![[icon]](http://www.journalfen.net/userpic/67365/9138) |
The HMS STFU - Oh dear
|
| | Subject: | Oh dear | | Time: | 10:16 am |
|
| Just a quick discussion lead-in that I've started thinking about ...
Keiran Halcyon has said in the Rose Potter series that the Unforgivables aren't really Dark, it all depends on the caster, and we have repeatedly mocked this viewpoint. Now DH has shown us our heroes performing these curses. Thoughts?
ETA: Sorry, sorry, not all of my thoughts. Was busy then, still am (sort of) busy, will come back with links later. I had been reading a thread on the SQ that dealt with this subject - one person said straight out that it seems that it's the intent that makes it Dark or not, which is what Keiran's been saying, and is what inspired this post. The concentration there (and what, I ought to have clarified, I was mainly thinking of) was on the fact that Bellatrix said that you have to want to enjoy someone else's pain, the way Dumbledore et al. were shown to be better than others for not using the Unforgiveables in the first war, the emphasis placed on how unforgiveable they are, and the fact that Harry used the Cruciatus on Carrow, possibly only for spitting at McGonagall.
(Because I really do realize the difference between Harry's and Rose's use of the Unforgiveables, really I do. But we have at least mentioned while mocking that that's not the way they work in canon!) | comments: Poke a delusional shipper     |
![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif) sheep | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2007-08-22 02:23 pm (UTC) |
|
| | They are still wrong, I can understand when they were in Gringotts, but Harry torturing that guy? Unacceptable. He is human, and has faults, though. | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| Agreed.
I do think that was an important character moment. I mean, in the end we have Harry walking willingly to his death, sacrificing himself to save everyone; the fact that he’s not a saint should have been emphasized. And, ‘sometimes I get angry and capslock’, just wouldn’t be enough, IMO.
Keiran took an obvious flaw and refused to acknowledge it as such. And of course, achieved an opposite effect.
| | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| With DH, I got the impression that it wasn't that the curses weren't Dark, but that the pressures of the situation made a lot more wizards (including Our Heroes) considering doing bad things for the greater good, or because they can't see a choice out that doesn't involve Bad Things Happening. The consequences could have been dealt with more, here -- or maybe I just need to reread.
Maybe it's just me, but 'it all depends on the caster' its hard to justify with spells that exist only to cause excruciating pain, or to kill someone, when so many other spells exist that can incapacitate quickly and mostly harmlessly.
I suppose I prefer 'sometimes good people do bad things for reasons that seem good at the time (but might not be)' than 'they are not bad things when good people do them'. The latter smacks a lot of a double standard, and can lead to a slippery slope, where the text keeps telling us that Our Heroes are Good Guys, when their actions just show them as morally equivalent to the Bad Guys. (Not that I mind protagonists that aren't any better than the antagonists. I'd just like the story to either go with that, or write a protagonist who is good by his actions, and stop just putting a Good Guy Aura around the person I'm supposed to root for and calling it done.) | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| How existentialist do you want to get? :)
You can look at any spell as a kind of tool, a way of making what you want or need. I collect blades for example. None of them have been used to kill (well, not by me) but obviously they could be. Are they evil in and of themselves or is the killer in the wielder? Is the point that having a blade (please note how deftly I'm sidestepping the gun issue, thank you) makes it easier to kill a factor? I mean, killing with your bare hands is for the most part difficult. Killing with a blade if you know how to use the blade properly is a tich easier. Does the fact that the blade facilitates killing come into the equasion?
The real problem is that Halcyon is a hack who wanted to create a superpowered TacoHarry and did. The other problem is that like a lot of people Halcyon thinks killing equals real power. ProtoDeathEater philosophy 101: I am a God because I can destroy. The only answer is, be a real God and create. You can't. Loser.
