Unforgivables - from a different angle

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 174524

> In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174456
>
> Leah: JKR was specifically asked in a webchat/inteview post-DH why 
> Harry used Unforgiveable Curses.  Her not very (IMO) satisfactory 
> response was along the lines of Harry only being human.

Mike:
I have decided I'm no longer going to consider JKR's interviews on 
anywhere near the same footing as canon. After what happened 
concerning the Fidelius on 12 GP, I've decided she just doesn't pay 
attention to her answers in interviews. If she hadn't told us that 
the secret dies with the secret keeper's death there would not have 
been any contradictions in canon. But when she revealed in her 
interview that with Dumbledore's death the secret stays and noone 
else can learn it... not what happened in canon, was it? There are 
several other examples of contradictions between interviews and 
canon, not to mention her post-DH very unsatisfactory answers. So, 
for me, it is either explained by canon or it isn't. YMMV, but it 
seems your opinion of interview information is not so different.


In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174457

> > Leah:
> >  <snip>
> > Crucio is a spell which, properly used, causes extreme pain in
> > the victim. There is no purpose in casting Crucio other than in 
> > causing extreme pain.

> Kemper now:
> I don't the Cruciatus Curse worked properly on Harry because
> Voldemort's wand, the Elder Wand, was rightfully the person 
> Voldemort was Crucio-ing.

Mike:
Yeah Kemper, I consider this a real viable explanation for the lack 
of pain. But let's reference Leah's statement above. If Voldemort 
thinks Harry is dead, of what value would a pain causing Crucio be 
against a dead body? Dead bodies don't experience pain. And, c'mon, 
if anyone understands the Crutiatus Curse it's gotta be VoldeRiddle.

I already pointed out how these three Crucios from LV manifested 
themselves differently than others we've seen by LV against Harry. 
After rereading Harry's Crucio on Bella I found that one knocked her 
off her feet. And that's the one Bella explained to us about intent. 
This, and what I presented in previous posts in this thread, are my 
canon for the spell reacting to intent. And the differing results is 
my canon for Harry's and LV's Crucios aiming for different results 
from the oft insisted upon *torture*. 


> Leah:
> What is therefore problematic for me is that we are presented 
> with one view in six books and then a volte face in the final book 
> which is not satisfactorily explained or dealt with, leaving the 
> readership to come up with their own justifications/explanations.

Mike:
To be fair, we only learned about "Unforgivables" in the 4th book. 
Also, we learned most of it from a Death Eater in disguise. Isn't it 
possible that we got the DE explanation of how to employ the UCs? As 
to the rest:

In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174380

Magpie:
I do agree with Mike that the moral component comes not from using the
wrong words, but for what they represent, but I just don't see how
this kind of torture isn't bad in itself. <snip>

Mike:
Thank you Magpie and I would agree with you if I thought Harry was 
*torturing* Carrow. But that's not the way I read the scene. Sure, 
Harry wanted to cause some pain, but he mostly wanted to put Carrow 
out of commission, imo. I also have no problem with the causing pain 
component against this sadistic bastard. And I'll bet he'd received 
worse from Voldemort.


> Mike previously:
> Throw out the artificial moral construct attached to the UCs,
> would you still have a problem with how and why Harry uses Imperious
> here? If one realizes that the UCs don't have a moral component, I
> suggest that the distaste evaporates into ether.

Magpie:
I think everyone should have a problem with it. Even if you are
ultimately okay with the use of Imperius due to the circumstances,
that doesn't take away moral construct, because it was never
artificial.

Mike now:
This is what I don't get. Most everyone thinks that murder, torture, 
and mind enslavement are the things that are morally wrong. You said 
it yourself just above. But those aren't what's unforgivable, the 
spells are, and then again they aren't when the Ministry wants to use 
them. 

