DH reread CH 12 -- Cracking a Few Eggs.

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 186471

> > Magpie:
> > Some children are, I know. And yet McGonagall, the character that JKR has in the scene with him, calls his action gallant. And in an interview JKR reacts to children's shock with "Well, he's never been a saint." I just don't see this scene written at all as intending to shock anybody with Harry's sadism and cruelty. The book's YA at this point even. 
> 
> Pippin:
> Of course it's YA -- it's fantasy violence.

Magpie:
I mean it's YA so why would JKR be writing primarily for the reactions of young children? YA is for older kids.

Pippin: 
> But what would Neville say? Wouldn't he sound a lot like Harry sounds earlier in the book, after he's read Rita Skeeter's version of Dumbledore's youth? Here's Neville risking his neck so that crucio won't be used as a punishment, and meanwhile Harry, his hero, is blasting a DE just for fun. I seriously doubt that Neville would cheer if he knew. 

Magpie:
I think Neville would grimly back Harry up. He's fighting to keep the students from being forced to practice them on others. If Harry did it in this instance I think Neville would grimly stand by the action and maybe even compliment him on it.

Pippin: 
> "Saint" is used sarcastically several times in canon. And each time, it's in the context of  doing something which the speaker thinks is seriously wrong, not some minor violation of the rules that only a prig like Percy would disapprove of. The contexts are stealing the philosopher's stone,  attempted murder, and the Dumbledore family's treatment and possible murder of Ariana. 

Magpie:
In the context that JKR uses it in the interview I think it sounds pretty breezy. She's not being sarcastic that I can see (if she's being sarcastic then she's claiming Harry is a saint.) He's never been a saint and he's got a temper. I don't remember exactly how people use the term in those other instances, so I don't know if they're being defensive.

jkoney:
It seems like you are taking it out of context and expanding on it.

Harry's day started with the break in at Gringotts and ended with him finding his friends in the ROR where they are still showing signs of having been tortured. He's also under a time constraint because he needs to find the horcrux as soon as possible because Voldemort has just been told that Harry is at the castle. Standing in front of him is the person who tortured his friends and who is now spitting in the face of McGonagall. Harry then takes of the cloak and tells Carrow that he shouldn't have done that. Carrow turns and Harry curses
him.

Harry hit him with the curse and stopped. There was no excess time, no targeting his testicles, eyes, etc. It was if Harry had TASERed him. People don't consider a TASER a form of torture, unless someone does it repeatedly for a long time.
That didn't happen here.

Magpie:
I don't think I'm taking anything out of context or exaggerating it. First, Harry's bad day has little to do with the definition of Crucio. I know he's in a bad mood, I know he's emotional, and I know he's angry when Carrow spits on McGonagall.

Harry uses the curse named for the Latin word for torture. A curse that we've seen numerous times in canon, and never for more than a few seconds. But only in this instance is it suddenly not torture because it didn't last a long time. 

The point of the testicle comment was that it was designed for maximum suffering even in small bursts. Torture is used to cause pain. Harry's experience of Crucio shows us that this is torture--far worse than the testicle electrode, actually. Agonizing pain you think you're going to die from. A spell about wanting to cause pain, that's named after the word for that concept. Why would I dial it down to taser for Harry?

jkoney:
Now looking at it after the fact as an univolved spectator people can say that if he was really good he would have stunned him and forgiven him for his actions.

That would have been a plastic hero. Someone everyone would have complained about for being too perfect.

Magpie:
You think a hero is plastic or unbelievable and "too perfect" because he doesn't react to somebody spitting at his teacher by using the torture curse? I don't believe for one second that anybody would have read a scene where Harry used one of the dozens of spells more about disabling or knocking Carrow out and said it was the least bit unbelievable, or that it made Harry too perfect. JKR's the one who made a big deal about this being the torture curse and named it after that concept. 

There doesn't seem to be a problem describing it as torture in any other instance. Was Voldemort only tasering Harry so it was no big deal in GoF? 

Also, if Harry's showing restraint in the scene, how is the scene about showing him not being perfect? Maybe it's showing he's not perfect in the sense of not having to be a boy scout that nobody would want him to be (and that he wouldn't be anyway), but not showing any particular flaws if he's actually showing restraint and doing the only realistic thing. (Hell, Carrow's showing even more restraint by merely spitting on McGonagall--he probably could have pulled out the cutting curse too.)
-m