Harry using Crucio -- my two cents

[sneeboy2]

No: HPFGUIDX 174248


>
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Jack-A-Roe:
> So far Harry has broken into Gringott's, lost the sword, had to
> fight his way out by riding a dragon, goes to Hogsmeade where the
> DE's know something is up, has to fight off dementors, finds out
> his friends have been tortured during the school year, and has to
> find a horcrux hidden in a castle before Voldemort gets there.
> 
> Meanwhile one of the deatheaters who was there when Dumbledore is
> killed tells McGonagall:
> 
> US edition pg 593
> "It's not a case of what you'll permit, Minerva McGonagall. Your
> time's over. It's us what's in charge her now, and you'll back me
> up or you'll pay the price."
> 
> And he spat in her face.
> 
> Harry, our everyman, reacts like most people would when someone
> they care about is threatened. Out of anger.

Sneeboy2:
Fictional heroes don't behave like most people. That's why they're
heroes. And just because he's the main character doesn't make him an
"everyman."  

We could go back and list the dangers harry faced in all the books and
 ask "why not here" or "why not there?" and come up with plausible
reasons. But the real reason it happens here is because the author
feels the time has come for a crowd-pleasing "kid-gloves-are-off"
moment.  I think she cheapens the narrative with it and does
unintended damage to her carefully constructed message. 

> Jack-A-Roe:> 
> At that point Harry is starting to fight like it's a war. He
> could have cast a reductor curse which I think would have caused
> a lot more damage or several other more deadly curses.
> 
> The effect of the curse is not long term whereas one of the other
> curses could have been. He doesn't hold it on him, in fact it is
> over rather quickly. So at this point I can't see the spell as
> torture.

Sneeboy2:
Rather convenient that, after all the scenes in which the spell is
used to horrible effect, when the hero uses it, it's not so bad. Sort
of a "it's not torture when we do it" logic.  

> Jack-A-Roe:
> Why didn't he use one of the other curses such as stupify? I'm
> guessing that he's rather stressed and remembering Lupin's words
> that this is for keeps.
> 
> I don't have any problem with Harry's reaction.

Sneeboy2:
And there's the troubling part. We're not supposed to have a problem
with it. We're supposed to cheer him on. JKR was asked a question
about this scene and offered an explanation about Harry's propensity
for anger and imperfections as a hero. Yet who read this scene and
thought, "There's goes Harry with his anger issues," or "What a
complex moral character Harry is."  No, there are other scenes for
that. We're supposed to read this scene and give a whoop of triumph
and not think too long about whether what Harry did was OK.