Wands and Wizards...Again

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 183615

> > 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. 

Magpie:
Those aren't our two choices. The books already make clear moral 
determinations and preach plenty (just not to the point where they 
overwhelm the story). They're not worried about drawing clear lines 
between good and bad. In fact, I think sometimes they make it a lot 
easier to figure out good vs. bad than in real life. 

There are moral issues that aren't resolved--but in the case of Harry 
feeling badly about things, I think that's a different issue. There 
we're just talking about what Harry feels, so why would it be 
preachy? In fact we usually do get what Harry feels, he just usually 
winds up feeling justified or focusing on people who have wronged him 
instead. That doesn't make him not judgmental (often he is self-
righteous or does think about right and wrong), it just makes him a 
bit limited in his view of himself. (Occasionally the book will point 
this out, making it clear he's not reliable in a specific instance.)


> > 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.

Magpie:
I don't hear her saying she needs a clearer, preachy moral 
explanation. It seems like she's just saying she'd find Harry more 
interesting as a person who didn't consider himself so very morally 
sound at all times. In Julie's scenario Harry would be recognizing 
that he just did something purely sadistic for the pleasure of 
causing pain, even though other spells would have been smarter and 
more in line with his previous values. And maybe he enjoyed it, but 
he did it. He and McGonagall might be uncomfortable. It's not more 
complex to just assume that Harry didn't get any of the pleasure out 
of the curse (why else did he choose that one if not for the 
pleasure?) and Amycus is a very bad man that Harry stopped. 

In canon I think the throwing of the curse is presented as 
satisfying, putting Amycus down, Harry gets his badass line about how 
the curse really works well when you really do want to cause pain (I 
took that as Harry reflecting on that very pleasure). McGonagall is a 
little taken aback but that's mostly so that Harry can give her a 
second bad ass line.

Steve:
> 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.

Magpie:
Why conflate VICTORY with Harry torturing people? Torture is not the 
best curse to use to take someone out of action, and there aren't 
really supposed to be situations where it's officially time to start 
torturing the enemy. Questioning Harry's use of Crucio here doesn't 
equate to wanting Harry to lose, or not take Amycus out, or thousands 
living in misery and tyranny. Harry's using a stunning spell would 
have worked fine.

Steve: 
> 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/.  

Magpie:
I definitely acknowledge the difference between excusing and 
understanding. But if thinking he should have used something else 
gets connected to preferring Harry to be smug and send thousands to 
their doom than to have him stop the Bad Bad Man it sounds like not 
only excusing his actions but admiring them.

Jack-a-row:

As for Harry owning a slave:
It appears that we are trying to judge it using our moral standards.
This appears to be different in the magical world. House elves are
just that. They are elves who work around the house. To them, this is
their life and they enjoy it. I don't consider it wrong to have a
guard dog protecting my property, because that is what they do. House
elves may be more advanced than a dog, but they still seem to have
their own purpose.

Magpie:
I actually think another problem with the way it's set up is that it 
always comes down to just looking at the nature of House Elves. 
Elves' feelings never seem to matter except when it comes to them 
liking to be slaves, apparently, as if Wizards are doing them a favor 
even when we see elves suffering in their servitude. 

I certainly respect the view that house elves are fine in their 
situation. Many in canon seem to share it. There are many reasons 
given in canon for why Wizards should feel perfectly fine having 
creatures that must obey them and call them master. They're created 
to like being slaves--so they make great slaves. I do think it's a 
sort of tricky idea, because elves always "like being slaves" even 
when we see ones that don't. The effect on Wizards having this kind 
of power over somebody who is a person, if not a human, isn't focused 
on much.

-m