Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 174731

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. <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree that, from both a literary and a moral standpoint, that would
have been better. But it didn't happen, and perhaps we should move on
from this one disappointing moment to an examination of the book as a
whole. We could, for example, examine the (purported) wisdom of
Dumbledore--his remarks on choices and death and mercy, for example,
and see where they lead. I see various motifs ("themes," as most
readers would call them) that we can examine, among them, love, death
and the afterlife, Harry as Seeker (what, besides Horcruxes, is he
seeking?), truth, redemption, forgiveness, self-sacrifice, hope vs.
despair, overcoming doubts and self-doubt in particular. I could go
on, but I really hope that others will look for and examine these
sorts of elements. And if we're disappointed in Harry, how about Ron?
What does Luna represent? And so on. BTW, I think that JKR is a
Christian novelist trapped in a world that is so antagonistic to
Christianity that she feels she has to hide the Christian elements in
a secularized setting. Interesting that the Muggles go to church and
sing carols on Christmas Eve, whereas the Wizards still have Christmas
trees and presents and Father Christmas, but it's a wholly secularized
Christmas celebration (perhaps reflecting the England she lives in. In
the U.S., it's even worse; we now have "holiday cards" and "holiday
trees," as if even to wish someone a Merry Christmas were an
abomination. Sorry--pet peeve surfacing.)

Lizzyben: 
> 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. 

Carol:
I'm not so sure. I think we've gone from dysfunction and corruption to
anarchy and worse. Obviously, JKR did not approve of either Crouch or
Fudge (or Scrimgeour, who at least dies bravely defying the DEs
offpage), but Voldemort and the DEs are much worse. Even Umbridge has
become more evil (influence of the locket Horcrux?), which did not
seem possible after OoP. It's true that we don't get a clear picture
of the WW after the Battle of Hogwarts, but Voldemort and the DEs are
gone, order is restored, it's safe to put your kids on the Hogwarts
Express, and the hostility between Gryffindor and Slytherin seems to
be reduced to House rivalry. It *is* important that Harry named his
second son after two headmasters of Hogwarts, a Gryffindor and a
formerly hated Slytherin, Severus Snape. Personally, I like having the
epilogue leave a lot to the imagination. Do you think that the Magic
Is Might statue depicting a witch and wizard enthroned upon naked
Muggles is still standing? I don't. Nor do I think that the golden
fountain destroyed in OoP is still there. We know without being told
that Hermione is high up in the Ministry, fighting for her idea of
justice. "I want to do some good in the world," she tells Scrimgeour.
And she's still horrified by the enchantments that bind house-elves to
punish themselves for disobeying their masters, while at the same
time, finally grasping house-elf psychology. 

(Sidenote to whoever said that JKR invented house-elves out of whole
cloth: No, she didn't. Like many aspects of the books, from witches
riding on brooms to pulling a sword/rabbit out of a stone/hat,
house-elves (and goblins) are adapted from folklore about brownies and
hobgoblins. I'm quite sure that she expects her child readers to be
familiar with the story of "The Elves and the Shoemaker," at least,
and to recognize that those elves, too, are freed through a gift of
clothes. JKR's unique twist on the story is to make "freedom" for
house-elves a form of disgrace equivalent to being fired. (And anyone
who's been "freed" of a hated job by losing it understands just how
painful that sort of "freedom" can be. JKR knows what it's like to be
unemployed.) 

To return to your point, I disagree that it's useless to try to make
sense out of it. I think that's exactly what we should be doing rather
than focusing on that accursed Crucio or where Sirius's letter came
from--which I realize that you're not discussing, but other posters
seem to be hung up on it. (Clearly, JKR wasn't thinking about the
improbability of the letter being there. She needed it as a plot
device. And, no. It's not the continuity editor's job to catch that
sort of plothole, which involves memorizing the history of a minor
character. She's more interested in DD and the Invisibility Cloak and
Bathilda and, ultimately, the Snape connection. I think we should just
realize that JKR is a human being who has produced several thousand
pages of printed text over seventeen years, or whatever, and accept
the inevitability of errors and inconsistencies, large and small.)

