Malum in prohibendum vs. Malum in se, was Re: Harry using Crucio.

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 174494

Carol earlier:
> > If he [Harry] had confronted Voldemort hating him and seeking
vengeance and willing to kill him using an AK or any other deadly
curse, he would have failed.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I disagree.  It was a Gryffindor versus a Slytherin.  So the
Gryffindor *had* to win, because *that's* the overarching moral. 
Harry didn't need to be intelligent or compassionate or loving or 
> even all that interested in justice.  What he had to be was a 
> Gryffindor.  So the battle was won way back in PS/SS with Harry's 
> Sorting.  Just as Snape was doomed at his Sorting.  
> 
> And honestly, it's not even that Harry and Snape made a choice.  The 
> Hat just stated who they were.  It's all pre-determined.  Bit boring, 
> really, IMO.

Carol responds:
Thank you for listening to my theory on the soul bit influencing the
Crucio, which is, as I said, just a theory. But I'm trying to look at
the canon and see what's there as opposed to what isn't and I do think
that the canon for the soul bit as a malign influence is right there
in the text. 

I concede that it doesn't explain McGonagall, but since she chased
Snape out of Hogwarts, without even the sense to realize that *the
password to the headmaster's office was "Dumbledore,"* for crying out
loud, she's not very high on my list of favorite characters right now.
:-) IOW, it's Harry's use of the Crucio that really bothers me. I'm
afraid that Harry worship explains McG's behavior but I frankly don't
care about her.

As for the final battle and the series as a whole, are you sure that's
not just your own preconception imposed on the books? Can you show me
canon that it still holds true at the end of DH? I've presented a
canon-based case for Harry's self-sacrifice as an act of love
paralleling Lily's. Elsewhere, in several posts, I've shown how
Harry's view of Snape evolves from "Snape is evil" to "Snape is
probably the bravest man I ever met." I've talked about Regulus and
Slughorn and even Phineas Nigellus' contribution. And Harry's view of
Albus Dumbledore evolves, too, in a less straightforward way, to
something between Elphias Doge's adulation and Rita Skeeter's
half-truths about Albus, Aberforth, Aberforth, and Gellert.

The book (and the series) does not boil down to Gryffindor vs.
Slytherin. Many other things are going on. There's the corruption of
the Ministry, the unjustified persecution of Muggles and Muggle-borns,
the depiction of house-elves and goblins, who turn out to be different
from human beings, with different natures, just as Ron always said.
There's the role of love and self-sacrifice. There's the whole Hallows
plot, which goes beyond the Elder Wand and serves to interweave HRH's
quest with Dumbledore's life. We've barely touched on literary
influences. For me, right now, the book is about perception, how
preconceptions distort Harry's view of many things and people, as
symbolized by his glasses in "King's Cross." But that's by no means
all that the book is about. Nor does the Christian imagery and the
parallels with Christ mean that Harry is supposed to be Jesus. But
death and the afterlife are there in the book, begging to be explored.

I'm asking you, please, Betsy, as a long-time list friend, to try to
see beyond Slytherin and Gryffindor, beyond your dashed hopes, to the
complex but flawed book (shades of Severus Snape?) that's really hear.
Please. A little canon. A little objectivity. A little awareness that
just because you don't see something on a first reading doesn't mean
it isn't there.

And one more thing. If Gryffindor is "good" by definition, how do you
explain Peter Pettigrew? Or even Cormac McLaggen and Romilda Vane in HBP? 
I think that what JKR values isn't Gryffindor per se, it's love and
courage. And she granted both of those qualities to Severus Snape, may
he be ever happy in the afterlife.

Carol, apologizing for preaching but really wanting Betsy and all of
us to put aside our expectations and explore the words on the pages