Blowing his cover

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 181455

> > CJ:
> > > I'm not convinced that expectorating is justification for
> > > torture
> > 
> > zgirnius:
> > > If I thought Harry Cruciated Amycus because of his 
> > > discourtesy  to a teacher, I might agree with you.

> Steve/bboyminn:
> Even if Harry was called before the court to answer for all 
> his uses of 'Unforgivable Curses', I have no doubt that in
> very case, those curses would easily be forgiven, because in
> the context that they occurred and in the context that he
> applied them, I think they were, and the courts would find,
> them justifiable. We don't crucify our heroes, not in the 
> face of victory.

Montavilla47
Just to weigh in with my tuppence worth, my objection to
this use of the Cruciatus curse is based, not so much 
on character or an internal-based (i.e., in-character, wizardly)
view of the matter, but on the plot and theme of the books.

My interpretation of the moment is that it comes across like
an action-hero moment, somewhat akin to the moment in
the film version of OotP when Sirius pops up at the crucial
moment in the MoM, punches Lucius Malfoy in the nose and
quips "Get away from the my Godson!"

I gather than I'm not alone in this interpretation.  

Well, fine and dandy if you're watching an action movie, but 
I almost always hate those moments in action movies, mainly
because that's the moment when sort of moral code within the
story is basically broken, giving the inevitable message that
moral codes in general are only there in order to be jettisoned
in favor of emotional outrage.  Which is nonsense, because the 
only point of a moral code at all is to provide restraint in the 
face of emotional outrage.

Throughout the books, there is this paradigm set up with the
circular logic that bad guys are bad because they are attracted
to Dark Magic and Dark Magic is bad because bad guys like it.
Dark Magic itself is never really defined, *except* for the 
definition of the Unforgiveables.  

Up through HBP, I would estimate that ninety-percent of the 
readers accepted that the Unforgiveables--if nothing else--
were truly Dark Magic and that Harry's inability to cast them
was a mark of his virtue.  Any argument to that was most
likely based on the hope that Snape's AK wasn't quite as bad
as it looked.

As it turns out, my hope was fulfilled in that Snape's use of 
the AK was justified to some degree.  (No one seems to have 
the heart to continue that argument, and I can certainly 
accept that it was necessary to preserve Snape's cover and 
general bad-assery amongst the Death Eaters.)  Moreover,
we *know* that Snape didn't cast it lightly.  He didn't make
any cute quips afterwards, and he probably went to his
death with his soul still somewhat tattered because of it.

So, in his case, there were both good and bad consequences
and it *meant something* dramatically.

Harry's moment, on the other hand, was cheap, gratuitous,
and only put in the story to make the audience feel good
for the nano-second immediately following it.  At the same
time, it blasted the only one firm pillar of magical
morality in the books to pieces.  

Unfortunately, that was load-bearing pillar and the hairline 
cracks that some, but certainly not most, readers that noticed, 
suddenly shifted into gaping holes.  Without even the tiniest
definition of Dark Magic, we have to examine every action of
all the characters--previously "good" or "bad" anew without
a firm *internal* moral compass.

Once you do that, it's impossible not to notice how often
the main characters act in brutal, vengeful ways that make
them seem no better than the people identified as villains.

So, yeah.  That moment is the straw that breaks the camel's
back.  For Harry... and for the reader.