Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)

[julie]

No: HPFGUIDX 183431


> >
> > Lynda:
> > I always believed that the Unforgivable Curses were only 
Unforgivable if
> > they were used for the purposes of Dark Magic. Expelliarmus, to 
my mind,
> > used by a Dark wizard, to disarm a wizard who is trying to stop 
him
> becomes
> > an Unforgivable Curse. I would not consider Crucio, Imperio or 
other
> > traditional UC spells to be gallant, however.
> Montavilla47:
> Do you really believe that? That a disarming spell becomes Dark 
because
> it's used by a Dark Wizard?
> 
> Lynda:
> Here's where I need to clarify my idea. I think that the goodness or
> evilness in a spell is in the intent of the spellcaster. A spell 
cast with
> the intent to cause harm to another has the potential of being a 
dark spell.
> A spell cast with the intent to defend oneself or another has the 
potential
> of not being dark magic. Intention is the key. Not every spell cast 
by every
> dark wizard will be dark magic. As you say, a wizard using 
expelliarmus to
> rob a bank commits an evil act. A wizard, however, who uses imperio 
to make
> someone put down a handgun and keeps that person from killing 
someone else
> commits an act of good intent. I hope that's clearer now.

Julie:
It's clear, but it's not at all what JKR wrote. There are
three Unforgivables, capitalized, named and defined. Dark
Magic is distinct and identifiable, as Lily tells us in one of 
Snape's Pensieve scenes in DH. Snape had his friends practice
"Dark Magic" while James and his friends don't, even though
the latter have no higher motives or intentions than the
former as both intend harm (even when it's emotional in the
form of humiliation it is intentionally harmful). 


Though in the end JKR's Dark Magic isn't very clear at all.
We learn that Aurors so use Unforgivables as a last resort.
And finally we see Harry throwing around Unforgivables not
as a last resort but merely for vengeful satisfaction (at 
least the Crucio falls in this category). So admittedly
the issue becomes cloudy, which IMO is faulty writing on
JKR's part. It's an inconsistency that shouldn't be there. 

<<snip>>

> >
> > Lynda:
> > ...The Power of Love that Harry had meant
> > everything to the story. Without it He would never have survived 
and if
> > Voldemort had been able to give up his anger and hatred ("try for 
a little
> > remorse"). Of course it applied to Snape. It applied to every 
character in
> > the story!
> 
> Montavilla47:
> If you mean Harry wouldn't have survived the AK in the woods, then
> you're wrong about that being due to the Power of Love. That was due
> to the Power of Blood. It was Harry's blood in Voldemort's veins 
that
> kept him alive.
> 
> If it was the original AK in Godric's Hollow, then it that was 
ultimately
> due to Snape's love for Lily--and Lily's blood. While it was love 
for
> Harry that caused Lily to stand in front of him, it wasn't her love 
that
> saved him. It was the choice she had, because of Snape's love for 
her,
> that made the difference. (As we see when the Bulgarian Mother is
> killed protecting her children.)
> So, yes, it was the Power of Love at work there. But it was a Power
> of Love only indirectly connected to Harry himself.
> 
> Lynda: I'm going to disagree with you here. The Power of Blood was
> important, but the Power of Love even moreso. It's the key to the 
books.

Julie:
Here I agree with you, Lynda. While Lily's blood "seals" the 
protection Harry receives both at Privet Drive and against
Voldemort, I do think her love for Harry was the element
that sealed the magic. Yes, Snape's love also gave her the
choice to live, or to die for Harry. But it was Lily's 
willingless to sacrifce herself that sealed the magic in
her blood. At least that's my interpretation, and since how
the protection actually worked is never spelled out, I'm
sticking with it. In the end it was the Power of Love doubled
(Snape's and Lily's) that saved Harry.

Julie, wondering if maybe this realization is why Harry
named his second child after Snape ;-)