Lack of re-examination SPOILERS for Corambis and Tigana

[jkoney65]

No: HPFGUIDX 186593

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mesmer44" <winterfell7 at ...> wrote:
>
 > Carol responds:
> > I don't think that anyone is arguing that Harry is a sadistic person, only that he had a sadistic moment that we don't see him regret.
> > 
> > As for canon that the spell is a form of torture, we've already provided it by providing the spell's etymology and quoting what Harry feels when it's used on him.
> > 
> > Here are a couple more quotes, both from OoP. First, with regard to the supposed "weapon" that Voldemort is developing:
> > 
> > "'He's got the Cruciatus Curse for causing pain,' said Harry. 'He doesn't need anything more efficient than that" (Am ed. 100).
> > 
> > Second, with regard to enjoyment, testimony from the arch sadist herself:
> > 
> > "'Never used an Unforgiveable Curse before, have you, boy?' [Bellatrix] yelled. <snip commentary> 'You need to *mean* them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain--to enjoy it--righteous anger won't hurt me for long" (810).
> > 
> > All of which goes to say that Harry's successful Crucio of Amycus, which ended only because Amycus was knocked unconscious, was not the result of righteous anger. Harry succeeded because he really wanted to cause pain (exactly how excruciating that pain was, he knew from experience) and because he enjoyed causing Amycus pain.
> > 
> > For that moment, which I'm happy to say is not repeated, Harry is indulging in sadism (as well as revenge; I'm pretty sure that he's scapegoating Amycus by targeting all his rage at Snape and Voldemort and the DEs in general on one man who, for the moment, represents them all). It's interesting that Harry recalls part of Bellatrix's little speech, the part about having to mean the Crucio to cast it successfully. In other words, he's admitting right there in the text that he *meant* to cause Amycus the excruciating pain that he himself has felt at least three times and witnessed even more frequently. But he's not admitting, perhaps not remembering, that you can't cast a Crucio when your only motivation is righteous wrath. And he's not admitting, or not remembering, that you have to enjoy inflicting pain to cast a successful Crucio.
> > 
> > JKR has Harry recall Bellatrix's words, or part of them. I think we're also supposed to remember the scene itself and the rest of her words, or, perhaps, to go back and check them to see whether Harry is remembering them accurately. (I don't know about you, but I was almost as disturbed by having him quote Bellatrix approvingly as the person who taught him how to cast an Unforgiveable Curse as by his casting it.)
> > 
> > Just possibly the awareness that he, Harry, has enough evil within himself to cast such a spell is sufficient to make him reject the Elder Wand (even with the soul bit no longer exerting its malign influence).
> > 
> > Whether that's true or not, canon clearly shows that a Crucio is torture and that you have to enjoy inflicting pain, at least on a particular person at a particular time, to cast one successfully.
> > 
> > Again, I'm not saying that Harry is a sadist. I'm saying that, under the extreme pressure of Voldemort's impending arrival, he had a sadistic moment. It would be absurd to compare him with Umbridge or Barty Crouch, much less Bellatrix or Voldemort, and say that he's as much of a sadist as they are. Most of the time, even when he's angry, he's motivated by righteous anger or something resembling it. But, in this instance, for this one moment, there's no distinction between him and Bellatrix except for the excuse that he gives for indulging his desire to inflict pain, the reason that McGonagall, herself wildly mistaken IMO, labels as "gallant."
> > 
> > Carol, hoping that Harry will not look back with pride on that moment
> >
> Steve responds:
> 
> That makes sense to me.  I can buy him having a moment where he meant to inflict pain, thereby assuring that the spell would work. I just don't think of him as being a sadistic person in general, based on a specific event of intentionally wanting to inflict pain. And didn't the spell last a few seconds? If Harry had stood there over his body laughing maniacally for minutes, then I'd have been more apt to think of him as sadistic. Him quoting Bellatrix didn't bother me too much.  We often remember things said by people we really hate or are scared of w/o necessarily agreeing w/ that person's motivations or reasons for saying these things.  I would have rather he'd remembered Lupin or someone else, that's true, but at least he remembered it.  I no longer believe Harry's reasons for casting the spell were chivalrous, or that McGonagall's label of what Harry did as being gallant was justified or accurate.  Chivalrous behavior in my understanding at least wouldn't involve intentionally wishing to inflict pain on someone, especially once they were incapacitated, and certainly not act sadistically toward someone. I may be wrong, but generally speaking, knights weren't big into torture were they?
>

jkoney:
I agree with Steve, although I never thought it was supposed to be a chivalrous act.

The spitting was just the straw that broke the camels back. What Harry wanted was pay-back. This was the guy who hit him with the curse at the end of HBP. Harry just found out he was the one abusing the students. We can add in the rest of Harry's day that I mentioned way up thread.

So Harry was able to "mean" the curse and was able to enjoy it in the sense that he wanted Amycus to feel what he had caused others to feel. Sadistic? No, I don't think so. Revenge, most definitely. I think he used his righteous anger to get him to the point where he could mean the curse.