Harry, Crucio, and emotion in spellcasting (WAS: Re: Blowing his cover)

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 181484

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/messages/181455

> Montavilla47:
> 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.  <snip>

> 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.

> 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.

Mike:
Once in a while someone comes up with an exceptional piece of 
reasoning and phrases it in easily understood concepts, that make
me go WOW! This was one of those. Montavilla, you did for me what 
many others couldn't, and I thank you for that. 

Now I understand why the Marauders fun seems less so, to me. I also 
understand what my anger that generated my James rant was based upon. 
JKR took away that too simplistic definition, and that forced me to 
reassess James actions throughout. Before, Sirius' words that "James 
hated the Dark Arts" was good enough to let me know this was a good 
guy. Now, what are Dark Arts, and how do we know the good guys aren't 
using them and just don't know it? Or do know it and don't care?

About all I can hang my hat on is my belief that there are degrees, 
that things aren't black and white when discussing what is black or 
white. That's why I can accept Harry's Imperios in Gringotts as a 
dire necessity, a good guy put in a bad spot with no other options 
to prevent the failure of a vital mission of 'good'. Whereas, with 
whomever Imperio-ed Rosemerta to make her perform an evil task, that 
I have no problem decrying.



> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/messages/181460

> CJ
> The passage is clear that at the point of greatest danger to the
> students -- when Amycus comes bursting through the door breathing
> threats and fire, and the students are scattering in terror --
> Harry does nothing.

Mike:
A point of order here. Amycus bursts across the threshold and the 
remaining few Ravenclaws scamper up the stairs. Amycus only has eyes 
for his stunned sister. THEN, after all the students are gone 
upstairs, Amycus starts "breathing threats and fire." The students 
weren't being threatened by Amycus when they were present, except on 
the general principle that the Carrows are threats to civility 
wherever they are.


> > bboyminn:
> > Yes, Harry used the 'Pain' curse...

> CJ
> Look up the Latin. It's not the "pain" curse. Crucio --
> "I torture". 
> Latin has a perfectly good word for pain; "cruciatus" ain't it.

Mike:
Then we have a conundrum, since the "Cruciatus Curse" is cast by 
uttering the word "Crucio". So which is it, the pain curse or the 
torture curse? Crouch!Moody doesn't help us, he explained "Pain, 
... to torture someone if you can perform the Cruciatus Curse." 
<GoF p.215, US>

We also have the problem that JKR admitted to using her own 
bastardization of Latin in creating her spell names. I'm sure she 
picked them to mean generally what the Latin means, yet Petrificus 
Totalus did not turn the victim entirely into stone, despite the 
spells Latin roots.

Now, the part to which I know you'll disagree, but I'll posit 
anyway in my concurrence with Steve, is that there are degrees in 
magic, imo. Aguamenti can be used to fill a glass with water, or 
like a fire hose to put out Hagrid's Hut. Likewise, hitting someone 
in the face with the force from the tap or hitting someone with a 
fire hose will produce drastically different effects using the same 
spell.

I've no doubt that Harry intended to cause Amycus a moment of 
intense pain with his Cruciatus Curse. I've also no doubt that 
he held it only long enough for Amycus to be blasted into the wall 
and get knocked unconscious. That, to me, does not constitute 
torture, any more than a well placed kick to the groin prior to 
delivering a knockout blow would be torture in a fight.


> CJ
> Cruciating Amycus for past injustices is not defense, it's
> retribution.

Mike:
Regardless of the spell, fighting the known enemy is definitely not 
retribution, it's battle. Plus, past injustices are what makes them 
your enemy. Whether it's offensive or defensive is a moot point in 
war. Killing is killing whether it's done as part of an offensive or 
defensive maneuver.


> CJ
> If Harry were simply acting in defense there were any number of
> equally effective options open to him.

Mike:
I get the protestations over the use of the spell, I don't get the 
questioning of effectiveness. Obviously Harry was effective.

Aside: There must be some magical transformation that occurs upon a 
wizards 17th birthday. I can't see Dumbledore removing his Privet 
Drive protection based on some administrative stricture. I posit 
that wizards are aware of this, even if it wasn't explained to us.
I further posit that Harry knew his first "of age" Crucio would be 
effective because of this awareness. Having to "mean it" can't be 
the only criteria for effectiveness, else Crouch!Moody couldn't have 
said what he did about any of the kids pointing their wands at him 
and trying to AK him. I'll bet Draco would have "meant it". <eg>


> CJ
> If Sirius were simply speaking through and from his pain,
> I would have expected indicators of that in the passage, say
> bitterness in his voice, or anger in his eyes. What I see in
> the passage, however, is a calm, reasonable Sirius, not a bitter,
> spiteful one. YMMV, but I think any other reading is eisogeting.

Mike:
In the paragraph where Sirius pontificates on the MoM and the UCs
he is said to "smile grimly". On the previous page where he tells
of being thrown into Azkaban without a trial, he says it "quietly".
Which do you suppose sounds more bitter, and which do you think he
is more bitter about? Not without justification, Sirius is decidedly 
biased and residually bitter when he speaks of MoM actions.

That said, I have no problem with Sirius' opinion of the 
Unforgivables. However, taking the whole scene into account, I 
just think Sirius takes a harsher view of the MoM's authorization 
of the power to kill than he does of the use of the UCs. 

BTW, I tried to find "eisogeting". After a little finagling I 
figured you meant some form of eisegesis, also spelled exegesis - 
usually associated with Biblical analysis. Further, I assume you 
are ascribing to the subtext of the definition where one uses 
his/her own interpretation, not necessarily an accepted view. All
that to discover that you'll allow my mileage to vary, but that
also means you think I'm making it up. You could have just said it 
instead of making up your own word. ;)



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/messages/181461
> zgirnius:
> I was not proposing that Harry's Crucios as a group are different
> from anyone else's. It is my opinion that spells cast in a state
> of great emotional excitement tend to have extra 'kick', for lack
> of a better word. Other possible examples  <snip examples>
>
> So all I was proposing is that Harry's Crucio of Amycus,
> likewise, was done while he was extremely upset.
> 
> Other than the fact that it sends Amycus flying across the room,
> it appears in all other ways to have been a proper Crucio.

Mike:
That is a very plausible theory, and really only slightly different 
than mine. I mainly proposed that Harry's Crucio was different, 
without a good explanation as to why. I thought it had to do with 
his mindset, which is what you've theorized. The only difference 
was I thought it was a conscious control, while you think it was 
caused by his emotional state and not a conscious decision. I don't
suppose we'll ever know. 

As for your other examples, I didn't think Snape was in any special 
emotional state when he Expelliarmused Lockhart. Amused, maybe, but
I doubt he cared a whit about the buffoon or what he had to say.


> zgirnius:
> Though I think, if Harry had not knocked Amycus out, he would
> have stopped the curse quickly. But this is just a hypothetical
> based on my opinion of Harry's character.

Mike:
I think Harry's ultimate intent was to knock out Amycus, and he 
therefore stopped the curse as intended.

---------------
I understand the problem with Harry using the Cruciatus Curse and 
the collateral damage it causes as explained by Montavilla. It was
a regrettable choice on Harry's/JKR's part if only for the confusion 
it caused to the younger readers like CJ's daughter.

Conversely, I believe in degrees of force, shades of grey in 
discussing Dark vs Light, and the vagaries of intent having meaning. 
Therefore I cannot concur with calling Harry's Crucio "torture". A 
moment of pain does not translate into torture by any conventional 
definition of which I'm aware.

Mike