Wands and Wizards...Again

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 183626

> > Montavilla47:
> > Me, three.  I understand why Harry did it.  What I don't
> > understand is why JKR did it.
> 
> Pippin:
> Why did George Lucas have Luke lose it and go after Vader in RotJ?
> Because Luke had to recognize that he was capable of becoming what
> Vader is. He had to *choose* to be a Jedi. 

<snip>
> There are ways to do that besides  having someone punish or admonish
> Harry. As a matter of fact Luke doesn't get punished, or admonished
> either -- his mentors were telling him that killing Vader was okay.
> Luke doesn't have a line where he says he was wrong. He shows us he
> knows he was wrong through his actions. He acknowledges his father, 
he
> throws the light saber away, and he honors his father in death. 

Magpie:
But Luke clearly recognizes exactly what you're talking about where 
Harry doesn't. That's what that whole moment is about in ROTJ. It 
changes the whole direction of the scene and leads to Vader 
destroying the emperor. Luke stops himself before he finishes Vader. 
He looks at Vader's robotic hand and then at his own robotic hand, 
getting that this is what he will become. The Emperor even says to 
kill him and "take his place at my side." And then Luke turns off his 
Light Saber and says he's a Jedi and won't turn to the Dark Side. The 
whole series is about setting up exactly that temptation, bringing 
Luke to the edge of it and pulling Vader back from over the line.

If Luke acted like Harry did, he would have not stopped himself, but 
rather blast Vader with some Dark Side lightning until he was 
unconscious, and then turned to the camera and said, "Yeah, the 
emperor was right. When you use your anger it really works." And if 
somebody happened to be standing there a little surprised and 
said, "But you do realize...?" He'd say, "Yeah, I do," and go on 
being awesome about it.

The Crucio scene and Harry's later sacrifice are not connected the 
way Luke's stopping himself and tossing away the light saber are in 
ROTJ. One is Harry being awesome, the other is Harry being awesome in 
a different way. He's not turning to the Dark Side by using his 
Crucio, he's just showing that temper he's always had. Doesn't 
interfere at all with his great power of love--he's still brave 
enough to sacrifice himself for the people he loves to bring 
Voldemort down. He doesn't have to choose one or the other.

It has nothing to do with Harry being punished. Luke isn't punished. 
He doesn't have to be punished. He just sees something true about the 
situation, sees a connection between himself and Vader that Harry 
doesn't see between himself and Amycus. Harry can rest assured that 
he doesn't want Draco Malfoy to die a horrible death without any self-
reflection.  

Pippin:
> If we're old enough to think that way, JKR doesn't want us to be
> against torture  because torture is eeevil. She wants us to be 
against
> torture because it causes unnecessary pain to a human being. 

 
> Likewise she doesn't want us to be against slavery because slavery 
is
> evil. She wants us to be against it because it's the involuntary
> degradation of a human being. 

Magpie:
These sound like very reasonable things for JKR to think, but I don't 
see where she's dramatizing these things in the scenes we're talking 
about. You still seem to be saying that by showing Harry looking cool 
using the torture curse, or by happily enjoying his slave labor who 
loves him, JKR is giving us reasons to be against torture or slavery 
in those scenes. Which makes it seem like we could read anything into 
anything to get what we want. It's not overly simplistic to actually 
illustrate the point you're trying to make in what you write. When it 
comes to other things, like the need for remorse, she doesn't mind 
spelling it out.

I assume JKR is against both slavery and torture. But I'm not sure 
that means she didn't just write a feel-good Crucio moment for Harry 
(he's never been a saint!) or wrote the Harry/Kreacher story to be 
more about the wonderful effect Harry's kindness had on pitiful 
Kreacher so he gets his happy ending now. 

Pippin:
> Once you've labeled something as evil, you're saying it can't or
> shouldn't be tolerated. Good people don't tolerate evil, they drive 
it
> out. But driving out the bad leaves them to be used by the worst.
> That's what happens to the werewolves and the giants. 

Magpie:
I have little use for labeling anything "evil" but I think I'm 
misunderstanding you here. Why would good people eschewing torture 
and slavery mean that bad people are more likely to torture and have 
slaves? Driving out giants and werewolves isn't driving out the bad, 
it's driving out people. Torture and slavery don't work that way. 
They work the opposite way—good people using them without regret 
validates them for wider use.

Pippin: 
> It's pretty clear that if a House-elf ever arose who had Dobby's
> desire for independence  and Kreacher's desire for revenge, the
> wizards would be in serious trouble. 

Magpie:
The Goblins don't seem to have gotten very far in their rebellions.

-m