- Spoiler Alert!
The most disturbing part of Deathly Hallows is the use of Unforgivable Curses by the Good Guys. This seemed incredibly inconsistent with previous books for several reasons.
- The Unforgivable Curses seem to be associated with Dark Magic.
- When Barty Crouch sanctioned the use of the curses against Death Eaters, this seemed to be Rowling’s way of criticizing torture methods of interrogation; fighting evil with evil is not a good idea.
- When Harry used Cruciatus against Bellatrix in Order, he was unable to, primarily because he didn’t mean it. The point seemed to be that Harry’s “pure heart” did not allow him to cast the curse. And Bellatrix clearly stated that “righteous anger” wouldn’t do it. That rules out “righteous anger” as a good reason for Harry’s use of Cruciatus against Carrow; I had toyed with some parallel to Christ’s driving the money-changers out of the temple by beating them with a whip, but if “righteous anger” is ruled out, so is that explanation. It almost seems as if Harry had to grow more evil before succeeding in using the curse, which is the complete reverse of the whole message.
Is there any way to get around this? I am hoping to hear Rowling respond to this issue. But here are some scattered thoughts in the meantime:
- The curses are “unforgivable” because the Ministry deemed them so, not because “God” deemed them so. Neither Harry nor McGonagall committed some unpardonable sin.
- Harry is flawed. Harry complained over and over again that Dumbledore was “our age” when he made the mistakes he made. Harry then finds himself throwing unforgivables left and right in Deathly Hallows. We’re not given any commentary on it, but perhaps we’re seeing Harry’s own flaws at the same age?
- Bellatrix was wrong. Commenter <strong>Devi</strong> pointed out that Molly killed Bellatrix, and I don’t think we’re supposed to read that as anything other than the righteous anger of a mother. And yes, I think Molly used the AK. The curse behaved like an AK. Instant death.
- I argued last week that Rowling is not a pacifist. Whether you agree with pacifism or not, I think Rowling settled that question in this book. There is “a time to kill,” in Rowling’s opinion.
- Pharisees will not like this book, nor this series. Rowling has demonstrated that morality is a vastly complex issue, not a simple list of rules. Sometimes, in our fallen world, force is necessary. In fact, though in Book 6 Slughorn called murder “the greatest evil,” Dumbledore argues that it would be greater evil for Snape to allow Draco’s soul to be torn by murder than for him to sacrifice Dumbledore. I think Dumbledore was correct. Morality is complex. (I’m NOT saying it’s “relative” in the sense of the popular, but incorrect, caricature “postmodernism.”)
- No legitimate argument can be made that any and all uses of any Unforgivable curse tears the soul. There isn’t even a hint of that anywhere in canon. In fact, I’d even argue, in light of Molly’s AK on Bella, that even killing with the AK curse doesn’t always tear the soul. Harry insists that Dumbledore only killed when he had to. This means Rowling believes, once again, that there is “a time to kill.”
Is this an inconsistent morality? No. It’s a vastly complex one. You may disagree with it, but its own internal logic is consistent, I believe. It’s Harry’s one use of torture that really is the issue, I think, and I’m looking forward to hearing Rowling answer questions about it.
Thoughts?
Red Rocker on 
Joivre on 
Tom on 
Arabella Figg on 
Travis Prinzi on 
Loading ...
{ 78 comments… read them below or add one }
I am a new comer to your site, and I wish I had found it long ago! I love your analytic style and thoughtful responses to the Potter series, keep up the good work!
As for this post, I agree with you for the most part. Rowling’s idea of morality is a complex one, and it will take at least one more re-read of the full series for me to really have a grasp of it.
However, I believe that Harry’s use of an unforgiveable is there to show that he has, in some part, been damaged by the horrible events of his life. Being willing to use this curse shows that even Harry, our ultra-pure of heart hero, has been damaged by all of the hate and despair that he has been forced to deal with. The message is that none of us is perfect, and when faced with so much pain and hatred, we would all on some level be damaged. However, as Harry doesn’t use an unforgiveable curse on voldemort at the end of the novel, the other message is that even this damage can be repaired. Your love and purity can be restored through faith in the healing powers of remorse and love.
During my reading of DH, I also struggled with Harry’s use of unforgiveable curses. I must have missed the actual curse used by Molly against Bellatrix as it didn’t register at the time. However, I agree with Travis’ assessment that morality is not defined in black and white terms and that this issue is quite complex, not only in Rowling’s world, but in reality. As a Catholic, I can easily relate to this in the Church’s distinction between mortal (serious) and venial (not serious) sin and what actions on the part of the sinner are necessary to repair the resulting breach in one’s relationship with Christ. However, all sin causes a breach which must be repaired in some way. While Rowling does not go into this in any depth, perhaps the example of the “penance” of the Bloody Baron and the fact that he is now a ghost who cannot pass through the veil points to the seriousness of his “sin” and his resultant endless “purgatory.” The difference between the Baron and Voldemort is remorse and Harry recognizes this. I know that Rowling is not a Catholic and probably does not intend a necessarily Catholic interpretation here, but it works for me without having to stretch my own theological framework.
Just a quick note from an interloping Catholic theologian: The fact that the Bloody Baron is a ghost and cannot pass through the veil is evidence that this is *not* purgatory. Purgatory, from the RC point of view, is the continuation of the process of healing begun in life, and it always has within it the assurance of salvation. Ghosts are in a “dead-end,” as Nearly-Headless Nick tells us.
BTW, this has always led me to wonder something, off-point, so forgive me. Did anyone else ever speculate that LV, because he feared death so much, would end up as a ghost?
I don’t think I’d accept Bellatrix Lestrange as JKR’s spokesperson on the definition of “righteous anger”. Consequently, I wouldn’t be quick to abandon the concept as an explanation for Harry’s use of the Cruciatus against Amycus.
As I explained on another post, Amycus had hurt the children he was supposed to be teaching because they refused to use the Cruciatus against their peers. Seamus and Neville bore the scars and bruises. He had just threatened to use the Cruciatus on all of the Ravenclaw children. And he spat on Professor McGonagall.
