Harry using Crucio -- Code of the Playground

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 174606

Magpie:
> > Harry's the hero of a seven book epic about the battle against 
evil, 
> > where he's the figurehead of good,
> 
> I think this is where you get into trouble; Harry isn't the 
figurehead
> of good; he is the figurehead of HUMAN.

Magpie:
He's the figurehead of human GOOD within this series. That doesn't 
mean he's an archetype, it doesn't mean he's perfect, it doesn't mean 
that anybody's asking him to never make a mistake. It means that it's 
not weird to think his morals matter, and that if he makes a bad 
mistake, it will be seen as such and maybe he'll learn from it. He 
has something to do with what the author might be saying is good.

DG:

> The kid isn't a saint; he a soldier - and those that know soldiers
> know they ain't plaster saints.

Magpie:
This is exactly what I objected to in my post, which is this idea 
that any question of his actions means he's being asked to be a 
plaster saint.

As the hero of an epic of this type, Harry isn't just a random 
soldier--and frankly, even a minor soldier in a war movie has been 
known to face actual moral dilemmas where their choice might actually 
cause them to think or grow or develop. 

The point of my post was that I think it's interesting that it's 
asking too much of Harry to talk about this even while he's also 
being noted as the person who's supposed to awake our own potential 
for heroism. He has the starring role of a 7-book, thousands-of-pages 
series for kids and YA in which he's constantly praised by other 
characters for being such a good man and so much better than most, 
and yet this is his best defense. I wouldn't expect a story that 
seems to have a lot to say about good and evil to wind up with the 
message of: "He's not a saint--and you'd do no better. Lay off!" 
(Even while at the same time the very actions that are supposed to 
make him not a plaster saint were the right thing to do.). It feels 
like he's having his cake and eating it too somewhere. Or that 
compared to his peers--meaning other heroes of similar fantasy epics--
he comes off rather lamely, not bad enough to compete against tougher 
heroes who suffer for their bad choices, but not good enough to stand 
beside ones who struggle to do the right thing.

Especially when part of the reason it comes up is because within his 
own story Harry, unlike many humans and heroes, doesn't face any 
moments where he learns just how not heroic and only human and flawed 
he is when it comes to bad moral things he might have done.  If all 
these supposed times Harry is imperfect were dealt with in canon as 
such people wouldn't have to bring them up outside of canon. Since 
Harry doesn't struggle on this score and it's presented as a done 
deal in canon where Harry comes off well, rather than bringing the 
reader into the moral struggle within the book so that we can 
struggle beside Harry, the reader naturally reacts to that and forms 
opinions for or against it.

DG:
Harry doesn't use it as a form of torture; he uses it as a powerful
immobilizing spell....Call that what you want, but it isn't torture.

Magpie:
He uses torture as a powerful immobilizing spell? So that makes it 
not torture? The word means "I torture," Harry comments on how he 
meant to torture and Harry's got spells that immobilize just fine at 
his disposal. Voldemort used his Crucio on Harry as an entertainment 
spell and to bolster his image with his followers. He also uses it as 
an effective punishment to make them do what he wants. Bellatrix was 
trying to torture the Longbottoms for information (torture is a 
notoriously poor method of doing that).

-m