A Simpler Scenario

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> >> Pippin:
> >> Why then have such a horror of this one particular spell? 
>  
> > Kneasy: 
> > Because it has only one purpose and it's supposed to be unstoppable.
> 
> And that fits in with Rowling's metaphysics, too.  She says that what 
> makes Voldemort so evil is that he kills, and dead is dead is dead in 
> her world.  She's also made comments about how awful it is to take a 
> human life.
> 
> Given the model we've been shown of intention powering the 
> Unforgivable Curses (Crucio clearly, the others more implies), AK is 
> an evil, evil thing precisely for Kneasy's reasons.  It kills people, 
> it can be stopped by inanimate objects (but blasts them apart), but 
> the only person who has ever 'survived' it is Harry, and for specific 
> reasons.
> 
> IMO, it would also really defang the end of the book to then go "But 
> it was a fake AK, and Snape cast this other spell instead, and..."  
> The interest is in *why* Snape did such a horrific thing.
> 


Interestingly, Jo's metaphysics are somewhat limited, if not tinged with
with partiality.

GoF chap. 14, The Unforgivable Curses.
"The use of any one of them on a fellow human being is enough to earn
a life sentence in Azkaban."

Zap Dobby (yes please!), Grawp, Firenze or the manager at Gringotts
and you'll probably be all right. Do the world a favour by giving Luna
the green light and it's "Go to goal, go directly to goal, do not pass Go,
do not collect 200 Galleons.

Hardly seems fair, does it? 

By the same token if DD can be proved not to be human, Snape can be 
excused his AK not matter what his motives were.

Now there's a nice little project for someone.

Kneasy