Coming of Age in the Potterverse was Re: Dumbledore as shameless

[sistermagpie at earthlink.net]

No: HPFGUIDX 189013

> Zara:
> Is this the quote you mean?
> 
> > 2007 Bloomsbury chat:
> > Barbara: I was very disappointed to see harry use crucio and seem to enjoy it his failure to perform that kind of curse in the past has been a credit to his character why the change, and did harry later regret having enjoyed deliberately causing pain 
> > J.K. Rowling: Harry is not, and never has been, a saint. Like Snape, he is flawed and mortal.
> > J.K. Rowling: Harry's faults are primarily anger and occasional arrogance.
> > J.K. Rowling: On this occasion, he is very angry and acts accordingly. He is also in an extreme situation, and attempting to defend somebody very good against a violent and murderous opponent.
> 
> Zara:
> If we are attempting to discern her intention on the basis of what she has said in interviews, I would have to agree Pippin's view is what Rowling intended, that this was a bad action on Harry's part. 

Magpie:
Yes, that's the quote. I did already agree that Harry is supposed to be doing something bad here--I just don't see how this description lines up with a view that the scene is at all a big moment of showing that we're supposed to stop and think about how it's really bad that Harry made the choice easily and didn't regret.

The "he's flawed and human" line is one of the most common ones you hear in fandom and it's a defense. She's not saying that Harry crossed a serious line by torturing someone, she's saying he's "flawed" (a generic word that everyone is) and that he's "human" (another word that implies his actions here are pretty ordinary and understandable). The flaws in this case being "anger" (not so bad) and *occasional* arrogance. Sounds like a pretty good guy to me. Then she reminds us that he's "defending" someone "very good" against a violent and murderous opponent. 

So yeah, I think that line acknowledges that Harry did a bad thing there but it's mostly a defense. All summed up pretty well in the first line that Harry is not and has never been a saint as if the questioner's issues with the scene implied he should be. She's not actually dealing with the specific concerns the poster has about this action at all except to remind us of why Harry was doing something good in defending a "very good" person against a bad one.

Zara:> 
> That she is not, actually, concerned about Harry's specific action in this specific case is in my opinion because she knows his entire life story, and it is in that context that she is explaining the incident to the fan who raised this question. If Harry had continued to indulge in this sort of thing, this would be bad. 

Magpie:
Exactly. She's not talking about his specific action in this specific case--and that's exactly what the person found troubling. The person was not worried about whether or not Harry continued to indulge in this sort of thing, they were disturbed that he did it and enjoyed it here. JKR's answer, which I think you correctly describe here, imo is more in line with what I described, that she's playing down this scene rather than highlighting it as a dangerous thing we should still be thinking about. If Harry isn't continuing to indulge in this sort of thing why should it be something I as a reader am mulling over as a lot worse than Harry took it to be? 


Zara:
Thus, Rowling is explaining why Harry did this not to dismiss that it is (as the fan points out) disappointing, but to explain why a generally good character might act in a disappointing way.

Magpie:
She explains it by saying he's not and never has been a saint, he's flawed, he's human, and he was defending a very good person against a bad one. I don't see how that leads to her using the scene to highlight how Harry's ease with the action and lack of regret is a danger sign for how bad the action was on the level that the questioner seemed to think it was. It's barely more cautionary than McGonagall's reaction in canon. She's encouraging the person to look at how Harry's better in other scenes rather than the scene that disturbed the person. The question imo doesn't suggest that the person is confused as to how a generally good person could act in a disappointing way, she's disturbed that Harry chose to torture someone and enjoy it. I'm sure the questioner rolled with Harry doing plenty of not good things without being disturbed the way they were here.

-m