Wands and Wizards...Again

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 183608

---  juli17 at ... wrote:
>
>  
> Carol wrote:
> 
> IMO,  it would have been much less cruel to young readers 
> (who *do* notice such  things and, in my experience, are 
> shocked by them) to have Harry regret his  actions than to 
> force them to either reject their hero as flawed or 
> rationalize his behavior by finding excuses for  it.
> 
> 
> 
> Julie:
> I would add that even by having Harry regret his actions, 
> this still leaves him a flawed hero,.... But proving
> himself more self-aware by  regretting his wrong actions 
> ... would *show* his growth as a human  being,... And I 
> believe that *showing* makes a much greater impact on the
> reader, and makes for a  better story, than expecting the 
> reader just to *assume* Harry ... experienced regret.... 

bboyminn: 

Oddly, or perhaps not so oddly, I disagree. I've always 
thought one of the great attributes of the Harry Potter books
is that they are not preachy and don't offer clear moral
determinations. 

They very fact that certain aspects are morally ambiguous in 
the books, means that the reader must resolve that aspect for 
themselves. We don't need the author to resolve every moral 
issue. We need readers who are willing to think about the moral
issue and reach their own conclusions. 

Again, it is 'revelation' vs 'explanation'; revelation,
understanding that comes from within, is always a better
teacher than explanation. A story that makes you reach into
yourself, I think, is a more powerful story than one in which
the author reaches out to you.

> Julie:
>
> For me and many other readers, the Crucio scene would have 
> been much improved... if Harry had experienced at least 
> momentary shock or regret at the ease with which he cast an
> Unforgivable that had no other purpose than to cause 
> excruciating pain, and if McGonagall had shown even the 
> slightest  hint of dismay or disapproval at Harry's action. 
> (And if the Unforgivables had been presented and explained 
> in a more consistent manner.)
>  

bboyminn:

Again, I hear you saying that everything in the books needs a
clear preachy moral explanation; absolute black and white, no
shades of gray.

But ask yourself how well you know Harry having spend all 
these year with him? He seems a very morally sound person,
and consequently, I assume that he does regret his choices,
but still justifies his action under the circumstances in 
that moment.

He used Crucio against a dark and dangerous person, and he 
does it in a moment of loss of temper. He did it for two
seconds, meaning he gets no sadistic pleasure out of doing
so. He also used Crucio against a dark and dangerous person
who himself used Crucio as casually as adding sugar to his
tea. 

I don't think McGonagall approves of Harry choices, but she 
does think it 'galant' that Harry would defend her honor. But
galantly defending her honor, does not mean blanket approval
of the method he used.

From the point where Harry reveals himself to McGonagall, the
game is on. There is no time to take the moral high ground. 
Desperate times call for desperate measure, and the one and
only goal it to come out of it alive and victorious. Your 
virtue is worthless in defeat. Your virtue won't save your 
life and will likely get you killed.

So, do you want Harry to win, or do you want Harry to be 
smug in defeat know that while his world was lost, his
life was lost, that thousands will live in misery and tyranny
for the foreseeable future, at least he took the high road? 

Personally, I vote for VICTORY.

Back to some earlier aspects, I never said I /excused/ Harry.
I said I understood his actions under the circumstances. In
war you need to be hard, sometimes even heartless. The only
bleeding heart liberals that are found in war, are the ones
literally bleeding to death.

I said that Harry's action were both wrong and bad, but I
also said that I understood them. Things can still be wrong
yet justified /under the circumstances/.  

So, in conclusion, I don't need and don't want the author
to resolve every moral dilemma for me. I want her to present
moral dilemmas to me, and within certain limits allow me
to resolve them myself. I think that is one of the great
attractions of the Harry Potter books. JKR isn't preaching
morality, she is showing life, and letting us resolve the
morality for ourselves. 

You say revolution; and I say REVELATION. 

Or something like that.

Steve/bluewizard