Disarming spell WAS: Re: Wandlore and more

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 185404

> Magpie:
> > What's non-warrior like about disarming your opponent? Warriors
> > aren't about magical power, they'd just be about defeating the 
> person
> > and I'd think expelliarimus would be used all the time. And Lupin
> > himself is never much connected to encouraging magical power that 
I
> > remember. He just kind of randomly says it in this one scene where
> > yeah, he does get put in this humiliating role of being lectured 
by
> > Harry.
> Alla:
> I would say that what's non-warrior like in this situation is what 
> JKR presents as different about Harry – that he would rather stun 
> then kill, that he is rather different kind of warrior, if you may. 
> Remember Aaang? You know that I love Avatar, but I confess to 
having 
> very little sympathy to his agonizing at the end as to how he can 
> destroy the Lord there without killing him. However, I see what he 
> did as very similar and also as either non-warrior like or very 
> different kind of warrior in a way. However, however, one thing I 
> agree with you is that having Lupin saying that felt strange to me 
> to. I was like, since when Remus was portrayed as having such urge 
to 
> kill your opponents, or at least hurt them more than Harry.

Magpie:
Yes, but that's exactly the point--Aang is presented as a pacifist. 
His beliefs about murder are a major belief of his people. So he had 
a reason to want to avoid that one act and his feeling like it was 
wrong for him, and it was genuinely hard for him to overcome them.

But with Harry I'm saying regarding the Crucio spell that obviously 
he doesn't shrink from doing something less passive than 
Expelliarimus. As you say, he's susceptible to anger, but whatever 
the reason Harry just doesn't have any sort of block about it if he 
chooses a torture spell in a moment where his alleged "signature" 
spell would have been an obvious choice. Or even something less 
violent but more effective like a stunning spell. So did Harry come 
to agree with Lupin? If it's just that he got angry then his instinct 
was easily overcome with anger.

So it just seems like the whole concept of Harry as not being 
naturally violent is overdone there. Sure he's not an overly violent 
person, but Lupin's speech about how he's suddenly got to work on not 
shying away from something other than Expelliarimus just seems a new 
idea that doesn't really go anywhere. Like a way to set up Harry as 
being innocent in war without any real consequences.

Where as with Aang there are consequences. He doesn't just have an 
instinct for non-violence, he's a committed pacifist. When people 
tell him he's got to get over it it really is a problem. Here it's 
more like if they were in a fight and Sokka knocked a sword out of 
someone's hand with his boomerang and Iroh suddenly said, "Sokka, 
what was up with that? Most people would have thrown the boomerang at 
his head and killed him. You need to work on that sweet nature of 
yours--this is war!" It would be silly because yeah, Sokka isn't an 
angry, violent guy either, but he's never been presented as having a 
block about using force any more than Harry has.

-m