AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary!

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 167126

> Betsy Hp:
> And the thing is, dead is dead.  Does it really matter, in the end, 
> *how* the death occurred?  If little psycho Tommy killed his family 
> with an axe instead of an AK would that make his soul a little less 
> black <snip>

Alla:

Does it matter? I do not know. I have a feeling that while it may not 
matter to JKR as different from any other murder, she chose him to 
kill his family with AK to stress the evilness of that. To use the 
strongest metaphor IMO.

Betsy Hp: 
> Or, on the flip side, if brave James managed to bring down 
Voldemort, 
> would it matter if it was with an AK or by changing Voldemort into 
a 
> bug and then squishing him?

Alla:

Yeah, I think so. I think it will be demonstrated at the end of the 
books when his brave son will bring  Voldemort down with something 
very different from AK. <g>

> Betsy Hp:
<SNIP>
>> At the risk of completely mis-stating Magpie's case <g>, it's not 
> really the actual magical spell that separates the good guys from 
the 
> bad but the whys and whatfors.

Alla:

I do not see it with such certainty. I think whys and whatfors are 
important, but I also think that killing is the action which is 
pretty bad in itself in Potterverse, whys and whatfors may mitigate 
it but not cross it out IMO.

Betsy Hp: 
> Which is *entirely* different from say, Star Wars.  In Star Wars, 
> Yoda could move an object around with the force and Vader could 
move 
> an object around with the force, and despite the fact that both 
> characters are doing what amounted to the same action, Yoda by 
using 
> the Light Side was on a higher moral plane than Vader using the 
Dark 
> Side.  

Alla:

Sure, it is different from Star Wars, JKR grayed it much more IMO. If 
it was Star Wars, then of course DD assertion that Harry is not 
tainted by dark magic would have sound quite strange for me.

But those curses are called Unforgivable IMO for a reason and despite 
the fact that Ministry moral authority is often questionable, I 
believe that JKR put some of her own weight behind it, if that makes 
sense.

Betsy Hp: 
> In Rowling's universe it's all just physics. An AK isn't a tiny bit 
> of evil.  It's a spell.  No better and no worse than a "reparo".  
> There's no spiritual or moral energy attached to it.  Any tainting 
of 
> the soul comes from *within* the wizard.  
<SNIP>

Alla:

It is a personification of evil intent IMO. That is why IMO it 
becomes worse than other spells. I agree that there is probably no 
moral energy attached, but just as metaphor, you know? We keep saying 
that JKR should define what Dark Magic is in potterverse and often I 
am all for it. But maybe she did not do that for a reason. Maybe she 
wanted it to stay that grayish, except those three curses. Maybe they 
are **that** bad?

Maybe any other dark magic can change depends on the intent, but not 
those three curses? Especially not AK? Just thinking out loud.

 So, to make a long story short – I do believe that the theme is that 
**murder** is bad, not that particular spell called AK is bad just 
because. I believe it is bad as personification of that theme. 

It just to me Avada Kedavra is the most obvious metaphor for this, 
just as Dementors the most obvious metaphors for depression. That 
does not preclude other type of murders from existing, which let me 
say it again I do believe **split your soul**, just as people in 
Potterverse get depressed without ever meeting Dementors.

Just as there is a room with that terrible force locked up in 
Department of Mysteries, which does not preclude the love as emotion 
between people from existing in Potterverse.



Carol:
<SNIP>
> Harry didn't know the Killing Curse (and probably couldn't have
> conjured it if he did) in the Shrieking Shack, but he intended to 
kill
> Sirius Black (or thought he did). Exactly how was he supposed to do
> it? Would it have been better to choke him to death with his bare
> hands, as he tried to do? And Lupin and Black intended to kill
> Pettigrew. Do you think they had some other spell in mind besides a
> simple, quick, efficient AK? They would have gone to Azkaban (or 
back
> to Azkaban, in Black's case) regardless of the method they used for
> the murder. And if a murder of that sort, very much premeditated on
> Black's part, would have split their souls (and I suspect it would
> have because it was an act of revenge, not self-defense), it would
> have done so in any case, regardless of the spell they used, just as
> poisoning Hepzibah Smith to steal the cup and the locket split
> Voldemort's soul.)
<SNIP>

Alla:

This paragraph is written as if I wrote anything to the contrary up 
thread, while I do not think I did. If Sirius and Remus would have 
killed Peter by **any** means available, AK or not, they would have 
landed up in Azkaban and their souls would have been split? Um, yes, 
I am pretty sure that is exactly what would have happened. Would they 
choose AK? I do not know, but I am  thinking that had they killed 
Peter that is exactly what they would have chosen, although Remus 
being DADA teacher may have come up with something more creative as 
well for all I know, but that is really besides the point, IMO.

That is precisely why IMO JKR makes sure Harry stops them from doing 
that. And what is the justification Harry gives? He does not want his 
dad's friends to become murderers. I think it is very much in line 
with murder splits the soul and murder is a bad thing theme. Avada 
Kedavra is just that – metaphor IMO, but that what makes it so strong 
in Potterverse. Not the words in itself, but what lies behind those 
words.

JMO.

Alla