I think that the punishment (Matthew’s term) fit the crimes. HOnestly, I don’t think Harry endangered his immortal soul by giving Amycus a taste of his own medicine. I also don’t think he had to become more “evil” to do it. He just had to see more evil, and be put in the position of being the one to have to do someting about the evil.
I find your arguments against the use of the unforgivable curses to be the most persuasive. I have read no argument that even remotely makes me think otherwise. I don’t think we need to be apologists for Rowling. I think she made a mistake in having Harry and his supporters employ the curses. It was a mistake, but not an “unforgivable” mistake.
If Bellatrix was right about the “righteous anger” , I think there may be the possibility that Harry having part of Voldemort’s soul within him may have been a factor…I know he had it there all along, but perhaps it is a thing that “festers & grows”… in response to our more “negative” emotions of jealousy, anger, etc…
It makes sense to me that Bellatrix is (at least half-) wrong. What, after all, would she know about *righteous* anger, whose own soul is so warped and distorted? Bella, like Voldemort, doesn’t believe that love is a power, and this view tends to view goodness as weakness. So of course it would seem that righteous anger is weak. But Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas agree, Anger can be virtuous.
However, to say that Harry was righteously angry is not quite to say that the Cruciatus was the proper expression of that righteous anger. Excessive, yes. Moment of weakness or, more accurately, impulsiveness, yes. (We’ve known Harry to be impulsive for years). But, alas, forgivable.
Hello, all. I’m a first-time poster. Coming from an Eastern Christian perspective, I think the morality issue is much more fluid than it may first appear. Throughout the history of the Church, there has been a distinction between murder and killing in self-defense, or in defense of others. That is not to say that self-defense killing is good and/or moral, but less bad than murder. It very much matters what the intent of the heart is. I didn’t read it as Harry’s intent to torture Amycus, as it seems that once the Cruciatis Curse is cast, it must be lifted. Harry’s use of it seemed to be a bit more powerful than his attempt on Bellatrix, but not a prolonged torturous use, if that makes sense.
As for the AK’s we get a sense early on when Lupin chides Harry for not attempting to kill Stan Shunpike, that the Good Guys were playing for keeps so to speak. War is – again from an Eastern Christian perspective – an evil, that is sometimes regretfully necessary. That is not to say that the Good Guys, after self-defense killing, don’t need to be healed of it, but it is not the shattering of the soul that murder is.
Murder is the willful taking of life instead of the last resort. It is deliberate and cold. Only murder rends the soul. Self-defense killing, or the Good Guys using the unforgivables, is not their first option. I think McGonagall is quite clear in her ultimatum to Slughorn, “But if any of you attempt to Sabotage our resistance or take up arms against us within this castle, then, Horace, we duel to kill.” (602) I think we can go with the assumption that the Good Guys do not like killing, or torture, or controlling people. In other words they don’t derive pleasure from them as the Death Eaters do. I don’t think Harry “tortured” Amycus, and I don’t think their souls were rent as a result of using AK.
My sense is that these unforgivables are dark arts, and should be avoided. They should certainly not be taught in a school. But we have soldiers (the Order and the DA), and law enforcement (Aurors) that must use deadly force in order to save lives. This is not ideal, but the Potterverse has never been said to be ideal, quite the contrary.
I appreciate the opportunity to blather on a bit.
Dn Kevin
Hi all! I’ve been enjoying this site for many months since finding my way here via John Granger; never posted before. I’m the editor of an Orthodox Christian magazine, called AGAIN. We re-published an interview with John on our website last week, originally done in 2005, and have received a lot of strongly worded criticisms, including talk of boycotts and getting bishops involved. Thought some of you might be interested:
http://conciliarpress.pinnaclecart.com/index.php?p=page&page_id=again_granger_interview
I’ll try to post about the books themselves soon. Keep up the great discussions!
Bless,
Doug
I have to disagree. Morality or should I say “good” is fairly simple. Figuring it out gets complicated at times. Which may be the same thing ::shrug::
I think the good guys crossed a line. They shouldn’t have crossed by using the unforgivables. Crucio in particular, because it’s very impractical, even for a battle. But Rowling has never claimed that any of these people were perfect or blameless.
I had to rush off. I think Falkirk said it best. We don’t need to find excuses for everything Rowling has done. We’re allowed to disagree. Doesn’t mean we appreciate the work any less as a whole.
As I’ve written on other threads, I was quite bothered by some of the use of Unforgivable Curses. I think it’s quite correct to say that in war, there is going to be violence and killing, and it’s not moral to refuse to kill when it is your duty (as a soldier, police officer, etc.).
So some of the Unforgivables – Harry’s at Gringotts, Molly’s vs. Bella – are quite justifiable as being used in the context of violence or imminent violence.
I agree with Falkirk that we don’t need to apologize for Rowling on this. I think she made two very questionable decisions here.
First, Harry’s Crucio is a real problem. I do not believe a soldier would be justified using torture in that situation – I think he or she would likely face a court martial for it! It’s not Harry’s job to punish whatever wrongs Amycus Carrow may have committed. It’s very uncomfortable to read Harry committing such a dubious act, especially in light of his notional pure heart that saves him shortly thereafter.
Second, I think Rowling should have faced the issue of the good guys needing to kill more squarely. 50 good guys died in the battle of Hogwarts. Surely a similar number of Death Eaters died, and surely they were killed by the good guys. But the only actual killing we see is by Molly Weasley, and Rowling couldn’t even bring herself to have Molly actually say the words Avada Kedavra. Harry completely gets off the hook of this moral question, as Voldemort essentially AKs himself.
So if Harry doesn’t even need to confront the question of whether or not it’s justified to cast an AK at Voldemort, there’s no way it works for him to be torturing random Death Eaters who happen to offend him! I think Jo didn’t make a very good choice here.
Carla Lute–I agree with you.