Spells don't have morals, spell casters supply that component, good 
or bad. Just because the DEs told us how they use them, we have to 
agree that anyone using them has crossed a moral boundary? Because a 
Death Eater would use Imperious to cause bad things to happen, it 
can't be used to cause good things to happen? Because a Death Eater 
would use Crucio for torturing via intense pain, it can't be used for 
anything less than torture? Because Voldemort uses Avada Kedavra to 
murder innocents, good wizards can't use the same spell to kill Death 
Eaters in a time of war?

Why do I have to accept the Death Eater explanation of how to use 
these three spells as the definitive word and therefore assign them a 
moral component, when we *know* that intent is a major component of 
these spells? Because the Ministry named them "Unforgivable"? Even 
though the same Ministry can make them "forgivable" if they so choose.


> Leah once more:
> As I and others have said, the very distinct impression given by 
> Sirius' narrative is that whether the Unforgiveables have been made 
> legal or not by the Ministry, their use has a detrimentally moral 
> effect on users.

Mike:
Sirius will forever be my favorite HP character. But I read his 
speech in GoF as a condemnation of Crouch Sr more than his aversion 
to the UCs. In that same talk Sirius evinces the utmost respect for 
Mad Eye, saying he never killed unless he had to. Which means Sirius 
knew, as do we from a Pensieve scene, that Moody did kill and that he 
most probably used the AK to do it. Yet Sirius doesn't seem to have a 
problem with a justified use of an AK. Sirius takes the same position 
that I'm outlining, the usage and not the spell is what determines 
whether it is morally detrimental, imo. It seems I'm not alone:


In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174476

> Carol:
> And I'm forced to agree with you. I do still think that the Crouches
> paid the price for their use of Unforgiveables, but I think that
> Sirius Black's view of Crouch Sr. as being as ruthless as a Death
> Eater was colored by his own experience.

Mike:
Yay! A convert.

> Carol:
> [T]he Killing Curse seems to have its uses. It certainly isn't 
> Unforgiveable in a moral sense as we assumed. I don't think JKR or 
> her characters ever stated that it was. 
>  <snip>
>
> So, it seems that "Unforgiveable" *is* just a label, as
> Fake!Moody (pretending to be the real Moody) said. 

Mike:
Thank you Carol, glad to see we agree on this one. And that is one of 
my points, nowhere in canon, imo, does someone assign a moral postion 
to the "Unforgivables". We in fandom have done that. I'm challenging 
the reading that the spells and not the intentions carry the moral 
reprocussions.

> Leah lastly:
> You clearly believe there would be canon to support this take.

Mike:
I feel over three posts I have presented my canon. I welcome canon 
that refutes my position.

****************
> Carol responds:
> Why?  <snip> Snape actually says, "No Unforgiveable Curses from
> you, Potter! You haven't got the nerve or the ability!" 
> (HBP Am. ed. 602). Having just killed Albus Dumbledore against
> his will, summoning the "nerve" and the "ability" to "mean" a
> curse he didn't want to cast, <snip>

Mike:
You know I don't like Snape, Carol. ;) But it's the hypocrisy of 
Snape telling Harry that he can't use a UC when he has just used one. 
Snape has just proved that one can use the worst (imo) UC for a noble 
purpose, yet he's telling Harry he can't do the same. We both thought 
that this was a clue and a final attempt at teaching. It turns out it 
wasn't, so I reassessed my reading of this passage.


> Carol:
> "No Unforgiveable Curses from you, Potter, because you have to let 
> the Dark Lord kill you." That's what I think Snape means, but he 
> can't say it for another year.

Mike:
Except Snape won't find this out himself for almost another year.


> Carol, who admires Snape for continuing to help and protect a boy he
> hates, doing the will of Portrait!Dumbledore and trying to bring 
> about the destruction of Voldemort, after the boy has tried to 
> Crucio him and called him a murderer

Mike, who found himself much less impressed with the character of 
Severus Snape once it was revealed he did it all for the love of Lily