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

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 183585


Leah: 
  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.   

Pippin:

I always wondered if Rowling, having identified herself as a
Christian, meant to let the Unforgivable designation stand. IMO, she
does not want us to condone what Harry did. She does want us to
forgive him, either  as an adult who eventually would regret what he'd
done, or as a child who knew not what he did.

Harry is a fictional construct. He has no emotions, no self-reflection
or self-doubt, unless the reader imagines them. As a critical reader,
you may distinguish between the feelings the author describes and the
ones you attribute to Harry out of your own experience and
imagination. But the naive reader doesn't do that. 

The naive reader is not going to discount her feelings about  what
Harry did because they are not described in canon. She will assume
that what she imagines Harry feeling is what Harry actually felt. If
the reader imagines that any good person who did such a thing would
regret it deeply afterwards, and as you say, that is the thrust of the
books, then the reader who identifies with Harry will imagine that
Harry regretted it too.

Harry is admonished in canon for having performed a possibly foolish
action, if not a wicked one. The naive reader is going to see that
Harry lost his temper. Blood is described as thundering through his
brain. And the reader already knows that when people lose their
tempers they behave foolishly.

But Harry's remorse must be private. If he judged himself as an adult,
it would be cruel to ask the young reader, who thinks of Harry as a
better, more powerful version of himself, to suffer so. Judged as a
child, which he is by the standards of our world, Harry does not need
to understand the enormity of what he's done before he  can be forgiven. 

Of course, more mature readers who might like to have a child's or a
fictional hero's license to punish evil without worrying about the
consequences can  indulge that pleasure. But it's difficult to look at
the entire series and suppose that JKR thinks the  consequences of
abuse can be safely ignored. 


I think it's really reaching to present this episode as condoning
torture in some way. Notice that this is not '24' -- torture, whether
physical or magical, is *never* presented as an effective way of
getting information. And if JKR wanted us to condone the cruciatus
curse, she'd have called it something else, I'm sure.  I know that
even growing up as a Jewish child, I was vaguely aware that
crucifixion was a bad thing. Perhaps we can agree that the average
British schoolchild is at least as vaguely aware as I was?


Pippin