Harry using Crucio -- Code of the Playground

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 174574

Steve:
> I don't think it really really matters that Harry
> used the Cruciatus against Carrow, because at more
> crucial and trying times, Harry does what is right
> and does so in the most noble and heroic way. The
> good far outweighs the bad. 
> 
> Further, people reading Harry Potter and searching 
> for moral and spiritual lessons will see that you
> can make mistakes in life; you don't have to be a
> saint. But you must learn from your mistakes, and
> you must strive to be and do good. Despite all his
> mistakes, Harry does far more good, and set a far 
> more heroic and noble example than can be imagined. 

Magpie:
Harry doesn't really have to learn from his mistakes either--and why 
should he when he's already doing the right thing the only time 
it "counts?"  Crucio definitely isn't presented as a mistake he has 
to learn from, either in canon or here. You've described someone 
who's exactly as he should be, a man living by the Code of the 
Playground.

The Code of the Playground, as its very title suggests, rejects 
serious thought about ethics at all. Children haven't even reached 
their full ethical development. If you do the right thing "when it 
matters" the other stuff doesn't count. Far from being an exploration 
of morals, as one would think was expected in a bildugsroman, it's a 
reason morals need to be tossed out in favor of tips on how not to be 
a victim at lunch. Those can certainly be some good tips, but they're 
pretty shallow--and I think they're presented a lot better elsewhere--
"Bells of Saint Mary's" for instance.  

In canon this works in a way that's perfectly consistent, but not 
very positive for me. The good guys are not just good, they're cool. 
The trouble with being good and actually struggling with moral issues 
seriously is you might not end up cool (as I think words like "saint" 
and "perfect" suggest). Harry doesn't struggle with moral issues. 
When "it counts" his instinct is always right, or else not wrong in 
any way that means he has to think about it later. He doesn't have to 
face failure or humiliation or have to rethink his image of himself.

As an aside, I've been thinking about a thread from months ago about 
Snape and Pride and Prejudice. Some people felt that in that book 
Lizzie was never really wrong about Wickham and Darcy to begin with. 
I disagreed, and I believe it was Sydney who provided the canon 
showing that in fact the most important moment was Lizzie seeing that 
she was very wrong about the two men, and suddenly seeing her own 
behavior as shameful. She goes through a whole description of how 
disorienting and humbling this experience is, but she comes out of it 
a better person. At the time many of us assumed that Harry needed a 
moment like that with Snape, but in fact Harry gets through the whole 
series without anything like that with anybody. 

So in terms of the Unforgivables, is it really bad that Harry used 
it? No. Unforgivables are bad in themselves when the good guys can 
look good by not doing them or suffering through them. Unforgivables 
are not so bad when the good guys can look good doing them. Harry's 
cool in the good way and cool in the bad way. Not only is it fine in 
the Common Room, it's not even that awful to watch. It's just a quick 
burst to incapacitate the guy, not the torturous thing Harry suffered 
through in the graveyard. Harry's letting the bully have it; that's 
really all that matters.

Steve: 
> I think it is in his minor flaws and mistakes, and
> yet his striving to do the right thing when it counts,
> that we see ourselves and our own heroic potential. 
> I think that is why the books are popular, because
> Harry isn't some idealized hero, a bastion of moral
> perfection. He does wrong, he makes mistakes, he
> does things we might even classify as terrible, but
> he always, deep down, is striving to do what is
> right, and succeeds when it counts.

Magpie:
Harry's right in every way it counts--therefore he's not struggling 
with anything. His mistakes are simply "minor" flaws, and not during 
any time that counts--in fact, they aren't flaws at all, because if 
he didn't have them he'd be--ick!--some sort of idealized hero or a 
bastion of moral perfection. Even when he's doing terrible things 
he's always "deep down" still a really good guy. Far from showing the 
books are popular because Harry isn't an idealized hero, it seems to 
me this suggests that the books are popular because Harry is an 
idealized hero even when he's behaving really badly. If it's that 
easy I don't even have to see the potential for my own heroism there--
perhaps I'm already a good person deep down. I don't have to always 
show it.

The odd thing about that perspective is that when I hear it in my 
head it always seems to have a tone that's kind of inherently 
defensive and sulky. (I don't mean Steve is defensive and sulky, I 
mean the argument by itself seems to naturally sound that way to me.) 
Harry's the hero of a seven book epic about the battle against evil, 
where he's the figurehead of good, yet questions of his morals get: 
He's not perfect! He's good when it counts! You wouldn't be any 
better! This is the kind of defense that, imo, I'd associate more 
with somebody who was a bit challenged in this area. 

I don't think this problem would exist if Harry actually was shown to 
be struggling, if he was sometimes shown to make real mistakes that 
did matter and that caused the kind of breakdown followed by regrowth 
in P&P. Unfortunately, the books seem to be taking something more 
like this position: Lay off Harry. He's a great little trooper. Do 
you want him to be a goody-two shoes? I feel like we're expected to 
see him exactly as he sees himself, as somebody who always tries to 
do the right thing when it counts and isn't a plaster saint. Since 
nobody in the books ever challenges it, it's not surprising that some 
readers pick up the slack.

-m