I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 167069

> > Jen:  
> <SNIP>
> > The Potterverse moral view on murder was made even more explicit
> > in the same book as an AK was cast.  I would expect if JKR wanted
> > to examine the gray area of mercy killings or killing on the 
order 
> of
> > a commander in a time of war, she would have set up this premise
> > by diluting the significance of using an AK for Harry rather than
> > strengthening it.  Reversing her position now will say that
> > Unforgivables are not Wrong with a capital W but only wrong
> > in certain circumstances.  Once again I can't see Harry getting
> > to the point of understanding that after everything he's learned
> > and what he believes.  
> ><SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yeah, agreed 100%. But to not make it complete me too let me bring 
an 
> example that I certainly brought in the past, but did not for 
quite 
> some time, so I hope it would not sound too parroting :)
> 
> To the best of my recollection the only time in the books when 
good 
> guys use AK( and even that is not specified in details) is when 
Barty 
> Sr. allows aurors to do so.
> 
> I do not think that narrator sounds very approving of Barty's 
> decision, no?
> 
> And that is the **only** time I can remember. To me it speaks 
volumes 
> of how bad AK is in Potterverse.
> 
> IMO of course.

Magpie:
Actually, even acknowledging that's true, I don't know if it's 
really that bad. I mean, Crucio seems like it should be pretty bad 
too, but Harry almost uses it. Granted, I think there is a 
difference between what Harry (and imo Draco) are throwing at their 
enemies and the true use of Crucio, which is why Harry's doesn't 
work. But I don't think AK in itself is necessarily something the 
good guys would just never use. JKR uses it sparingly in the 
narrative, but I don't know whether that's because she's saying the 
good guys would never use it. Iirc, Moody is described as always 
trying to take people alive, so he didn't always do it, and while 
Barty's allowing them to use Unforgivables led to bad things, I 
don't think it made Moody necessarily bad.

It gets back to that question of Dark Magic again, what it is, what 
it does to you. Is it like Star Wars where we should worry that 
Harry tried to throw a Crucio? I thought it would be in OotP, and 
then in HBP I thought oh no, it's not. Sectumsempra was a deadly 
curse the way Harry used it in HBP, yet a few chapters later he's 
reaching for it again--granted, against the Inferi, but if it's Dark 
Magic and it had horrific results should he be using it at all? Yet 
it doesn't seem like it's a big deal that he did.

So I don't know. I can imagine that Snape knows that in this 
situation he ought to kill Dumbledore and that AK isn't any worse 
way to do that than anything else. The way it's written in the scene 
it actually seems like a pretty good way to go. I mean, it's 
dignified...it's more like Snape just saying, "You're dead now." I 
don't meant to underestimate it--that's part of why the scene's so 
dramatic. But it's dramatic because what AK is is just the wish for 
someone else to be dead spoken aloud. That's powerful--and I think 
there's a reason that Crucio (the desire to cause someone else pain 
in some way) can be something JKR has Harry and try at and fail 
while she doesn't have Draco even try AK. But I don't really get the 
feeling that AK as a spell stands alone from other spells or from 
other ways to kill. I think it's just that the intent to kill is a 
big deal; using it has effects on you and using it a lot has severe 
effects. I think the big deal is that Snape is killing, and the AK 
symbolizes that intent itself, which is more formidable than any of 
the almost-murders throughout the books.

-m