DH reread CH 12 -- Cracking a Few Eggs.

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 186483

Magpie wrote:
> <snip> There's plenty of things that happen in the books that I think come across as clearly bad without anybody having to point them out. In this case, it's not like I don't think Harry's supposed to having a lapse here. I just think it's the kind of lapse that jkoney describes--a lapse that's not a big deal at all, that's realistic for people in this situation. In fact s/he used the same defense for it, again using the word saint. The difference isn't between thinking Crucio is good or bad--everyone agrees that it's bad. The difference is between whether this is bad in the sense of Crouch using Crucios or bad in the sense of Harry blowing up Aunt Marge or MWPP becoming animagi. I think it's more the latter than the former.

Carol responds:
The question of authorial intentions is always tricky, especially since such intentions aren't always expressed or even conscious. All we have to go on here is JKR's remark that Harry has never been a saint, which certainly does come through clearly at this moment. (He may be a Christ figure, to revert to that topic for a moment, but he is assuredly not Christ.)

Nevertheless, we readers have been bombarded with evidence throughout books four through six that the Unforgiveable Curses in general and the Cruciatus Curse in particular are horrible. We're forced to make an exception for Snape using an AK on Dumbledore at his command (it seems clear that DD expected that spell and no other), but, in general, we're led to believe that those spells are illegal for good reason, that Crouch Sr. was wrong to authorize their use for Aurors, that his DE son was wrong to use Imperius on his (or rather Moody's) students, and that only Death Eaters generally use them. We're shocked (aren't we? I was) when Harry attempts to use one on Bellatrix and relieved that he failed, not because we fear that he'll be arrested (the Ministry won't know who cast which spell if they can't tell Dobby's Hover Charm from Harry's) but because "righteous anger won't hurt [Bellatrix] for long." Whew! We think. Harry doesn't have it in him to enjoy hurting people, even Bellatrix. Obviously, he's a better person than she is.

Harry, however, doesn't seem to learn this lesson, and keeps on trying to Crucio people (first Snape, unsuccessfully, twice, and then Amycus, successfully). He knows perfectly well what a Crucio feels like, and yet he's willing to use it on other people who, in his view, "deserve" it. He holds Draco Malfoy in contempt for his supposed love of Dark Magic (not demonstrated anywhere that I know of, but, oh, well), yet he uses it himself, not just Crucio but Sectumsempra (admittedly ineffectively on Inferi, but he knows it's Dark magic), and he uses the Imperius Curse, at Griphook's urging, on a DE and an innocent Goblin in DH (admittedly in desperate circumstances, but why not use Confundus instead?). All of this sets us up for Harry's using a successful Crucio on Amycus Carrow, knowing that to cast a successful Crucio he must want to cause excruciating pain, and knowing from Amycus's writhing and howling that that's exactly what he's done.

What, exactly, is going on here? As Magpie states, it appears that JKR
"just wrote a scene where she had a character use the torture curse and treated it fairly lightly, as not in serious conflict with Harry as hero. And that actually seems pretty consistent throughout the books for me."

I can't deny that the Crucio of Amycus Carrow appears to be treated lightly by the good characters (Harry and McGonagall) and by the narrator, who is writing from Harry's point of view. But it doesn't necessarily follow that the *author* considers the Crucio foolish but gallant and approves of McGonagall's following suit and expects the reader to share her judgment. After all, we've seen Harry act mistakenly before, and this action is about as clear an example of "right vs. easy" as we're ever going to see. The HP books are not parables or fables in which the moral is openly stated. The reader in many cases is left to judge for himself whether a particular action is right or wrong. (Take Harry's Sectumsempra, which the characters debate and yet never arrive at the answer I think is correct: It was both wrong and foolish to use an unknown spell marked "for enemies." The fact that it led to Harry's missing a Quidditch game is wholly irrelevant.) IOW, JKR isn't telling the reader what to think, but I suspect that she intended for most readers to be shocked by Harry's successful Crucio, which goes against everything we've seen in the books so far. (I was shocked. The young readers of my acquaintance were shocked. I suspect that most movie goers who haven't read the books--sorry, List Elves!--will be shocked if that Crucio appears onscreen, especially if Harry's face shows the sadism--enjoyment of inflicting pain--necessary for casting that spell.

