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

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 181490

CJ
> when Amycus comes bursting through the door breathing
> threats and fire, and the students are scattering in terror

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.

Your point is taken on the chronology of events: Amycus didn't actually 
voice any threats ("I'll Cruciate the lot of 'em!") until the remaining 
few students had fled. OTOH, he was clearly already a threat: his 
presence, his belligerence, his attempts at blasting the door, had most 
of the students scattering in terror and Harry contemplating a Stunning 
spell even before the door actually opened.

So, I will stand corrected on the chronology, but I think it's a 
relatively minor point.

CJ
> Look up the Latin. It's not the "pain" curse. Crucio -- "I torture".

Mike:
> Then we have a conundrum, since the "Cruciatus Curse" is cast by
> uttering the word "Crucio".

Sorry, Iim not following. "Cruciatus" means "torture". "Crucio" is the 
first person present tense active indicative meaning "I torture". 
Where's the conundrum?

 > So which is it, the pain curse or the torture curse?

Since the name is Cruciatus Curse, and "cruciatus" means "torture", 'm 
not sure where the ambiguity lies here. The Latin for pain, BTW, is 
"dolor". But it's not called the Dolor Curse.

 > Crouch!Moody doesn't help us, he explained "Pain,
> ... to torture someone if you can perform the Cruciatus Curse."
> <GoF p.215, US>

On the contrary, I think he helps immensely. "To torture" ... "perform 
the Cruciatus". Seems straightforward.

> We also have the problem that JKR admitted to using her own
> bastardization of Latin in creating her spell names.

While true in general, this is not true of cruciatus or crucio, both of 
which are straightforward Latin.

> 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. 

Not at all. I have no disagreement here.

> 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

I understand your argument, but I'm unconvinced. Harry steps out from 
under his cloak, points his wand at Amycus, and declares "I torture!" 
("Crucio!"), followed by "What do you know, you really do have to mean 
it!", obviously referencing Bellatrix's comment that you have to "mean 
it" for a UC to work. The gist of the passage, then, is that Harry 
announces his intent to torture, commits the torture, then declares that 
it worked. I think the duration of the spell is incidental.

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.

Harry's only concern of the moment should be the removal of the threat 
posed by Amycus. If Harry is Cruciating Amycus for any action Amycus 
performed in the past -- particularly given that it's all hearsay -- 
then he has stepped beyond the role of soldier and elected himself 
judge, jury and executioner. That is not the proper role of any soldier.

 > Plus, past injustices are what makes them your enemy.

Not at all. If we define enemies based on past injustices there would be 
little room for kissing and making up. Should the UK declare war on 
Germany because of Germany's past actions? Should Canada disavow its 
friendship with the US because the US invaded Montreal in 1812? Should 
Harry continue to hate Snape based on Snape's past treatment of him at 
Hogwart's?

 > Killing is killing whether it's done as part of an offensive or
> defensive maneuver.

Try telling that to Evan Vela, the U.S. soldier who was just convicted 
in Baghdad of murder. Not all actions are permissable even in war

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

Mike:
> I don't get the questioning of effectiveness. Obviously Harry 
 > was effective.

I didn't say the Cruciatus wasn't effective. Heck, pistol-whipping a 
shoplifter will stop his crime just as effectively as calling the 
police. I said there were other options available that would have been 
*equally* effective at neutralizing Carrow without involving 
questionable moral choices.

And, pragmatically, they would have been less risky as well. Harry was 
quite adept at Disarming, while he had never successfully cast a 
Cruciatus. If his goal were simply to neutralize Carrow, choosing a 
spell his past track record indicated he couldn't even perform 
successfully was a, shall we say, questionable decision (actually, 
"stupid thing to do" leaps to mind).

Disarm him. Stun him. Confound him. Bind him. Even Imperius him (there, 
at least, was a UC Harry knew he could perform). When people around you 
are in danger, you reach for weapons that work, not weapons you've never 
successfully fired.

It's also uncharacteristic of Harry. In nearly every crisis Harry has 
faced in the past, Expelliarmus has been his weapon of choice. He used 
it successfully against Voldemort (and would do so again shortly). Lupin 
chewed him out for using it (again successfully) against Stan Shunpike, 
when Harry replied he refused to blast people around just because they 
were in his way.

So why was THIS particular moment of crisis different? Why did Harry 
suddenly depart from his modus operandum? Rambo!Harry tells us why: 
"What do you know? You DO have to mean it!" Mean what? "I torture!" This 
time Harry's intent was NOT (or at least, no solely) to neutralize a 
threat. His motivation was, at least to a large measure, the desire and 
intent to cause Carrow pain. That is retribution.

> 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

Well setting aside the speculativeness of your theory, even if having to 
meant it isn't the sole criterion, it IS a criterion nonetheless. You 
must desire to inflict pain and torture on your victim in order to 
successfully Cruciate. A good soldier has to kill. A good soldier is 
trained to kill. But that doesn't mean a good soldier *desires* to kill.

CJ
> If Sirius were simply speaking through and from his pain,
> I would have expected indicators

Mike:
> Sirius ... is said to "smile grimly" ... he says it "quietly".

I don't mean by the above that he spoke emotionlessly. But no, neither 
smiling grimly nor speaking quietly sounds like bitterness to me.

> BTW, I tried to find "eisogeting" . After a little finagling I
> figured you meant some form of eisegesis, also spelled exegesis -
 > ...
> You could have just said it instead of making up your own word. ;)

Well, I didn't make it up, I just misspelled it :-). Yes, it is 
"eisegesis", though in fact it's the opposite of "exegesis". And it is 
used in many schools of textual analysis and interpretation, Biblical 
studies included.

> 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.

I appreciate these remarks, Mike. In turn, I believe JKR's intent here 
was to show that Harry wasn't perfect, which I certainly don't object 
to. I wouldn't even have objected so strenuously to the Cruciatus if 
Harry had given some hint of recognition of moral difficulty with his 
action which, in turn, would have allowed me to say to my daughter -- 
hey, Harry made a mistake -- even good guys aren't perfect -- but he 
realizes what he did was wrong, and that's why he's still a good guy. 
Instead, we get Dirty!Harry blowing the smoke out of his gun barrel 
after blowing away a baddie. And to add insult to injury, McGonagall, 
that paragon of virtue, calls her student's use of a UC "gallant"!

It's not just the use of the UC that bothers me; it's the casualness 
with which it was done. Montavilla was right -- this scene obliterates 
the internal moral compass of the series. That the good guys can perform 
the worst of the Dark Arts is bad enough. That they do so with no 
apparent moral compunction is nearly worse than the act itself.

Again, I have no problem with good guys making bad moral choices. We all 
do that, and that IS a good lesson for children to learn.

CJ