On a tangent, but related to the morality issue: is anyone else bothered by what Ron tells his daughter in the epilogue? “Granddad Weasley would never forgive you if you married a pureblood.” I know this is probably meant as a joke, but to me it smacks of the old mudblood/halfblood/pureblood prejudices being perpetuated by someone who ought to know better. Does it strike anyone else that way?
I guess I need to correct myself a bit. I posted earlier: I didn’t read it as Harry’s intent to torture Amycus, as it seems that once the Cruciatis Curse is cast, it must be lifted. Harry’s use of it seemed to be a bit more powerful than his attempt on Bellatrix, but not a prolonged torturous use,. I went back and reread that passage, and it seems that Amycus, “writhed through the air like a drowning man, thrashing and howling in pain…” I don’t know that there is a defense for this. Self-defense cannot be claimed, nor can righteous anger.
I will maintain, however, that Harry did not derive sadistic pleasure from it in the way Death Eaters (and Umbridge) did. Perhaps it was a device to show the imperfectness of Harry lest we should place him on a pedestal too high as we had (well, I did, at least) with Dumbledore.
I agree with those who have said we don’t need to be Rowling’s apologists. She very well may have made the wrong choice. I’d rather open the discussion up and hear as many perspectives as possible, though, before making a final judgment on the matter. Hence this post.
Continue on with the great DH discussion, folks! I won’t be around again till tomorrow, as it’s our anniversary. 3 years
Good Lord! Is “imperfectness” even a word? I should’ve written “imperfection.” Please forgive my ignoranciveness.
I see Harry’s use of Unforgiveable Curses in DH primarily as his response to Lupin’s advise at the beginning of the book. Throughout the series Harry has used “good” magic against Death Eaters, and he has become increasingly less effective with these spells. Therefore, Harry takes the advise of Lupin through the course of DH as a way of surprising adversaries with spells they never though he would use. We see, however, that by the end of the book Harry has realized (though not through explanation by JKR) that he does not need these curses to defeat Voldemort (hence, his use of Expelliarmus against him in the final confrontation). Harry realizes more clearly, in the end, that it IS his choices that make him different from Death Eaters. I see this as a course that the books have taken, especially in the last few–Harry has become increaslingly more willing to use Unforgiveable Curses and finally uses them effectively in DH. However, after he finally uses them effectively he returns to the almost useless (according to Lupin) Expelliarmus against Voldemort? Harry finally realizes that he does not need to use evil against Voldemort because Voldemort has used evil and igorance against himself. I see this as a good arc, and it amplifies our picture of Harry as the flawed, learning savior (ie, not THE SAVIOR). However, a quick read through the old testament will show us that God is not against putting evildoers, and even unfaithful followers, through some longsuffering punishment. So, let us not be too hard on Harry, or JKR for allowing her hero to learn some lessons (even if we don’t get the on-the-page explanation of these lessons).
That’s good sense, Josh… I agree, I think it’s very, very telling that the final “killing curse” is “Expelliarmus.” It shows a Harry that has come through malice and vengeance… If you’ll pardon the cross-mythology, it’s a jedi moment for Harry.
Let me hasten to add that this doesn’t make Harry or JKR pacifist. It just shows that force can be used in the way that it needs to be used. Jus in bello, for the moral theologians out there…
I can pass of Molly’s AKing of Bellatrix. Bellatrix has proven time and again that if she isn’t stopped for good, someone will just have to impede her later and a lot of innocent people will probably suffer as a result. And Bellatrix was going to kill Ginny, Hermione, and Luna. I can even pass off Harry’s Imperius-ing in Gringotts as a way of avoiding a protracted fight around innocent bystanders and as a means of protecting Hermione and Ron.
But the Cruciatus curse thrown at Amycus is a bit much, especially given Harry’s reaction to it: “I see what Bellatrix meant…” Harry clearly understands he has to “mean it” in the same sense that Bellatrix “meant” in earlier books. And Harry’s use of her first name strikes a kind of familiarity with her that is unsettling to me.
I think I understand that moral complexity was Rowling’s intention in these instances, but the Cruciatus example seems rather cut and dry (there seem to be plenty of other options for Harry there), and it creates a thematic hole for me. It’s not a fatal flaw for the book, much less the series. But if you’re paying attention, it jumps out as an important inconsistency that is not easily interpreted/explained away, especially given the Resurrection scene that follows so closely (as someone else mentioned above).
Regarding the Cruciatus, my recollection is that the person using the curse needs to feel real animosity toward the object of the curse. I think that it is moral for good to detest evil, especially in the defense of innocents. In Harry’s case, I have no problems with him using Cruciatus against an evil wizard who had just moments before threatened to torture innocent children. In fact, I would go as far as saying that as long as Harry’s motivation was the digust he felt toward the evil represented by Carrow, that he was completely moral.
Trish,
Yes, but I’ve never been a big fan of Ron. He has a habit of saying thoughtless things. I know all the adults understand it’s a joke. But you do wonder how the eleven year old with interpret it.
This is my first time post, so go easy on me…
I really didn’t have a problem with Harry using the cruciatus curse in this scene. Remember, not only did Amycus spit in McGonnagal’s face, but he was going to blame the false alarm of Harry’s arrival on the poor Ravenclaw kids and who knows what Voldemort would have done with them (probably killed them all horrifically). This is probably the most vile and cowardly act of any character in the series, so the punishment fit the crime. Personally, I think we should have seen Harry do more things that are morally on the fence. Perhaps even use AK and kill a few deatheaters. I never thought of Harry as a saint (and I don’t think JKR intended him to be one), but as a hero with human frailties – and heroes kill.
excuse me…will interpret it.
Fascinating topic.
Would it have been o.k. for the Ministry to practice waterboarding if they had captured a Death Eater?
What did they do with the unrepentant Death Eaters at the end of the book? Perhaps create a secret prison somewhere in the western hemisphere?
Is it o.k. to imprison people in Askaban? If so, is it o.k. to ride them like dogs and point to them while your friends take pictures?