Unforgiveables are said to be such I think because nothing which can be done with them ought to be done lightly or easily, without much thought. Whipping a Crucio at the waitress who didn't bring your food as quickly as you wanted is the equivalent of the mobster who pulls aside his jacket to show he's armed so he gets better service at his favorite bistro. This may seem like a powerplay but it's overkill, like building a nuclear weapon to intimidate your neighbor into keeping his lawn trimmed to your standards. It's bullying.
What Rowling shows is that the use of Unforgiveables save in extremis is simply bullying. Imagine if every wizard and witch in her world used them any damn time they felt like it; there'd be three survivors. There is a vast difference between Voldemort using avada kedavra on the Muggle Studies professor and Molly Weasley using the same thing on Bellatrix Lestrange.
I think Bellatrix was wrong when she told Harry you had to enjoy using Unforgiveables to be able to do so. I think she enjoys it and so it works for her. For most of wizarding society it's more a matter of dire necessity. Molly had to have seen two of her children maimed for life, a third die and the very imminent possibility of another one dying to go for the AK. Bella just had to get out of bed in the morning. Which says more about them as people than anything else I can think of.
Halcyon's problem (and it's a real problem) is a constant violation of the old "show, don't tell" principle of writing.
Halcyon tells us everyone loves Rose. Halcyon actually demonstrates this but can't seem to make many of us see why the hell everyone loves Rose. That's one obnoxious little bint right there, Girl Who Lived or not.
Halcyon also tells us that Rose Is Good but again fails to show this. From Halcyon's point of view we can surmise that since Rose Is Good everything she does is good. The problem is, she isn't and it isn't.
So, yeah, for Halcyon saying the intent behind the Unforgiveable is the key to allowing her TacoHarrySue to do anything without remorse or reprisals.
I wonder what Halcyon thinks of the fact that Harry didn't defeat Voldemort with a well-aimed Unforgiveable but simply turned Riddle's own Unforgiveable back. That's brilliant.
Rowling understands that command of Unforgiveables doesn't make you stronger. Halcyon doesn't get it, see all of his works for details.
| | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| | Oh, right, there's a big difference between the way Keiran and Jo use the Unforgivables, no doubt about that. But I mean when he Imperiates people to get into Gringotts and when he Cruciates Carrow - where there doesn't seem to be any issue with him using them when he could have used different spells (Confounding and Stunning, respectively). Must dash, early dinner. | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| Well, with Carrow, he was probably thinking about the students he ordered to Cruciate their friends as well as his abuse of Neville, which makes Harry's use of the Cruciatus more understandable from a motivation standpoint. Not any more right, of course.
Still doesn't explain Gringotts, though. That's something I've wondered myself. | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| I think the use of Imperio in Gringotts rather than the Confundus Charm is because, based on the other onscreen experience we've had with it, the caster has to physically tell the person what they want them to do to achieve any specific effect. With Imperio, the intent is somehow bound into the curse itself, it takes less time, and presumably it's less detectable. If Harry had to stand around actually telling the guards at Gringotts to ignore the warnings, someone is really likely to have noticed. Besides, in a high-pressure situation like that, you're more likely to obey someone without really thinking first, particularly if they have their hands literally around your throat.
As for Harry's use of Cruciatus, I think at that point he'd just literally been pushed to his breaking point. He's been working for almost a year, he's down to locating one Horcrux, and Voldemort is quite literally on his way to make all his efforts go to shit. Not to mention all the students that had been tortured at Carrow's hands -- spitting in McGonnagal's face was just the last straw that made him go 'snap'.
Do I think this justifies their use at all? No, but it doesn't make Harry an Evil Overlord in training.
And McGonnagal's use of Imperio... yeah, I'd say that's the least understandable use in the entire book. But I suppose you could argue that Confundus has a harder time making someone do something they absolutely don't want to do.
And I think Rowling might have handled it just a *little* better, but that's seriously my only complaint about the book. | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| (Anonymous) | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2007-08-23 02:03 am (UTC) |
|
| Damn, this format is confusing. That "marry me" was intended for Baranduyn, by the way.