Lizzyben:
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. 

Carol:
And Dudley ends up grateful to Harry for saving his life and willing
to trust a witch and a wizard to protect him from Dementors, Death
Eaters, and Voldemort. The wizards who mistreated Dudley end up either
dead or missing an ear (the Twins) or dragged off by their own beloved
Acromantulae to Voldemort to witness Harry's "death" (Hagrid). As for
"blowing up an aunt," that was accidental and, IMO, she deserved it.
It wasn't permanent, after all, and we don't see Harry mistreating
Muggles after that. His impulse to hex Dudley is completely undone by
DD's surprise move of shaking his hand. Redeemed!Dudley! Who could
have expected it?

Lizzyben:
Harry gets revenge against Voldemort for killing his parents, &
revenge against the Carrows for insulting McGonegal. 

Carol:
Revenge against the Carrows, I'll grant. But this is Harry who still
has the soul bit and has not yet experienced his epiphanies. But
revenge against Voldemort? Remember, he once interpreted the Prophecy
to mean that he would either have to murder Voldemort or be murdered
by him. And thanks to Snape's dying message, his last extremely
important act, Harry chooses to be murdered. He goes to meet Voldemort
with his wand and his Invisibility Cloak hidden inside his robes so
that he won't be tempted to use them to escape. "I am about to die,"
he tells the Snitch, which "open[s] at the close." And after his
return, he still does not try to kill Voldemort. He gives him the
truths that he (Harry) has learned, offers LV a chance for remorse, a
chance to avoid the personal hell that he himself has created, and
then casts, not an Unforgiveable Curse to kill him--not even a
stinging hex to hurt him or a Stunning Spell to disable--but the
simple Disarming Spell, used earlier as an act of mercy against the
Imperiused Stan Shunpike, and taught to him by none other than Severus
Snape in CoS.

Lizzyben:
> Harry's revenge is characterized as an appropriate sign of maturity.

Carol:
It has been Harry's destiny throughout the entire series to vanquish
Voldemort. But he doesn't return murder for murder. His "revenge" is
an act of self-sacrifice that protects the onlookers and causes
Voldemort's spells to lose their effectiveness, followed by a second
confrontation (accompanied, admittedly, with a sermon that reveals all
of Voldemort's wickedness and folly) which he wins by casting
Expelliarmus. Revenge? I don't see it. (And remember the revenge he
wanted against Snape? The confrontation is not at all what Harry--or
the reader--anticipated. Instead of taunts and a duel in which Harry
somehow gets the message that Snape is not a murderer and is helping
Harry, he gets insights into Snape that lead to understanding,
forgiveness, and a public vindication of the WW's most misunderstood
man, to whom Harry attributes JKR's highest values, love and courage.
As for Snape, he is not only posthumously vindicated and honored by a
former enemy, he is redeemed in the eyes of the writer, her
protagonist, and most readers. We know that there's an afterlife. We
know that the good guys recieve their reward, that remorse expiates
and atones for sins (the Christian view). If ever a literary character
suffers remorse and works throughout his life to atone for his sins,
it's Snape. There can be no question of his redemption. And he does
not die as an act of revenge. Voldemort thinks he's murdered his own
loyal man. That he is murdered by the symbol of his own House is
certainly ironic, but it's the least of the ironies in that scene.

Lizzyben:
> Hermione gets revenge against Rita Skeeter by transfiguring & 
> imprisoning her. 

Carol:
In an earlier book. If we see Hermione pursuing revenge in DH, I don't
recall it.

Lizzyben:
Molly gets full caps-lock revenge against Bellatrix, and readers are
supposed to cheer. 

