DH reread CH 12 -- Cracking a Few Eggs.

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 186458

> > Steve:
> > > So, my point is, if the wizard world is OK with it, then why 
> > > are we still outraged?
> > 
> > Magpie:
> > Because why would people make moral decisions based on what
> > fictional people think? 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Not sure what this means, a great deal of morality is taught
> by fictional characters in myth, fable, legend, other books,
> and just plain fiction. I find great moral understanding in
> the Harry Potter books as well as the Ender's Game books.

Magpie:
I meant that if as a reader you find something wrong, the fact that the people within the fictional universe think it's great wouldn't necessarily change your mind. Would I change my views on slavery reading historical fiction set in the American South where none of the characters object to it? 

I think this is especially true in books where morality is claimed to be an issue in the book. "Think for youself about right and wrong" doesn't seem like it would be something strange to the HP-verse, and JKR's pretty good at setting up situations where different characters disagree on something somebody did. 

So the fact that the characters are pleased with themselves and don't get punished for something they do doesn't necessarily effect whether I think it was wrong. Sometimes it just makes me think the characters are a bit thick or getting unrealistic results because the author's writing the reactions to fit how she feels about the situation. Sometimes I think the author's just pushing her views of right and wrong into the story and I disagree with her. Or maybe we wouldn't disagree much about moral issues in real life but I don't enjoy the scenes the same way. That's obvious throughout the books, like where fair numbers of readers will find something a character did repulsive and in interviews JKR will reveal she was enjoying the character's actions vicariously.

 
> Magpie continues:
> 
> >I agree every thing happens in context. I don't think every
> > act done in HP is justified by the context. The fact that a
> > circumstance is unusual or the person uses restraint when 
> > they hit the torture button doesn't necessarily make it 
> > admirable or not troubling. Maybe it's forgivable, but that
> > doesn't really mean somebody's necessarily going to approve 
> > of what was done in the fictional story as a good thing. 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Oddly, on this we agree, I didn't mean to imply that it was
> OK for Harry to do what he did. It was wrong, especially when
> he had other choice available to him, but it was also 
> understandable, and it occurred under mitigating circumstances.
> And I think the Wizard World understands those mitigating
> circumstances and forgives the act. But while they forgive it,
> they also disapprove of it and condemn it as wrong. They
> socially and perhaps morally condemn it as wrong, but in a
> practical sense, and in a legal sense, they understand it
> and the circumstances, and are willing to let it go.

> If, Harry or McGonagall had sustained their action, or been
> brutal or cruel, then it would have been a different story.
> They both showed restraint relative to what those curses 
> could have done. In neither case was any real harm done. In
> neither case, was the 'victim' make to suffer beyond what was
> clearly necessary. Again, I ask as I've asked before, if it
> only last 3 seconds and does no harm, can we really call it
> torture? 

Magpie:
True--though I don't think in the Crucio scene that anybody in the scene thinks it's wrong at all. Harry stands by his action and McGonagall's protests have nothing to do with its being wrong. She describes the action as gallant but foolish (iow, foolish because Harry might have gotten caught).

Personally, I take the scene as just an action movie moment not unlike the "Not my daughter, you bitch!" moment. I think it's a moment we're supposed to cheer. (And if it's kept in the movie I suspect the screenwriters will set it up to make sure we do.) But I can understand why a lot of people are pulled up by it regardless of no harm done or relative restraint. I do think you can call zapping somebody with a torture curse for 3 seconds torture, just as electrocuting somebody's testicles for 3 seconds would be called torture. Just as everytime Harry's zapped with one for no matter how short a time it seems to be shown as torture. All torture is done under the claim that the victim is not suffering beyond what's "clearly necessary". In the case of Harry's Crucio it's not necessary at all. The guy just deserves some serious pain in Harry's opinion. A stunning spell would have taken care of necessary.

Steve:
> I don't think this approaches war crimes or crime against
> humanity the way most horrendous acts of war are viewed. 

Magpie:
Sure, but I don't think anybody has accused Harry of that. It seems like people just see this moment as a disappointing one for Harry that's a bigger deal for them than it's presented to be in canon. 

> Magpie concludes"
> 
> > When you start saying things are "technically unforgivables
> > but..." that doesn't sound like a way I want to think about
> > them. And that's not because I would never be okay with a 
> > character using an unforgivable.  

> bboyminn:
> 
> But that is the way life is, there are far more exceptions
> than there are rules. War, in and of itself, is an immoral act
> by all who participate. But we participate none the less because,
> right or wrong, it is sometimes necessary. 
> 
> The full statement I made was -
> 
> "Yes, these were technically Unforgivables, but they were done
> in unusual circumstances and done with great restraint."
> 
> Which was the lead in to a discussion of real world law. It
> is wrong to kill, but there are many exceptions to the general
> moral and legal statement. 

Magpie:
I agree, but the fact that there are exceptions and that's the way life works isn't a blanket OK for any time somebody does anything. 

Maybe a better question for me to understand is what seems so wrong or misguided about people talking about what they find wrong in these scenes? It's not like Harry's life is affected by readers voicing objections. He and his friends aren't punished or even reprimanded for the things they do within their own world. Why would it be better if readers just took a cue from wizards (or other readers) on the issue? Wizard law doesn't really matter to us, since it's fictional. I think people, when they voice opinions about stuff like this, are talking more about what they see as bigger than law. They just sometimes disagree on it--sometimes people think the characters were genuinely right in what they did, sometimes they think they were genuinely wrong. I don't think anybody cares whether or not Harry broke the law of his fictional world, they object the action itself and how it's presented. I'm sure the WW wouldn't think twice about letting Harry off if they knew he'd cast Unforgivables. Which means nothing one way or the other because Wizard law is notoriously biased and arbitrary.

I can understand this sort of thing being pointless if it's not the point of the book. Like, slavery just exists in GWTW and if you're only objecting to that you're not dealing with the story that much. But HP is all about the things the good guys do to fight evil, so this type things seems central to the story to me. 
Steve:

> So, apparently on this we disagree, I think 'unusual 
> circumstances' and 'great restraint' do matter and do qualify
> as mitigating circumstances, and you do not. Fair enough.

Magpie:
The scene didn't particularly bother me. Like I said I just thought it was an action movie moment. But I think, also, that people have meta-objections to the idea of the author setting up this curse the way she did and then wanting her hero to be able to throw it to show how cool he was. I think that's probably where a lot of readers come from when they don't like the scene. They know Harry's supposed to be cool in that scene and that didn't work for them. 

-m