I’m sorry. I just don’t see a justification for allowing Harry to use crucio. It was one of the things I hated most about the book.
This isn’t about expectations from what JKR said (I had very few of those). It’s about expectations both she and the genre set up. The good guys are supposed to be BETTER than the bad guys. They make mistakes, but when they do, they repent and sometimes suffer as a result.
Yes, the world is more complicated than that, but that’s precisely why I love escapist literature like HP. If JKR wanted to reflect real-world hard choices, she could have at least had her characters acknowledge that the choices are hard.
Harry shows a little awareness after the first one:
“‘They’re Imperiused’ he added, in response ot Hermione and Ron’s confused queries about Travers and Bogrod, who were both now standing there looking blank. ‘I don’t think I did it strongly enough, I don’t know…’”
“And another memory darted through his mind, of the real Bellatrix Lestrange shrieking at him when he had first tried to use an Unforgivable Curse: ‘You need to mean them, Potter!’” (p. 533)
And then…
“‘IMPERIO!” Harry said again; his voice echoed through the stone passage as he felt again the sense of heady control that flowed from brain to wand.” (p. 535)
Seems like he’s beginning to like it.
“As Amycus spun around, Harry shouted, ‘Crucio!’”
“The Death Eater was lifted off his feet. He writhed through the air like a drowning man, thrashing and howling in pain, and then, with a crunch and a shattering of glass, he smashed into the front of a bookcase and crumpled, insensible, to the floor.”
“‘I see what Bellatrix meant,’ said Harry, the blood thundering through his brain, ‘you need to really mean it.’”
And McGonagall’s response? “‘Potter, that was very – gallant of you -’” (p. 593-594)
So Harry has now “mastered” the UC. Great.
I just don’t get it. This is something the kids were told in every book was unforgivable. Remember Snape’s important line? “No Unforgivable Curses for you, Potter!” I read that as he had already accepted his own damnation, but he wanted to protect Potter from making the same mistake. Now there’s not even a comment in passing from his mentor of many years, except regarding gallantry. How disappointing.
I don’t read Molly’s curse of Bellatrix as an AK. The curse is described as slipping under Bellatrix’s guard as she laughs (with the specific analogy to Sirius’ death). AK is unblockable (aside from Harry’s various exceptions), there is simply no need for any of the detail if Molly is casting and AK – I read the scene as a powerful curse (stunner perhaps) directly to the heart which proves fatal.
All of the Unforgivables seem to parallel the argument for making torture always illegal, even in the “ticking bomb” scenario. In effect you reverse the presumption of innocence – if you use an Unforgivable you are presumed guilty unless you have a very convincing reason. It is legally, not morally, “unforgivable”.
The more I think about it, the more difficulty I have with the use of Cruciatus. I’m just going to hold out and wait for a JKR explanation on this one, but as far as I’m concerned at this point, it was just a mistake for Rowling to have had Harry use it.
First time poster. Not Christian, but have read New Testament (as literature) and see clearly the Christian elements in HP and they’re fine. I’m not fussed about it. Works.
I, too, have trouble with Harry using the Unforgivables, more so with the Crucio. That was excessive in terms of what it was directly in response to (the spitting) and McGonagall’s response (gallant? What?). This seemed gratuitous, unlike the earlier Imperios which were used to get out of an almost impossible situation and were actually for the greater good. They can be explained, if not excused.
One thing in the 4 gospels that I NEVER understood, and with all JKR’s using of Christian elements, she actually may have been referring to this, rather than Jesus’s driving the moneylenders out of the temple, is when Jesus cursed the fig tree because he couldn’t get a meal (don’t know exact place, but you guys will, I’m sure). What? That always seemed completely gratuitous to me, and if you can rightfully explain that, maybe you might have a handle on Harry and the Crucio. If Amycus was threatening McGonagall’s life, it would not have been gratuitous (though I recognize the point of the poster earlier, about his framing the Ravenclaw students), but for spitting? Excessive. Maybe the analogy to the fig tree isn’t perfect, but it always gave me a bad taste and may be (pardon the awful pun) a fruitful direction for inquiry.
Audrey, welcome! Glad to have you here.
The curse of the fig tree is not a random loss of temper on Jesus’ part. It’s a sort of acted parable about the power of faith. He also uses the fig tree the very next day as an illustration for his disciples about the coming judgment on Jerusalem.
If I get some time, I’ll dig up more on the fig tree, because this is clearly a quick, inadequate explanation. But you have hit on something important – we should probably be scouring Holy Week portions of the gospels for insights into this novel, especially the events immediately leading up to and including the death/resurrection.
It wasn’t about the spitting. It’s never about the spitting.
Here I go.
It’s about the fact that Amycus and his fellow Death Eaters had terrorized and terrified and tortured the students of Hogwarts – Harry’s friends, his substitute family, down to the youngest, most defenseless child. It’s about the fact that they made children use the Cruciatus on each other. Isn’t that what the militias are doing in Central Africa? Making child soldiers steal and burn and kill and rape? It’s about the fact that they had desecrated everything Hogwarts stood for – teaching that Muggles are stupid and dirty, teaching the Dark Arts. The final act of disrespect towards McGonagall symbolized all of the acts of desecration against Harry’s adopted home and family.
With apologies to Snape:
DON’T CALL IT GRATUITOUS!
Reyhan, Amycus did everything you say and was just as horrible as you describe. But we could have guessed two years ago that he had no morals and his soul was mangled beyond redemption.
As I see it, the disturbing thing here is not that Amycus was tortured, but that Harry did the torturing. Who made it Harry’s job to judge and punish Amycus Carrow? His mission was to find the Horcrux and confront Voldemort. Stunning Amycus and tying him up would have been appropriate. Pausing for an exhilarating and gallant round of torture was not.
One measuring stick from canon that we can use to assess the morality of Harry’s action is Sirius’ statement about Moody in GOF Chapter 27:
He never killed if he could help it. Always brought people in alive where possible. He was tough, but he never descended to the level of the Death Eaters.
Couldn’t Harry have avoided torture in this scene?
