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

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 181610

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

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

Mike:
Sorry for taking so long, busy week. This one is my bad, I misread 
your previous post. When you said we have a word for "Pain; cruciatus 
ain't it" I thought you were saying "cruciatus, <pause> ain't it?" 
You see, I thought you were telling me the Latin for pain was 
cruciatus and following it with the typically British two-word 
rhetorical question. I don't know Latin like you do, CJ.



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

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

Mike:
Well, yeah, but he does start out by saying the curse causes "Pain".


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

Mike:
But these aren't simply Latin words, they are incantations to cause 
magic to happen. E.g. Levicorpus isn't the words 'make that body 
light', it is an incantation which causes one to be lifted up by one 
ankle and suspended in air, upside down. I don't know if I can 
explain myself here, but I'll try. 

The Latin words were picked because they come close or match what JKR 
wanted the spell to mean. But it's not simply a matter of translating 
the Latin. As an incantation they cause an action and that action can 
vary by other factors, including intent, aim (what the curse hits), 
magically ability of the caster, and compatibility of the wand, to 
name a few. What I'm trying to say is that translation is not enough 
to define Harry's Crucio as torture, imo. Nor is the fact that it 
translates as torture mean that it was used to torture, again imo.


> CJ:
> <snip>
> ("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. 

Mike:
I never said that Harry doesn't "mean it", I did say that I thought 
Harry fully intended to hurt Amycus, and hurt him badly. It just 
doesn't rise to the level of torture for me.


> CJ
> <snip> 
> then he has stepped beyond the role of soldier and elected himself 
> judge, jury and executioner. 

Mike:
I disagree, Harry is fighting a known enemy in a war. The war hadn't 
stopped simply because they were sheltered in the Ravenclaw common 
room. Our difference lies in you believing Harry has "tortured" 
Carrow, and that makes it a war crime in your eyes. I don't believe 
it was torture. In either case, it cannot be said that Harry 
shouldn't have attacked Carrow, our argument is over the form of that 
attack. But a soldier fights the enemy, there are no judges, juries, 
or executioners on the battlefield. If there is a trial for war 
crimes, that comes later, not on the battlefield between two enemy 
combatants.


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

> CJ:
> Not at all. If we define enemies based on past injustices there 
> would be little room for kissing and making up. 

Mike:
Why would they be your enemy if there were no past injustices? What 
need would there be for kissing and making up if there were no past 
injustices? What does your future actions have to do with how or why 
you are treating them as your enemy now?


> CJ
> His motivation was, at least to a large measure, the desire and 
> intent to cause Carrow pain. That is retribution.

Mike:
I agree with the intent to cause pain. I also agree it was a poor 
choice of spell for all the reasons you have enumerated. I disagree 
that the translation defines the spell in toto, which leads me to 
disagree that it was torture. Finally, I disagree the incapacitation 
of Carrow should be defined as retribution, even while I agree that 
the method used for that incapacitation was a poor choice.

That's all for me. We have reached the end of logical discussion on 
this topic and further comment would be redundant, imo. We can agree 
on some points and agree to disagree on others. I know I'm not going 
to sway you further on these points of disagreement, and you've moved 
me off my original position as far as I will be moved. The ball's in 
your court whether you wish to reply, you have given me a fair chance 
to respond and I think I've said all I can say.

Mike

----------------------------------------------------
[The cave in GoF. Sirius on the Ministry and the UCs]
> > 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".

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

Mike:
That was my point. Sirius doesn't sound like he's speaking bitterly 
in either case. Yet, can you imagine him not being bitter about being 
locked up in Azkaban for 12 years without a trial? I can't. Which 
means that I can see him speaking seemingly calmly about the MoM in 
this same scene while seething below the surface.

The only thing where we may differ slightly, is that I think Sirius 
is more disgusted at the MoM (and Barty Crouch Sr.) for authorizing 
the Aurors the power to kill. That doesn't mean he likes the UCs, but 
I took his comment as including them as part of a laundry list of 
things he saw as bad decisions on the Ministry's part. I also see 
Sirius commenting on the hypocrisy of the MoM in naming 
them "Unforgivable" then using them themselves.

I'm not sure why were discussing this, I don't think we disagree on 
Sirius' opinion of the UCs.

Mike, apologizing again for the tardiness of this response