Jo's OWN Words/Harry using Crucio/I am about to Rant/Danger Designating the

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 174439

> Allie:
> 
> You'll see them called "children's books" over and over in the 
media 
> and elsewhere, but I don't think that was actually the author's 
> intent.  I've read in more than one place where JKR has said that 
she 
> wasn't writing "children's" books, she just wrote the story that 
she 
> envisioned, and it was purchased in the US by Bloomsbury, a 
children's 
> book publisher.  There are mythology and literature references in 
the 
> books that most children wouldn't understand.

Magpie:
They got bought by the children's division Bloomsbury (in the UK) 
because that's where JKR correctly sent them--to a children's 
publisher. She wouldn't have sent them to that publisher if she 
didn't consider them children's books. What she said about writing 
them was not that she didn't intend them for kids (who else could she 
have intended PS for, really?), but that she set out to write the 
story she wanted to write and they happened to be childen's (and 
later YA) books. Children don't need to understand mythological 
references for them to be in their books--there's a lot of that in 
kidlit. These aren't books about children but not for them--it's not 
What Maisie Knew. Juvenile and adult publishing is separate, and JKR 
knew who she had written for.

<Kamil>
And that is obviously what is true for her, but is it necessarily true
for Harry too?

Yes, he flubs the curse, but in his past he's flubbed lots of spells
the first time he tried them; just ask Professors Flitwick or
MacGonnagal.

I have no doubt Voldemort would want his followers to mean the curses;
if for no other reason than cultivating hatred and casual sadism
wherever possible is just that much fun for him and he's not in the
habit of depriving himself of his desires.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it's true for all who use them.

Magpie:
That sounds like just saying they're good because Harry's special. 
Harry *agrees* with Bella when he casts one. And why wouldn't the two 
experts on Crucio know what they're talking about? We're told what 
you need to have them work, Harry agrees with it, therefore he cast a 
Crucio the same way Bellatrix does. I don't think Harry's got a 
special nicer way of doing it, or the fault of Draco's wand making 
him do it, or Voldemort's soul bit making him do it. He just wanted 
to torture somebody and did it.

Juli:
I didn't want to get into the 'Unforgivables' discussion, but here I
go...

Of course Harry used thr unforgivables, he had to. It was all for
the 'Greater Good'. If Harry hadn't used the Imperius curse, he would
have never retrieved the Goblet Horcrux, Voldemort would have never
been killed, the WW would suck. I don't think that Voldie's soul in
Harry made him cast those curses, he did it all on his own, and he
meant every single one of them.

Magpie:
He didn't "have to" cast the Crucio for any reason, he did that just 
because he wanted to and meant it. And torturing for the greater good 
seems a bit oxymoronic to me.

Kemper: 
> Based on the series as a whole, it seems apparent that JKR admires
> bravery first, with cunning, loyalty, and intellect (I'm not sure 
if I
> see much wisdom in the series... I'll have to think about that) tied
> for forth.

Magpie:
I snipped a lot because it seemed like at the end we pretty much 
realized we were not disagreeing no everything anyway. I didn't quite 
agree with everything--I don't think Snape euthanized Dumbledore, but 
I also didn't think Snape killing him necessarily went against JKR's 
idea of what was okay via Christianity. You can never really judge 
everything about a person's views by something like religion, because 
people are so different--to refer to the other conversation in this 
post, I'd think torture would be considered a bad thing by many 
Christians, but JKR doesn't think so. I think JKR is going by what 
she wants to do and feels right in any given moment, which is 
somewhat contradictory. The only reason I brought in virtues in terms 
of the houses was that I really assume that she does have the same 
associations with the words, and that's why Slytherin's qualities 
match the Slytherins. Imagine if she had given them the value of 
compassion or charity. She needed stuff that would fit these awful 
people. (I think Chastity is the wrong kind of purity for them!)

In response to your list, I think would say it's bravery and then 
loyalty, with wisdom being the presumed reward in the end, and 
intelligence and cunning being skills that need to be used to the 
right ends. At least that's how it comes across to me.


> > Magpie:
> > Yes. So I don't understand what changes because this is a 
Gryffindor
> > story. The Gryffindor story is the only story. I don't think JKR
> > just picked that randomly. Those are the values the story is 
putting
> > across.
> 
> Kemper now:
> JKR said that she values courage above the other values in the other
> houses way before HBP.  Wisdom, intelligence, loyalty, diligence,
> ambition and cunning all take a back seat.  I feel that I'm missing
> something in your arguement or disappointment, and I want to
> understand.

Magpie:
I know she did. I'm not sure where we're miscommunicating...I was 
disappointed because while I knew that she valued courage most of all 
I didn't think that would mean the kind of story it turned out to be. 
It's not just that the story's written from these values, but how 
it's done. There's all sorts of things she's putting across besides 
that she likes bravery because of the way she puts across that she 
likes bravery.

I think she could have started with the same preferences and written 
a story that was more balanced, but in the end it just felt too smug 
and judgmental and easy, and saying very little of significance about 
anything (and what it did say was, imo, unbearably cynical). It felt 
very Calvinist to me--your choices *show* who you are, and certain 
people are the Elect, and those people never have to look at 
themselves and see that they've done wrong. And having these other 
people around is good because it's satisfying to be able to fight 
people while being totally righteous. JKR says she wants people to 
take away from the books that tolerance is important but they 
honestly seem to say very little significant at all about tolerance. 
Obviously there are times where the heroes show it, and she winds up 
having the designated tolerance ones win (and I believe she said 
later that Kingsleys made MoM for life like the traditional happy 
ending shown by the rightful king taking the throne) but you need 
more than that to actually be saying something significant about this 
subject, especially nowadays. And here against the bias gets in the 
way, since good guys' little slips ups are fine since they're the 
good guys, and then they get wildly over-praised for the most 
unremarkable behavior. And in the end I didn't feel like there had 
been any true victory at all. 

-m