Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 174718

> Julie: 
> So what would have worked better for me? If Carrow had
> killed McGonagall (and I'm sorry to say, I wouldn't have
> missed her all that much!). Or had done something else that 
> drove Harry to mindless anger. Because that was what always
> drove Harry to attempt a Crucio before, that red haze of
> all-encompassing anger. For Harry to so calmly and coldly
> perform a Crucio in this scene felt very out of character. 
> (Unless JKR was implying that Harry had realized that cold 
> calculation while using the spell is what is required for
> him to "mean it," which is more than a bit scary. And in 
> this case, some follow up with Harry recognizing this new
> and unsavory part of himself, and vowing if only internally
> not to give into it again would have helped make the point.)
> 
> IMO,
> Julie
>

lizzyben:

Before DH, I predicted that Harry would use an Unforgiveable Curse, 
but I totally got the circumstances & message all wrong. I thought 
that Harry would use the Curse in some sort of extreme dire 
straights when he is consumed with emotion, and that it would be a 
dramatic "the ring is mine!" type of moment. It would be Harry's low 
point, his dip into evil, before rising above to use love & good 
instead. That would've sent a message about the dangers of 
unrestrained hatred, rage & revenge.

But here, Harry uses Unforgiveables in an almost casual manner, 
without emotion or even second thoughts. Even Hermione doesn't 
object to them. And Harry doesn't use them because of some desperate 
circumstance, but simply because he feels like it, or because it's 
easier. And the author never, in any way, expresses disapproval or 
shock at these Curses, and actually seems to approve of their use by 
the Heros. Instead of sending a message against using immoral or 
harmful tactics, the book seems to send a message that any means are 
acceptable as long as we're the ones doing it. As long as those 
immoral means are used against the "bad guys", anything goes. 

After reading about Harry's use of Unforgiveable curses, one poster 
wrote that their child asked "I thought they were supposed to be the 
good guys?" According to the text, the correct answer to that 
question is "It's OK when the good guys do it, it's just bad when 
the bad guys do it." I can only see this as a morally bankrupt 
message.

The morality of the Wizarding World is sort of facinating in its 
total dysfunction, but I think it's ultimately useless to try to 
make much sense of it. Because this series is basically a revenge 
narrative. Most children's novels have a theme of reconciliation & 
personal growth, so most people assumed that the Harry Potter novels 
would have a similar message. But now, at the close, it's pretty 
clear that that was not the theme. This is a story about revenge, 
and all the characters exact revenge w/the author's full approval. 
And we, the readers, are supposed to identify fully w/the Gryfindors 
and get satisfaction out of reading about it. 

Wizards get revenge against the Durselys for their unfair treatment 
by blowing up an aunt, giving Dudley ton-tongue toffee, giving 
Dudley a tail. Harry gets revenge against Voldemort for killing his 
parents, & revenge against the Carrows for insulting McGonegal. 
Harry's revenge is characterized as an appropriate sign of maturity. 
Hermione gets revenge against Rita Skeeter by transfiguring & 
imprisoning her. Molly gets full caps-lock revenge against 
Bellatrix, and readers are supposed to cheer. 

Finally, the author gets revenge against various characters by 
giving them appropriate ironic punishments. The traitor is strangled 
by his own reward. The mean teacher is killed by the symbol of his 
own house & his body is left at the scene of his worst moment. The 
facist control freak is carried away by a herd of rampaging chaotic 
centaurs. And the book gets revenge against the Slytherins, symbol 
of everything we don't like, by exiling them & purging them from the 
school. The message: revenge is sweet. 

There are so many examples of revenge in the novels that I do 
believe it is the central theme. At first, I thought that the author 
was intending to show the dangers of seeking revenge, but the real 
message is quite the opposite. The Harry Potter novels are pro-
revenge. Like the Count of Monte Cristo, readers are simply expected 
to cheer as the evil-doers are suitably punished by the 
protaganists. It's a pretty ugly message for a children's book, but 
there it is. 


lizzyben