Harry has grown into a man and is capable of making his own responsible choices. One of the main offenders in the systematic emotional and physical abuse of children – his fellow students- then spits in the face of a woman who has always represented fairness, repect, ability and courage. Harry’s mind seethes and he rightly decides this evil man needs to be punished. How dare this dare this Death Eater do this?!
The Jesus I think about wouldn’t just stand there and stun the person and wrap them in ropes. That’s just like saying “Stop that!” Harry, by his actions, is saying “NEVER DO THAT AGAIN!!!” It’s just like Jesus’ turning the other cheek teaching. If you’re facing someone and they hit your right cheek they’re giving you a contemptuous back-hand slap. By offering your other cheek you’re saying “think about what you’re doing, and if you do strike again do it because I’m allowing you to.”
If Harry didn’t take punitive measures against Amycus he would not be showing Amycus how serious his abuse was.
That’s my take.
Matthew
I stumbled upon this site via HogwartsProfessor, just to see what people are saying about Deathly Hollows, which I just finished this mourning.
I was reading over Travis’ scattered thoughts and while I think they all have some merit, I believe the “Harry is flawed” theory is the most likly. First off, there is no real evidence that Molly used AK on Belletrix. She hit her strait in the heart. And after Harry’s resurection, when he’s fighting Volddemort the last time, what spell does he use? Good ole’ Expeliaumas. That is the second time it’s been used against AK, it’s almost as if it’s an anti-killing curse.
Further, If Harry just stunned and bound Amycus what would happen then?
The official justice system had fallen with the ministry. Harry’a magic would just have worn off and then Amycus goes back to his usual antics. In this situation Harry has come to the conclusion that he can dispense his own justice ie. corporal punishment.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Rowling believes that, given the right circumstances, pain is a valid method of punishment. It’s been used to instruct, punish and to focus the attention of the distracted for thousands of years and it’s only in our recent “enlightened” times that it has been abandoned by most.
Sometimes I think that we have been civilised beyond our own good. Hard things are called for in certain circumstances. Half-baked responses to gloating, despicable evil like a stunner and ropes deserves to be beaten in the end. If I was a Ravenclaw pupil who was possibly about to be killed for doing nothing or one of their parents I’d want a champion like Harry to make a hard call and punish the fool.
Harry sent a message- “threaten children and violently disrespect an honoured woman in front of me and you’ll think twice about doing it again!”
Matthew
Regarding Ron’s “pureblood” comment: I think the joke was not “stay away from those evil purebloods,” but rather had to do with Arthur Weasley’s love for Muggles. The statement followed the discussion about Ron’s Muggle driving test, which to me showed that Ron had inherited his father’s love for Muggle machines. In other words, the comment was no more that “Grandpa will be mad if you miss the opportunity to bring in someone who knows about Muggles.”
I may be in the minority, but I thought his use of the curses was extremely consistent with the messages of this book. First, as you point out, it’s the Ministry (or, as I prefer to think of it, MOM – as in “Big Brother”) who determined what is and is not unforgivable, and as MOM is doing rather unforgivable things itself, all bets are off. Second, Harry, like Dumbledore, is fallible. Should we love him the less for it? No, as Harry respects and honors Dumbledore despite his faults, so we too love Harry. Third and most important, I see the use of the curses as a means of gradually building to the climactic scene, which reveals the decision our heroic (but very fallible) ultimately Harry will make. By the time he faces Voldemort for the last time, he has used both the Imperio and Cruciatus curses. And he means them. Will he go “all the way” and use Avada Kedavra against the Dark Lord? We wonder. In the end, he does not. He only seeks to disarm Voldemort, but Voldemort’s own death spell rebounds on him and kills him. Would Harry’s ultimate act of mercy, his choice not to “go there,” be as powerful if he’d never used an Unforgiveable before, however? Of course not. Our anxiety about what he will do would be diminished if he’d never used such a curse, and his choice to hold back at the last would be less meaningful if he hadn’t already taken steps in that direction. That’s good storytelling, from a plot, characterization, and thematic perspective – at least, that’s my two cents!
Amy, that’s excellent analysis. I recall thinking when I read Harry’s use of Cruciatus, “This is all building up to the moment when Harry decides whether or not to use the Killing Curse. We’ve got Imperio and Crucio now – what will he do in the end?”
So, yes, excellent point.
I think there have been some excellent posts in this thread. Very good analysis from everyone. I felt like Harry almost felt boxed in and forced to use the Imperio curse when they were at Gringotts, because he couldn’t think of another way to get them safely through and because he had others with him whose safety he was responsible for, as well as himself and his mission that he had to complete which he wouldn’t be able to do if he was caught and put in Azkaban.
So it boils down to why Harry used the Crucio curse on Amycus. I like the analysis that it’s in response to all of what he has done, not his final act of spitting on McGonagall. Except for the fact that this places the choice more in Rowling’s corner, as the author — she could have written it differently. She could have written it so that Harry used this curse after Amycus tortured a student, or even killed a student who was unarmed and not a threat to his life. But she wrote it the way she wrote it, so I have to go along with the idea that Harry’s still making mistakes and learning from them. He almost seems surprised that it works, when he comments that Bella was right about having to mean them. Maybe he is appalled at his own ability to perform the curse and this helps to keep him from using it, or the other unforgivables, again? I just wish it would have been a bit more clear, but there are lots of little wishes like that that I have about this book, I wish she’d just told us this bit or that bit, and if she’d told us all of the bits I have on my list the book would have been half-again as long as it is. Which, to me, might not be a bad thing, but I think the critics would have come down hard on her about it and she made an effort not to go on too many rabbit trails in this book because of that.
Mrs. Weasley, good points! Yeah, that might be a better way to read his line about Bella. He wasn’t saying, “I guess Bellatrix was right, you do have to mean it. Cool!” Rather, he was commenting on just how angry he was when looking at the man who had been torturing his friends all year long. A few brief seconds of revenge (justice?) for all the torture he had inflicted on students (including Ginny!) all year.
