Disarming spell WAS: Re: Wandlore and more

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 185430

Montavilla47 wrote:
> 
> This is a small point, but it seems important to me.  When Lupin
chastises Harry for using Expelliarmus, Harry had used that spell
because he recognized the "DE" as Stan Shunpike, and believes that
Stan was acting under Imperius. 

Carol responds:
I agree. He clearly distinguished between Stan and the men he
considered to be real or voluntary DEs and didn't want to send him to
his death by Stupefying him. He changed tactics after Stan's mask fell
off and revealed his identity. Had he been anyone else except the
young man whom Harry had been using against Scrimgeour as an example
of the Ministry's injustice, Harry would not have cared whether he
lived or died. (Sidenote: Expelliarmus would have been just as
effective on any other DE, considering that you can't fight without a
wand, and it would have taken the DE out of the battle at least till
he found his wand on the ground.) Harry did, however, use other
nonfatal tactics like the blocking spell (Impedimenta?).

Montavilla: 
> I don't think that I would have agreed with Harry about why Stan 
> was there, but it's clear that *Harry* believes that Stan is an
innocent.

Carol responds:

Not to get farther off track, but I have mixed feelings about Stan and
would be interested in your reasons for thinking that Stan is not
innocent. (Okay, I do want to discuss people rather than wands, and
Stan's guilt or innocence is a promising topic.)

Montavilla: 
> I haven't reread that chapter lately, and I didn't catch it the
first time, but in a recap I noticed that Harry takes out at least two
Death Eaters in that chase--one of them by blowing up Hedwig's body. 
They are flying at a great height:  the obvious outcome of being
knocked off their brooms--even if they aren't hurt by the exploding
owl or the brick wall--is that they are going to die from the fall. 
But, since we don't see that, it kind of glides by and we don't
realize that Harry is trying to kill people.

Carol:
I don't think that the wall, which appears to be the result of another
basic defensive spell, Impedimenta, would do anything except
temporarily prevent the DE from flying forward or casting a spell.
It's an invisible but temporary deterrent. But I agree that his
willingess to cast Stupefy at that height, and even to blow up
Hedwig's cage (now that sh'es dead) indicates that he's willing to
fight to the death (but not to use AK to do it, which would somehow
seem like murder rather than self-defense). He did say to DD in the
Weasley's shed in OoP that if he died, he wanted to take as many DEs
with him as he could. Not the attitude of a pacifist if you ask me.
So, yes, your point that he distinguishes between Stan and the other
DEs is important, but it seems to go over Lupin's head. (I need to
reread the passage in context to be sure.)

montavilla:
> Which is why the idea that Harry is loath to kill people seems odd
to me--not to mention the oddness of Lupin knowing that Harry used it
in the first place--wasn't he way far away at that point?  How loudly
did Harry yell it?  Or, did Lupin know because suddenly all his Death
Eater pursuers stopped, yelled out, "Harry number 6 just used
Expelliarmus!" and then turned around?

Carol:
Yikes! Both of us need to reread the chapter, apparently. I can't
answer the questions about Lupin at the moment.

But the idea that Harry is unwilling to kill may come from his
interpretation to the Prophecy, that he must either "murder" Voldemort
or be murdered by him. And in the end, he chooses to be murdered (and,
the second time around, relies on luck, the Elder Wand, and
Expelliarmus to avoid "murder.") Possibly, he doesn't want to use the
spell that killed his parents (and Cedric and Dumbledore and many
others) because he associates it with Voldemort, much as Neville
refuses to use Crucio, the spell that drove his parents to insanity,
on anyone, even though the penalty is suffering its effects himself.
(Even in the battle, Neville prefers plant warfare to using his wand.)
At any rate, Harry has no aversion to using, or attempting to use
Crucio, even though he's felt its horrific pain himself, nor to using
Imperio when Griphook suggests it and the occasion seems to call for
it. But we never see him trying to kill anyone, not even Bellatrix
after she killed Sirius or Snape after he "murdered" Dumbledore.

Montevilla: 
> It's obvious that Lupin is saying this in order to set up the idea
that Harry would rather disarm than kill, and that Lupin considers
this too mild a spell in a life or death situation--and that the DEs
consider it Harry's "signature spell."  He's basically telling Harry
not to be such a wuss.

Carol:
Right. But here and elsewhere in DH, Lupin is wrong (at least from
Harry's and JKR's point of view). If Harry had listened to Lupin and
AK'd Voldemort, the story would have ended a lot less happily.
(Besides, I think JKR had her child readers in mind when she made sure
that Harry didn't use a Killing Curse to defeat Voldemort. Killing him
with an Expelliarmus is rather like David killing Goliath with a
slingshot.)

Montevilla:
> As a story point, the reason to set this up is either to have Harry
prove the better man than Lupin *because* of the pacifism, or to have
Harry get over his wussiness at a crucial moment.  I think JKR was
setting up the former, because during the ultimate duel, Harry wins by
casting Expelliarmus.  But, we also get the moment when Harry
overcomes his wussiness by Crucio'ing Amycus.  So, she does both, in a
way.
> 
> But by doing both, it really comes off (to me, anyway), that she's
having her cake and eating it too.  There's really no reason for Harry
*not* to cast an AK at Voldemort at the end.  He would have won either
way, because of the wand mastery.  So, Harry's way is not better than
Lupin's... it's just a way to keep him appearing to follow the Hero's
code of winning without getting his hands dirty.

Carol responds:
I don't quite agree. I think that Lupin *is* wrong and that it's
important to JKR and her child readers that Harry win without, as you
say, getting his hands dirty. Certainly, using an AK on the first
confrontation would have ruined everything. Harry had to "die" to
destroy the soul bit and sacrifice himself to activate the Love magic.
Using an AK after that would seem contradictory and hypocritical, not
to mention the other reasons I've already given for Harry's apparent
aversion to that spell. In any case, the Expelliarmus gives him the
Elder Wand at the same time letting the wand choose to backfire on
Voldemort, duplicating the original attempt to kill Harry when his own
AK rebounded on him through Lily's accidental Love magic (and
Voldemort's broken promise to Snape). Having Voldemort die in that way
brings the story full circle and also deflates him. He's not a
powerful opponent destroyed by Harry's killing curse. He's a frail,
shriveled body with a deformed and undeveloped soul, killed by his own
wand and his own curse, the weapon he has so often used on others in
either rage or cold blood. It's fitting that he should be hoist with
his own petard. It's poetic justice. And it works both thematically
and in terms of plot structure to bring the story full circle. (what
would have happened had Harry used an AK, I don't know. He might have
been killed himself if the spells collided in midair. This way, he
trusts as always to luck (including the luck of being chosen as master
by the Elder Wand). Harry remains Harry, without the burden of having
cast an AK on his "pure" soul.
> 
Montavilla47
> Realizing this post strayed a lot from what she originally wanted to
say--which was that Harry wasn't loath to harm Death Eaters, but only
loath to harm someone he thinks is innocent.

Carol:
But that's the fun of posting. We always find that we have more to say
than we originally thought, and others can react to those side
thoughts as well as to the main point.

Carol, glad that Montavilla's post grew in the telling and hoping that
she'll expand on her thoughts about Stan Shunpike