Wandlore and more

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 185390

> Carol responds:
> Unless JKR is being completely inconsistent, I seriously doubt that
> "all the kids at school" are being forced to cast Crucios. Neville,
> our authority for what's happening at Hogwarts, never says any such
> thing, IIRC.

Magpie:
Yes, I should have said just that "kids at school" were being taught 
Crucios--it certainly does seem like there's some forcing going on. 
But I just meant that in this book (where JKR is known to be 
inconsistent in places) it doesn't seem like Crucio is restricted to 
only a rare few. And if it were, I don't see why Harry wouldn't be 
one of them. He says he does mean it when he casts it, and he seems 
to feel pleasure and satisfaction afterwards at the pain he 
inflicted. 

> Magpie:
> It's possible, but for me it's very hard for it not to be incredibly
icky. It's hard not to give Harry "credit" (if one considers it a
credit) for not being able to cast a Crucio against Bellatrix, but
then later when he proves to not only be able to do one just fine but
feel satisfied about it there's a little blame on his wand. Even if
it's not complete blame, even if it's not said to be an excuse, it's
still responsible for whatever little extra thing made the difference.

Pippin:
I don't think so. An trained dog will obey a command while a dog with
less training might fail because it's not certain what's expected of
it. But most people don't have any problem feeling that the moral
responsibility for what a dog does on command is entirely with the
handler and not even a little bit with the dog.

Magpie:
We're not talking about a trained dog. I would never feel that way if 
we were. I'm talking about what feels to me like the important issue 
of judging innate character throughout the books. Harry's inability 
to cast the curse at Bellatrix was read by many--understandably, imo--
as a sign of his own lack of sadism in OotP and in this thread there 
was even a mention of the Draco's wand theory explaining what seemed 
like a problem because of that. So it still reads to me as a handy 
way of blaming something uncomfortable about Harry (if one finds it 
uncomfortable) on another character's bad character contaminating his 
action. As you say here:

Pippin:
Snape predicted that Harry would never have the nerve or the ability
to cast Unforgivable curses. He didn't blame Harry's incompetence on a
lack of practice, though he'd done so many times in the past. Given
that Harry didn't practice, and didn't seem to grow noticeably in
nerve or other magical abilities, it's legitimate to wonder why he
suddenly showed skill with a spell which Draco had performed but he
had not.

Magpie:
Or else Snape was just wrong and Harry had both the nerve and the 
ability. It's not like Snape's ever been a particularly good judge of 
Harry's character--how would he know? He's taunting him.

There's nothing unusual or all that sudden about Harry's showing a 
skill here. The first time he tried the spell it didn't quite work 
and Bellatrix gave a reason why. The second time we don't know how it 
would have worked or not. This time it works--which makes it no 
different than any other time Harry has tried and failed at a spell 
and then eventually gotten it. (He's had greater blocks around spells 
in the past that he eventually got.) Harry himself even comments on 
what the difference was this time: he really meant it. Which makes 
perfect sense. The other two times Harry was throwing the spell in a 
rage. Here he was casting it cold-bloodedly and it worked. No unusual 
skill growth whatsoever. It's just the first time he's cast a 
particular spell well.

-m