Well, I feel a bit better about that particular scene, but still…. I think that one will always bother me, just as it bothered me in HBP that Harry kept using spells from The Prince’s book when he didn’t know what they were and then continued with some that were like the bullying he abhored from James and Sirius.
But the idea that those things show Harry’s flaws, and that in the end, he makes a choice that is full circle to the first time he faced Voldemort with Expelliarmus does make sense to me.
Maybe it’s actually the Cruciatus curse itself that I’m having the most problem understanding. I’m just not sure why Rowling chose to go there if the good guys sometimes use it. I would have thought it’s purpose would be to show the horror of torture, used for any reason, even when the war is justified.
If you go to Bloomsbury, you can (or could last night) submit a question for Rowling to answer on a live chat they are doing next Monday (2-3 pm, in the UK). I asked two–one of them was why Harry used the Cruciatus Curse, when it’s always been so important to the story that he has a pure heart.
I’m sure I won’t be the only one who asked that though, but I really do hope she answers it.
Pat
Harry’s use of Imperius, while mildly surprising, didn’t bother me. Harry didn’t use it to enslave people. He could have accomplished pretty much the same things with “forgivable” spells (stunning and memory modification, etc.) given a little more time. He was time-crunched and took a short cut.
Cruciatus was more surprising, as was Prof. M’s response. However, I didn’t consider it torture (yes, I know that’s what the spell’s name means — bear with me).
First off, context matters. Using the spell on someone who is actively threatening others as Amicus was doing is significantly different than using it in cold blood to extract information. Also, Harry didn’t maintain the spell and watch Amicus writhe in agony after the threat had passed.
To use a non-magic example, if I punched someone who was threatening my friends and had just spat on one of them, I might get charged with disturbing the peace or something similar. If I kept punching them once they were down, or punched them without provocation, it would be assault – possibly felony assault. If they went to the hospital with broken bones or internal injuries, it might become aggravated assault – a serious felony. If they died of their injuries, it would be manslaughter or possibly murder. All uses of fists are not the same. I suggest all uses of cruciatus are not the same.
I do, however, think that Harry stepped over the line with both these curses. Not horribly, but still. Why did Ms. Rowling write it thus? Did she make a mistake? I don’t think so.
Why was Harry able to read Voldy’s mind during this book? Had Voldy stopped using Occlumency against him? I think not. Either the connection between Harry and Voldy is growing stronger, or Harry’s powers are growing stronger, so that Voldy’s Occlumency spell is no longer powerful enough to keep Harry out. When Harry was last in regular contact with Voldy (OotP), Harry’s personality was affected by it. I think we may be seeing something similar, here. Harry’s use of these spells heightened the suspense for me. Not only his friends’ lives but also Harry’s own soul were in danger as long as Voldy was alive and leaking through into Harry.
Once the connection was broken (after Harry returned from King’s Cross), Harry reverted to shield and disarming charms.
Mycin
As far as I can tell, Voldemort tried to AK Harry four times: when Harry was one year old, after his reconstitution from borrowed parts; in the clearing after Harry’s famous walk with the dead; and at Hogwarts in front of an audience of many.
The AK didn’t work the first time because of Lily’s sacrifice which shielded Harry from Voldemort (and turned his AK back on him).
The AK didn’t work the second time because of the shared phoenix feather cores. The spells met and merged and there was a Priori Incantem.
The AK didn’t work the third time because Harry sacrificed himself willingly (like Lily) and – this is the part that confuses me – because his blood ran through Voldemort and this anchored his soul to his body?
The AK didn’t work the fourth time because the Elder Wand wouldn’t blast Harry because Harry had Draco’s wand? I can sometimes make this one work out in my mind, but sometimes I’m totally confused.
Could Harry have AKd Voldemort, considering the factors of shared blood, the Elder wand vs. Draco’s wand, the fact that Lily’s protection was gone, and the fact that the Tom Riddle soul piece had been excised?
Reyhan, I’ll have a go at this.
I would think if Harry had AK’d Voldemort first, Voldemort wouldn’t have died, because the Horcrux in Harry would still be alive, thus ensuring Voldemort’s survival.
I’m murkier on the Elder Wand thing – my guess is that the Expelliarmus spell blocked the AK, but because the Elder Wand recognized Harry as its rightful owner, it caused the rebound back to Voldy – perhaps?
The one I have trouble with is when Harry is at Kings Cross, and DD tells him Voldemort couldn’t kill him because Harry’s blood within Voldemort tethers Harry to earth as long as Voldemort is still there. Am I getting this correct? To me that means Harry can never be killed by Voldemort, because Voldy has Harry’s blood in him. But, once the Harry horcrux was killed off, that left Voldemort vulnerable, because now Harry has nothing left of Voldemort in him. I can’t be remembering that correctly, because it would seem that Voldemort could AK Harry over and over again and never kill him. So maybe someone here can set me straight.
Sorry, Reyhan, I set out to try to answer your questions, and am throwing out one of my own. But this one is something I have wondered about since Saturday night.
Andy–
Thanks, that makes me feel a little better about it.
It just was seeming to me that nothing had really changed.
This is my first post here.
There’s an interesting thread in the book regarding Harry and his approach to fighting. After the “7 Potters” escape from the Durselys’, Lupin berated Harry for merely disarming Stan Shunpike during the attack. When Harry replies that the Expelliarmus charm saved him from Voldemort previously, Lupin reminds him that the Death Eaters saw him use it then, that it was an odd choice during a life-and-death confrontation to begin with, that he ought not repeat it, and urged him not to make it his “signature move”.
Fast-forward to the showdown between Harry and Voldemort in the Great Hall, and Harry defeated the Dark Lord with, indeed, Expelliarmus, after making the point that Voldy never learned from his mistakes.
I think that Harry did learn from his mistakes, and one of them was certainly using the Cruciatus curse.