~also Caralynne | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
mcity | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2007-08-23 04:07 am (UTC) |
|
| The other problem is that like a lot of people Halcyon thinks killing equals real power. "Any two bit thug with a gun can kill. But to give life...that's real power."
One of the few good bits about Batman and Robin. Heck, I'm not even sure that was in the movie. | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| I guess I just figured it followed along the lines of real life violence. Killing someone is wrong, yet when you're fighting for your own life it's understandable. You can be imprisoned for killing someone just as you can be imprisoned for an AK, but maybe if it's in self-defense you can get off.
I think it's likely that Dark magic is dark regardless, but at times you have to use it, and sometimes even good people will use it without it being an absolute necessity if they are angered enough (see: Harry torturing the guy after he spat on McGonnagal). | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| | I didn't get the impression that they suddenly became light just cos Harry was using them - and it should be noted he never AK-ed anyone. | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| By the time the HP kids were using them, they were adults immersed in war. That doesn't make them less dark, but it makes it more understandable that they were doing dark things.
Rose was throwing them around like candy since she was like 12 or so, right? | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| (Anonymous) | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2007-08-23 12:55 am (UTC) |
|
| Well, if you've been following the SQ thread, then you already know what I think -- I'm the silent speaker there. But the use of the Forgivable Curses, and it wasn't just Harry it was McGonagall and it was retroactively Snape, is one of my two biggest gripes with the books (the other is the mockery that was made of inter-House unity) and seriously detracted from my enjoyment of the last third or so.
As for the "it's war" excuse: Harry wasn't at war with Gringotts. McGonagall wasn't dueling Carrow. And the spell Snape cast has been cast in combat successfuly at its intended target by only one other wizard on screen, and I leave his name to you as a riddle. I was absolutely outraged at Jo Rowling over this issue, and still am. | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| I was absolutely outraged at Jo Rowling over this issue, and still am.
I was absolutely outraged at the immature fans who wanted the main heroes to remain pure and innocent and unrealistic, and still am.
| | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| (Anonymous) | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2007-08-24 02:34 am (UTC) |
|
| Of course sometimes you have to kill. That's what Accio Brain is for.
The Unforgivable Curses are presented as an authorial device to illustrate just how wrong taking a life or seizing a mind or causing pure pain is. For that to work, they have to remain, at least on screen, Unforgivable. If Harry of all people never renounces their use, they aren't.
the silent speaker | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
polygamouse | | Subject: | Late to the discussion and bringing the TL;DR | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2007-08-25 10:12 pm (UTC) |
|
| Hmm. See, I guess I read those scenes differently than a lot of people did. I didn't feel as if the Unforgiveables were being condoned whether Harry was the one casting them or not. I thought that Harry's use of those spells were supposed to be part of the whole moral tightrope that he was walking thoughout the book.
Here's Harry, trying to fulfill this quest that Dumbledore sent him on with hardly any instruction and save the world without getting too many people killed. On the other hand, he's thrown in serious doubt about Dumbledore's motives and character, he's spending a lot of time in Voldemort's mind, he's tossing around Unforgiveables (at the suggestion of a goblin that he's planning to swindle, no less), and he's in pursuit of powerful and tempting magical artifacts. And this is all going to culminate in his finding out that Dumbledore's been planning his death for who knows how long and that in order to defeat the enemy, he'll have to let him kill him. (The pronouns in that last sentence are all out of whack. Oy.)
He could have said no. Granted, that would have been a crappy way to wind up the series and I doubt many of us thought it would go that way, but Harry had experienced enough doubt and moral ambiguity to at least make it a possibility. And once he made his decision and the moral conflict was resolved, there were no more Unforgivables from our hero.
(And I don't know why just about everyone assumes that Molly killed Bellatrix with an Avada Kedavra. Obviously there are plenty of other curses that can kill -- that's why formal duels have seconds. Why assume she used an Unforgivable?) | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
|
The HMS STFU - Oh dear
|
|