here
who'll remember it from discussions last year) - I'm a pacifist. Which
means that ideally, philisophically, I don't believe violence is EVER the
appropriate response. Now, before I start an uproar, I will also add that I
am supremely capable of hypocrisy. If someone were attacking my child, for
example, I believe that I would take any physical action required (violence
included to the point of the death of the attacker if necessary) to defend
my child. So, do I believe in violence? No. Might I practice it in the
future? Never say never, right? I would like to believe (without getting
into a spiritual discussion here) that our goal as humans is to become
"enlightened" - but we aren't that way just now (most of us aren't anyway).
So I think there can be an ideal (a goal towards which to strive), and then
there's what we really do in our lives. It's never my plan to wake up in
the morning and perpetrate violence (and I agree that Harry did not
premeditate his violence, either). And I won't say that I will never be in
a situation in which I would resort to violence. I do hope that my overall
mental and emotional attitude, though, is one which would predispose me to
use any other available options FIRST - before resorting to a violent act.
That's what I'm afraid Harry did *not* do in this situation. His action was
reflexive, unthinking. And I'm not saying that I "blame" Harry for casting
the curse, or that he shouldn't have done it. But I also feel that his
moral development would be harmed by a continued "reflexive" use of
violence. Particularly "unneccesary violence," meaning I don't think he was
trying to stop Bella - I think he wanted to hurt her. (More on this below).
  
Joe also wrote:

"I see a very clear, broad chasm between "pain" and "torture" much 
like there is a difference between being spanked by your father or 
flogged by the KGB or Gestapo. HP was looking for a retaliatory 
action and the best he could do given the WHOLE morass of 
circumstances was a weak Cruciatus curse. I maintain the 
unforgivable factor is a function of result, not intent."

Now me (Wendy) again:

Of course I see a difference in a spanking and being flogged by the
Gestapo. What I said in my last post what that *in this instance* I don't
see a difference between pain and torture. 

OoP, Page 715 (UK edition): "Hatred rose in Harry such as he had never
known before; he flung himself out from behind the fountain and bellowed,
"Crucio!"

The boy was feeling *hatred*. My interpretation of this that his sole
intent was to inflict pain upon her - he wasn't trying to stop her, or
really even to "punish" her. In the next paragraph he notices that she is
not writhing on the floor and screaming - this is obviously the reaction he
was expecting (and hoping for, IMO). I don't think you can liken this to
the sort of pain inflicted by a parent doling out punishment. My
interpretation of this scene is that Harry wanted to inflict torture upon
her for its own sake - because he was so angry and feeling so much hatred
he wanted to hurt her - to *torture* her. Using your example, this is the
Gestapo, not a parent performing a spanking. Well, I wouldn't compare Harry
to the Gestapo, but my real point here is that  parents who choose to spank
their children as punishment are advised not do it out of anger or hatred -
that's not punishment, it's abuse. Torture, not just pain. You're right, he
did not succeed in inflicting an amount of pain which would be considered
torture. But I believe (in other words, it's my interpretation of that
scene) he wanted to. 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.

Finally, Joe wrote:

"I believe this will show HP that he is really incapable of doing the 
Dark Arts thing all that well. Still, where does the leave HP if the 
prophecy is as I read it (i.e., kill LV or be killed by him)? How 
can he defeat him without using AK?"

Now Wendy (me) again:

Well, this is an interesting thing to consider, isn't it? One
interpretation of the prophecy is "kill or be killed." But it actually says
"vanquish" - which, as someone else already pointed out, means to subdue or
defeat - it does not by definition mean to kill. As you may guess by my
earlier comment about violence never being my preferred response, I very
much hope that Harry will discover a way to fulfill the prophecy and
vanquish Voldemort without becoming a murderer himself. Okay. There's a big
emotional charge on the word murderer, isn't there? I can soften it to
"killer" - even "executioner," and I still don't like it. It's not at all
what I want for Harry. (Honestly, are you comfortable with the idea that
Harry must become a killer to fulfill his "destiny" and save the Wizarding
World)? I very much hope (and have faith) that JKR does not plan to make
Harry a killer to end the series.

Thanks for the discussion, Joe - disturbed as I may be, your previous post
made me smile! :-)


Wendy St John
hebrideanblack at earthlink.net

Who won't admit to being 87% more disturbed than anyone, but who did score
50% Harry Potter obsessed on the quiz which was recently posted to
OT-Chatter. <G>