I think its very noteworthy that Professor McGonagall’s response to Harry’s use of the cruciatus curse on Amycus was to call him “gallant.” She didn’t recoil in horror at his performing an unforgiveable curse. She considered his conduct appropriate in that context, and McGonagall is someone who plays by the rules — strictly. Harry was not torturing for fun or to get information — he was responding to prevent imminent harm. Not only was Harry giving Amycus a taste of his own medicine, but he was also dealing with Amycus in a way that Amycus could understand. I think at that point Harry had learned enough about the deatheaters to realize he had to deal with them differently. Even though Harry felt anger and Amycus clearly felt pain, I think that his crucio was a way milder form than the one used by Bellatrix or Voldemort. Most significantly, he didn’t use it again or feel the desire to use it again. Compare to Crabbe and Goyle who enjoyed using the cruciatus curse once they mastered it. I don’t think this can in any way be viewed as condoning torture. I also agree with prior postings that Bellatrix wouldn’t know “righteous anger” from a hole in the wall and so we shouldn’t put too much credence in her observations about how the cruciatus curse works.
This discussion has reminded me of a quote of Charles James Napier, a British general who conquored part of present day Pakistan.
There was a local custom of burning alive the widows of men who had died on their husband’s funeral pyre. Napier didn’t agree with this and said:
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
To me, this seems valid to this discussion. Just like Harry is using a curse the Death Eaters use, so Napier was willing to kill the murderers of women. Their is a right application of killing, in Napier’s view, and a wrong. So to there is a right use of Crucio and a wrong use. Harry used the right way ie. justly, cleanly, fully aware of his intention and with complete conviction that the curse was deserved.
Matthew
If I learned nothing else from Deathly Hallows, I learned this: all of Jo’s characters are significantly flawed, even Dumbledore. However, Jo often presents her characters and their actions without commentary, so knowing how Jo feels about their actions remains a bit of a mystery.
Take, for instance, the way our hero doted on Sirius. In Harry’s eyes, Sirius could do no wrong. Because the books are written primarily from Harry’s perspective, we never got a complete sense of how we should feel about Sirius’s actions until Jo commented outside of the realm of the books. Here is what she says on Sirius: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=61
Similarly, I believe that Jo shows Harry and Molly making very significant mistakes, but, not wanting the HP series to be moral tales with lessons to be learned, she refrains from turning the books into commentaries on these ethical dilemmas.
Matthew, I like that man, Charles James Napier. Too bad he isn’t around to deal with “honour” killings which still get slaps on the wrist from judges who consider them “local custom”.
And yes, I agree that Amycus deserved a taste of his own medicine.
As for those who feel that Harry was getting closer to evil, or getting to resemble the enemy too much, or that Voldemort was somehow “leaking” into Harry, I say: not at all.
At a crucial moment, earlier, when he has a chance to go after power (acquire the Deathly Hallows) or fulfill his mission (destroy the Horcruxes)he consciously makes the choice to go after the Horcruxes. When he uses the Imperius, he feels the sense of “heady control”. So he understands what it’s about. But almost his first act after he acquires the Elder Wand is to restore his own wand. He elects to remain Harry.
One might theoretically tie his use of the Cruciatus to temporarily giving way to the temptation of having power. But the Cruciatus episode to me is more than adequately explained by the despicable actions of the target, Amycus, rather than any insidious “leakage” on the part of Harry.
Reyhan,
I think Napier is a beauty.
He said other choice stuff also. Apparently in the provence he administered is was perfectly legitimate to kill your wife and this was pleaded by a convited murderer who had killed his wife because she had angered him. Napier responded “Well I’m angry, why shouldn’t I kill him?”
Also when facing the Chartist leaders he spoke his principles to the angry working-class men before him. He supported sympathetically, he
said, everything they stood for: but if they ever provoked riot and disorder in pursuit of those honourable ends, by God, he would shoot them all.
What a man.
Matthew
I think that Harry’s use of the Cruciatus curse was a mistake. It was understandable, yes, and if anyone deserved it, it was probably Amycus. But still, it was an evil curse, and fighting evil with evil is wrong, in my opinion. It cannot be right to torture someone, even if that person “deserved†it.
I don’t believe that’s the moral principle Jo wanted to present, she’d rather wanted to show Harry as a flawed human being. This, I can accept. What matters more to me is that Harry didn’t intend to kill Voldemort in the end and even offered him the chance to repent.
The question I have is using the cruciatus curse synonymous with torture? Harry did use it to inflict pain, but it didn’t seem like it rose to the level of torture.
Harry’s using the imperio curse didn’t bother me at all. He was pursuing a good cause, he had no alternative, and the imperio curse didn’t cause any harm to the targets, nor was it used to make the targets harm others. And it was only temporary, very temporary.
What a rich discussion! Good points all. It does call to my memory in “Farmer Boy” by Wilder when the school teacher uses the whip to teach the rough boys a lesson. It’s different, that was direct and proportionate self-defense (Harry’s crucio arguably not). But several times when a boy is trying to leave he keeps him there with the whip and whips him some more. It’s a powerful scene of righteous anger (the rough boys had also killed the teacher’s friend the year before).
To me it raises the possibility that just as “murder” is an unjustified intentional killing, so “torture” is the unjustified and intentional use of pain. Therefore, because there are justified intentional killings; can there be the justified intentional use or infliction of punitive pain (even setting aside the example of discipline, which is not strictly punitive)? It would undoubtedly be extremely rare, and I’m not trying to justify any particular real world act or set of policies.
I’m a little puzzled about the desire to have JKR explain herself with regard to these matters. To be sure, the author’s intent and what she was subjectively trying to say can be important, and are not unimportant to a work’s interpretation. But the point has been made by a regular commenter (or the host, I forget) that the work stands alone, and I think that’s right.
It has been wonderfully explored here (and should continue to be) what the possible interpretations are, whether they are consistent within the works, and then each possibility has been carefully examined for its message, moral value and meaning, and whether it is something one can embrace as a Christian, or otherwise. Whether or not the character should have made a different moral choice.
