Harry using Crucio -- my two cents

[sneeboy2]

No: HPFGUIDX 174149


> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> I couldn't agree more. Harry is not in a field full of
> daisies and fluffy bunnies, he has stepped into the 
> depths of hell. There probably isn't any place on 
> earth that is more dangerous to Harry at that moment
> than Hogwarts.
> 
> Further, Carrows themselves are not exactly fluffy 
> bunnies. There were there when Dumbledore was killed
> and they were among the most bloodthirsty. Since
> having arrived at the school there actions have been
> unspeakably cruel; actually making the students
> torture each other as a form of punishment.
> 
> So, I agree, when Carrow spits in McGonagall's face,
> Harry has reached an unbearable limit. These people
> need to be taught a lesson. They need to be taught
> some respect and humility, and Harry, in that moment
> of anger, has no qualms about being the person to do
> the teaching.
> 
> These are the EXTREMEST of circumstances. If Harry
> is caught in the school before they are ready to 
> fight the Death Eaters, then Harry is as good as
> dead and so is anyone who helped him, and anyone
> associated with anyone who helped him. This is the
> darkest and most dangerous and most extreme of times,
> and consequently, it calls for equally dark, dangerous,
> and extreme counter-measures.

Sneeboy2:

I don't see him at that moment being in more danger than he was, say,
escaping Voldemort at the start of the book, yet there he used only
the legal spells -- and to good effect. I find it disturbing that he
uses what's arguably the worst of the three spells: in the real world,
we do not outlaw killing in times of war, but we do outlaw torture. If
JKR wants to show us that Harry is flawed, I'm disturbed that she
chose to do it so near the climax, where the logic of plot implies
that this is a development toward which the rest of the plot has been
aiming. It's almost as if she's saying to readers that his reluctance
to use the unforgivable curses before now was a matter of immaturity,
rather than moral fortitude. 


> bboyminn:> 
> Comparing this to real life, you can't give soldiers
> guns and send them off to war, then complain when they
> shoot people. That's just irrational. 

Again, in real life we have laws against torturing the enemy. And who
gave Harry the "gun"? Was he ever taught it was OK to use the curse?  

> bboyminn:

When Harry meets
> someone of unspeakable cruelty and disrespect, he feels
> he needs to take equally extreme measure to counter them.
> He may not have been right, but I'm sure that's how he
> felt.
> 
> I'm sure in later years, Harry had second thoughts about
> having used unforgivable, just as soldiers in wartime
> have second thoughts. But in the moment, you have to
> react spontaneously, without hesitation, if you want to
> continue living. Let the morals of it work themselves
> out later. 

Sneeboy2:
Problem is, he never does show remorse, and the morals never do work
themselves out -- however morals might do that. 


> bboyminn:> 
> Harry did what he did. He reacted in the heat of the 
> moment. He reacted to defend the honor of someone
> he deeply admired, against someone he deeply despised 
> and rightly so. 

Sneeboy2:
Yet another troubling thing: he was directly defending someone's
honor, not their life. Not even Bill O'Reilly would suggest that
people should be tortured to defend a woman's honor. Well, maybe he
would. 

> bboyminn:
Further he did so under circumstances
> equivalent to walking into hell and taunting the devil
> himself. I would say that constitutes very extreme
> circumstances.

Sneeboy2: 
If that guy's the devil, who's LV? Seriously, I think the fact that
you're using a Christian fundamentalist analogy proves my point. The
scene is not a nuanced depiction of a flawed hero, as JKR wants us to
believe, but a statement that good and evil are predetermined, and
good is good no matter what ends it uses to bring about its chosen means. 



> > bboyminn:
> Harry is not perfect, but on the whole, he is a noble
> and selfless hero, and that's good enough for me.

Sneeboy2:
And it's his nobility and heroics that make it so bothersome. If it's
OK for a hero to do it . . .