[HPforGrownups] Re: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary!

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 167192


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "pippin_999" <foxmoth at qnet.com>
To: <HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 1:07 PM
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes 
necessary!


>> Magpie:
>> My thoughts here might not be helpful at all, but when I read it I chalk 
>> it
>> up to JKR having them use the thing that feels best for the scene. Hagrid
>> hunts with a crossbow because when she thinks of hunting, that's what she
>> thinks of, just as execution is done with an axe. It's not about being
>> humane, it's about what you think of when you think of hunting or 
>> execution
>> (if it were the most humane, it would undercut the drama).
>
>>
>> And then, of course, when Hagrid goes into the FF first year, and when
>> Buckbeak is being executed, there is no AK that we know of yet, because 
>> it's
>> only introduced in GoF, so they kind of can't use it.
>
> Pippin:
> JKR is supposed to have spent ten years working out the story. Now some
> people would have felt that they had to use that time on the math and
> logistics of  world-building, but JKR's emphasis has always been  on
> that character who strolled into her head one day on the  train, and
> didn't know who or what he was.
>
> One of the things that Harry doesn't know about himself is whether he's
> a killer. By default  he's not, but he hasn't yet *chosen* . I think the
> rights and wrongs of killing are central to the story, and it's not a 
> thing
> JKR will treat as casually as she's treated  the number of students
> at Hogwarts or the Black family tree (which is a fabrication anyway.)

Magpie:
Oh, I agree. I didn't mean to suggest JKR was sloppy about her portrayal of 
killing at all. It's just that when I read it, I don't feel quite the same 
distinction between the AK and other ways of killing. I do sense *a* 
distinction, definitely. I'm just not sure if it's one that says that AK 
can't ever be used by a good guy.

I guess for me it seems like maybe what distinguishes it is that it's 
symbolic of maybe a more intelligent form of murder against another human. I 
know Moody uses it against a spider, but it seems like the "murder" curse to 
me. I know many would have a problem with that word because of Moody's 
spider and especially if they believe in DDM!Snape. And maybe it's the wrong 
word because I'm a DDM!Snaper myself who does think he used an AK. But for 
me even with Snape, what's awesome (as in causing awe, not as in good) about 
what Snape does is that even if Dumbledore is the last person he wants to 
kill, even if he'd rather have committed any act other than that one, he's a 
human intelligently choosing to take the life of another person. I'm not 
sure if that distinction really fit with the earlier books. I mean, of 
course we could understand it in terms of Voldemort's curse on Harry and his 
parents. It doesn't seem right at all to have Hagrid firing it off at 
animals in the forest. I'm just not sure that the distinction is that the AK 
is more humane, because I don't really see how it isn't. What's scary about 
it is how quickly and cleanly it works. Draco seems to have suffered more 
pain for a longer time from Sectumsempra without even dying. So to me it's 
not that level of pain it inflicts that makes it Unforgivable, but the 
finality and power.

That's where I think it's different than executing an animal or hunting. I 
actually wonder how they would execute a person. Would they use the AK? With 
a firing squad maybe? Or do they get their souls sucked? I guess I'm kind of 
agreeing with you that the AK isn't necessarily humane--I think it can be 
humane, or at least more humane than another way of killing. But I suspect 
it's important that for the person doing it it's not softening it up. If 
Draco had used an AK on Dumbledore, it wouldn't, even from his pov imo, be 
better than Sectumsempra just because it was less messy and quicker.

Jen:
There is no 'killing is okay in self-defense' ruling in the WW from what I 
remember.  No mercy killings, no 'killing in a time of war is okay', nothing 
regarding all these Muggle concepts.  Apparently Aurors are trained very 
well in counter-measures to the point that resorting to killing isn't one of 
their options or they wouldn't have operated under the rule of 'capture 
only' until Crouch Sr. came along.

Magpie:
I have to say that while I agree that humane killing and mercy killing 
hasn't been introduced, I have a hard time believing that the WW doesn't 
fully support killing in a time of war or in self-defense. I believe it was 
Elkins who did a post asking "Where are the bleeding hearts?" It's more the 
humane stuff I think it more foreign to them. It's just too hard for me to 
wrap my mind around a Wizard suddenly being more pacifist than a Muggle!

That said, there's still the idea that Unforgivables are generally supposed 
to be what bad guys do, so presumably Aurors don't generally throw them at 
people. I just don't think anybody thought it was shocking to let them use 
them--and I'd assume they were always allowed to use at least AK in 
self-defense if absolutely necessary, just as underaged Wizards are 
understood to be able to use magic in an emergency. Dumbledore pretty much 
does seem to talk about Harry having to kill Voldemort as an acceptable 
thing, even if he's not training him to use the AK, even while Dumbledore 
clearly believes that killing is serious at all times and to be avoided 
whenever possible.

I do think Voldemort will end up dead without Harry using an AK, and that 
this will be the thing that softens it for Harry.

Jen:  There's also the piece with Harry that he's never been seduced because 
of his ability to love, the likely reason Dumbledore isn't worried about 
Harry's use of Crucio or Sectumsempra since DD believes Harry has a 
protection others, like Draco, do not.

Magpie
I know Dumbledore's tried to lay this out that somehow it's amazing that 
Harry can love despite being treated badly, but Dumbledore doesn't seem to 
be saying that Harry is immune to the Dark Arts in ways other people are 
not. It seems that he's more saying it's just great that he hasn't been 
seduced by them. Maybe it just gets weird for me trying to think of Harry as 
the only person who has the ability to love when so many other characters 
clearly also have that power. (Not to mention as Slughorn says, love can be 
a dangerous thing in itself.)

Jen:
Harry may try to cast the Crucios but he won't succeed, or rather Dumbledore 
has complete faith Harry will grow to understand the power he holds and why 
dark curses won't lead him down the road to defeating Voldemort.

Magpie:
I can see the second part more than the first. Harry was pretty good on his 
first attempt at Crucio, although he couldn't sustain it. I can't imagine 
Neville, for instance, would master it quicker than Harry would. DD's got 
good reason to think Harry will grow out of trying to throw Crucios, but I 
think if he kept trying he'd succeed and it would be bad for him.

-m