Wands and Wizards...Again (Was: Epilogue ...)

[littleleahstill]

No: HPFGUIDX 183584

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> Alla:
>
> For years when I participated in Snape/Harry debates, I absolutely 
> refused to think that people who think that how Snape treats Harry 
> and Neville support child abuse in RL or some rubbish like that. 
> Because I thought that cheering for fictional character means just 
> that cheering for fictional character.
> 
> But apparently it is quite all right to think that people who 
> **understand** not excuse, mind you, **understand** why the 
teenager 
> who just listened to nasty stories of what Amicus did to his 
fellow 
> students, who already had watched his nearest and dearest fall in 
the 
> battle, who saw Neville's scars, and who watched Amicus spat on 
his 
> head of the house and could not cope with this seeming nothing, 
but 
> IMO last drop, apparently it is quite all right to think that 
> sympathizing with what this teenager did, somehow reflect poorly 
on 
> the readers.
> 
> Not in my opinion. 
> 
> Alla

Leah: I can understand why Harry acted as he did. That doesn't mean 
that I have to think what he did was right.  Understanding that 
someone was driven to take an action is not the same as condoning 
it.  It is possible to understand why someone is driven to commit 
murder, but it doesn't mean the murder has to be condoned.

I don't think anyone is criticising anyone for 
showing 'understanding' or accusing anyone of supporting torture in 
the real world.  The post I was replying to did not say that Harry 
used Crucio because of his inner suffering.  It set out a military 
motive for his doing so, and stated the poster's opinion that 
Harry's Crucio did not amount to torture. This is providing reasons 
or 'excusing' Harry's action.

Harry used a curse which is apecifically designed to inflict pain, 
nothing else.  I can see that after the events of the past two years 
leading up to that moment, he has been in great stress/danger etc 
and that might all have exploded at that moment.  What I find odd, 
is Rowling, having designated these curses as Unforgiveables and 
having always written in a negative way about them, and indeed 
having made it clear through Harry's own suffering that Cruciatus 
inflicts agonising pain, gives Harry no moment of self-reflection or 
self-doubt, has him praised as 'gallant' etc.  I personally find 
that to be both a moral and literary flaw in the writing, which I am 
entitled to express.   

If readers want to emphasise with Harry at that point, that's 
understandable.  I can emphasise too, up to a point. What strikes me 
as odd is tne number of people who are indeed prepared to excuse 
rather than merely understand the action.  I just wonder if 
this would happen if the character concerned wasn't Harry himself.

Leah 

>