Magpie:
> There's a difference between Crouch's crucios and Harry's. 

Carol:
Is there? I'm not so sure. (In any case, Barty Sr. only authorized Crucios; he never uses any Unforgiveable except an Imperius himself.) The Crucios cast by Voldemort, Bellatrix, Krum under Crouch Jr.'s Imperius Curse, Crouch Jr. himself on a spider (whose suffering he was enjoying, to Neville's distress), Amycus, Crabbe-n-Goyle, and Draco (half-hating, half-enjoying what he was doing or he could never have succeeded) are all depicted as terrible. We know what the victims are feeling because the agony has been described by the narrator from Harry's point of view. We've seen the other victims shriek and howl and writhe in agony--exactly as Amycus does. There's no difference--except in the reaction of the good characters.

Again, what are we to make of it? Harry acting like a Death Eater and the deluded McGonagall approving? Are we also supposed to approve because Harry is, after all, Harry, the Chosen One? Are we supposed to make excuses for him (he was under a lot of stress and Amycus deserved it)? Clearly, he *didn't* use restraint. He *meant* that Curse. He *intended* to inflict the same agony that he, himself, had felt and had not forgotten. Only the Amycus's striking the bookcase and being knocked out cold stopped him.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't approve. I understand his behavior, but I can't excuse it. And "Harry is not a saint" is not sufficient explanation. 

I think that JKR deliberately refrains from having Harry rethink or actively regret that Crucio, in part because, at that point in the story, Harry is still bent on revenge against Snape and still thinks he has to kill Voldemort. Possibly--and I'm only thinking with my keyboard here (speculating, IOW)--he's unconsciously preparing himself to cast an AK, the last and worst of the Unforgiveables and the only way he knows of to kill Voldemort--by casting the other two. He does not yet realize that he has to sacrifice himself, not fight, much less that a second confrontation (in which he can also choose not to kill) will follow the first.

And here's another thought. We don't know exactly what's going on in Harry's unconscious mind after his visit to the Pensieve (his conscious mind is preoccupied with his upcoming self-sacrifice and Dumbledore's betrayal"), but one thought is extremely revealing. It's clear that he now identifies not only with the previously hated Severus Snape but with Voldemort himself to the degree that he thinks of them together as "the abandoned boys" whose only home was Hogwarts. And later, Harry publicly vindicates Snape and offers Voldemort a chance for redemption. After King's Cross, he also forgives the flawed and manipulative Dumbledore for a variety of failings, most notably withholding the information that he would have to sacrifice himself.

Could Harry have understood and forgiven Snape and Dumbledore and resisted the temptation to kill Voldemort had he not also been a flawed human being? And would the schoolboy flaws of breaking rules, lying to friends and teachers alike, and cheating on homework have been sufficient? Or did he need to feel hatred and the desire for revenge, even yielding to the temptation to torture another human being (however despicable) before he could understand and forgive the even more serious failings of others?

I don't know what JKR intended us to feel. I don't really care, considering how different my views are from hers in such matters as Marietta's "spots" and Fred and George's antics. All I know is that, for me, this interpretation works. It's hard, perhaps impossible, to forgive those who've trespassed against us if we haven't trespassed ourselves, even if not to the same degree.

And, much as I hate the Crucio scene (especially McGonagall's reaction), I'm glad that for once Harry is clearly doing the wrong thing (beyond taking credit for potions improvements that aren't his own or telling a lie) rather than, say, being deluded by Voldemort into going to the MoM or using a Dark spell because he doesn't know what it does. All too often, Harry's failings are either trivial or the result of a mistake or (in the case of Quidditch) someone else's fault. Here, in this instance, no one is to blame except Harry. He is, IMO, clearly in the wrong, regardless of his own lack of remorse and McGonagall's reaction. He has yielded, like Snape and Dumbledore and Voldemort before him, to the temptation to do evil, and, having done so, he can now understand both himself and them, and, once he knows that he must sacrifice himself rather than fight, give up the desire for revenge that has consumed him (and manifests itself in that Crucio). And having done that, he can also forgive.

Carol, who was also going to discuss the last two books as revealing the humanity of Death Eaters and the flaws of good characters but didn't have room in this post