Carol:
It's war, and what mother wouldn't react the same way if her daughter
was in danger? Admittedly, *Lily* didn't jump out at Voldemort with
"Not my son, you b****rd!" but she was wandless, or, she, too, would
almost certainly have fought. Unfortunately for the WW, there'd have
been no chosen one if she had died that way instead of through
self-sacrifice. Also, *someone* had to kill Bellatrix, who had just
killed her own niece for marrying a werewolf. Did you really expect
Bellatrix to live? Better Molly than Neville, IMO. (But I'm glad he
killed Nagini!)
> 
> Finally, the author gets revenge against various characters by 
> giving them appropriate ironic punishments. The traitor is strangled 
> by his own reward. 

Carol:
Which is Voldemort's doing. "May your loyalty never waver," he says as
he gives the "gift" of the silver hand. And when it wavers, Wormtail
dies. Ignominiously, as he deserves, in contrast to Snape, who is
fully redeemed and vindicated.

lizzyben:
The mean teacher is killed by the symbol of his 
> own house & his body is left at the scene of his worst moment.

Carol:
"Mean teacher" doesn't even enter into DH. We have Snape as undercover
DE, Snape as the lifelong Platonic lover of Lily and secret protector
of Harry, which continues even after he realizes that Harry isn't
being protected for Lily and that Harry must sacrifice himself to
destroy the soulbit. And terrible as his death is, he dies performing
a last (rather spectacular) magical act that will enable Harry to
defeat Voldemort and at the same time to see Snape as Snape truly is.
That his body is not placed alongside those who died in the battle
does not mean that it isn't retrieved from the Shrieking Shack later
and given a funeral befitting a headmaster and a hero. Harry will tell
someone, probably McGonagall, that it's there. And maybe she can make
up for calling him a coward and throwing daggers at him by giving him
a tomb like DD's. It's outside the story, but not outside the realm of
probability. Whatever McG does, Harry now knows that Snape is a hero.
Leaving his body to rot in the Shrieking Shack is simply not
compatible with giving his name to your second son.
 
Lizzyben:
The 
> facist control freak is carried away by a herd of rampaging chaotic
centaurs. 

Carol:
And the paranoid Auror was confined to his own trunk for ten months,
the fraudulent Mermory Charm specialist ended up in St. Mungo's with
his memory wiped out by his own curse, the werewolf who forgot to
drink his potion and endangered his students is relieved of his job,
and DD's right-hand man is forced to kill him and endure the hatred of
the Order while posing as a DE. That's the DADA curse, remember? And
its last victim is Amycus Carrow, who turned the class into a course
in the Dark Arts and is made to suffer his own fate. Hoist on his own
petard like all his predecessors? Is the DADA curse the reason for
Harry's casting that Crucio? (BTW, Umbridge's ultimate fate is Azkaban
and surely she deserved to go there if anyone did.)

Lizzyben:
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. <snip>

Carol:
Snape and Regulus are heroes who finally receive recognition. Phineas
Nigellus and Slughorn play their roles in vindicating Slytherin. Only
Crabbe goes completely over to the Dark side, and only Crabbe dies as
the result of a spell he cast himself.

In PoA, Harry wants revenge against Sirius Black until he learns the
truth about him, then he prevents Lupin and Black from taking revenge.
>From SS/PS onward, Harry hates "the mean teacher," even after he
learns that that teacher has saved his life. From the last part of OoP
and throughout HBP, Harry unfairly blames Snape for Sirius Black's
death, forgetting that he and his friends owe their lives to Snape,
and vows never to forgive him. In HBP. that hatred intensifies when he
learns that Snape was the eavesdropper, and when Snape kills
Dumbledore, his hatred becomes a passion for revenge. Twice, once in
HBP and once in DH, he expresses a desire to meet Snape, apparently
under the delusion that Snape could not parry his curses as easily as
he did in "The Flight of the Prince." Snape's death scene reverses
that as he fulfills Snape's last request and goes from shocked
numbness at the means and motive for his death to an understanding of
a man he thought he hated.

Revenge? I see redemption and forgiveness.

Carol, who thinks that Harry's last acts in the book (the Crucio
aside) are the antithesis of revenge