Wow. What a work! When we’ve gone through all that, does it really matter what JKR subjectively thinks? I am a little curious. And we certainly must respect the thinking of the person who brought us such a wonderfully complex narrative to consider. But the work stands alone, essentially has a life of its own. This is a useful insight new historicism (post-modern criticism) has brought us with regards to purely human works (scripture being an exception).
Prof M–
How much pain is required to rise to the level of torture? I’m curious.
When it’s pain you go “Oww”
When it’s torture you go “Damn!”
Matthew
Good question Trish. I don’t know how much pain qualifies as torture. But surely there is some level of pain that clearly does not qualify as torture. Whether you approve of corporal punishment or not, is swatting a child on the rump torture? When I was young, the principle would occasionally use a paddle on a wayward school child. I don’t think anyone would consider that torture; in the school I was at, the embarrassment of being paddled was worse than the physical pain. Being locked up in prison is painful; but if conditions are reasonable, it wouldn’t be considered torture.
I don’t think there’s actually any exact dividing line. There are things that clearly aren’t torture, things that clearly are, and a gray are in between.
So if Harry inflicted brief pain using the cruciatus curse to protect Professor McGonagall, was that unjustified? Perhaps he could have just used a stunning spell. Or perhaps he felt like he needed to use a stronger spell in order to make sure Amycus wouldn’t be coming after him right away.
It did seem in the context of the book that Harry’s choice of the cruciatus spell was motivated more by revenge than necessity. So I’m inclined to think it was a mistake, an indication that Harry isn’t perfect. But nobody claims he is. Nevertheless, I don’t think that every use of the cruciatus curse qualifies as torture. As described in the book Amycus suffered a few seconds of severe pain and then passed out. That seems to me to be well below the level of torture.
Huis, good points you raise. I think we want to hear JKR’s thoughts on this because, well, she wrote it, and while you’re correct – the canon stands on its own – it is still helpful to have the author’s words. In the end we may disagree with her (based on her own canon!) or we may think she failed in her attempt to do whatever it is she thinks she was trying to do, but in the end, as we seek to understand a passage, the author’s own voice should be added into the mix and given some weight.
I think it’s unfortunate that Rowling never introduced to us or explained what the good wizards use in fighting the Death Eaters. We are only given the options of either the Unforgivables or the lesser ones like Expelliarmus. What kinds of spells was Lupin encouraging Harry to perform instead of Expelliarmus? What would McGonagall have used if she was forced to duel to kill with Slughorn? And what did Molly use to kill Bellatrix?
We are assuming the answer to all these questions must be the AK because we have not been given an alternative. Maybe that’s why we don’t hear what Molly says. We have been conditioned to rightly abhor the AK, but Rowling doesn’t have a ‘good’ substitute.
Maybe Harry used the Crucio, because, well, what other options have we been given? What ‘good’ spell have we been introduced to that expresses a righteous revulsion to evil?
‘Right – you’re off to Azkaban’ just doesn’t cut it.
I’m reminded of Hitler’s bunker at the end of WWII. The city is crumbling all around (like Hogwarts). The end is near. Yet Hitler gives children guns and a uniform and sends them out to kill and be destroyed. Goebbels poisons his own children. That despicable evil is reflected in Amycus.
If I confronted Hitler or Goebbels in that bunker there would not be a gun big enough to do to them what their deeds deserved. Perhaps Harry felt the same. Crucio was the biggest gun in his arsenal, mostly because Rowling hasn’t given him any other.
It wasn’t the Imperious that I found strange so much as the Cruciatus curse thrown out there for spitting in MaGonagall’s face when Harry was unable to use it after Bella killed Sirius.
The cold blooded murder of Sirius was alot more deserving of a Crucio then spitting in someones face.
But the Imperio curse I believe is justified, it caused no real harm and they were able to get the horcrux and escape whereas otherwise they would have been caught and possibly unable to ever finish Voldemort.
My point is that certain uses of the “unforgivable” curses are justified. Also you have to remmeber there is no “good” and “evil” it’s not so clearly defined, there is no black and white. There is both good and evil in everyone, the ability to cause pain and also do good. I wish people would stop putting it in those terms.
And besides, one last point to make, it is just as torturous to put people in Azkaban where they are not just kept but also subjected to the Dementors horrific effect.
But didn’t Rowling write on her homepage that the term “curses†was “reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic� If this definition is true, then Harry has used the worst kind of dark magic. With Amycus’ record and under the circumstances I can understand Harry’s reaction, but still, this was the torture curse. I’m extremely uncomfortable with that.Is it right to cast an evil spell if the victim deserves it?
It’s an age old discussion, but I do think in light of what Amycus had done all that year, that quick adminsitration of Crucio was justified.
I’m just still at a loss for why the death of Sirius was less important, or was unable to inspire enough rage in Harry for him to “mean it”
Good points, Black Angus.
We’re told that the ministry has specially trained “Hit-Wizards” for doing the nasty stuff but never told what they use or what the order members use in a life or death ding-dong.
Mia,
The cruciatus is not said anywhere in canon as being an “evil”. That’s your designation. Sure, The application of it can be evil, and Harry’s use was good. I’m sure you think murder is evil, me too! But killing is not necessarily so. In fact, not killing someone, given the right circumstances, is evil.
As Black Angus wrote, no other spell would describe the indignation, the revulsion that Rowling feels for the systematic abuse of children and the abuse of those who protect those children.
Matthew
Matthew, I don’t think it’s just my designation. Rowling defined curses as the worst kind of dark magic, and in book 4 Sirius said something to the effect that fighting violence with violence and authorizing the use of the Unforgivable Curses made Crouch as ruthless and cruel as many on the dark side. So Rowling has established some rules here.
That’s why in my opinion the pure-of-heart hero using one of those curses creates a problem. Like I said, it’s humanly understandable, but nothing more than that.
Wouldn’t YOU be willing to use the cruciatus for a second on someone like that? If it were my daughter who was a Ravenclaw student I’d want Harry there to act and not someone who would dither about thinking about the purity of their own heart! I think MacGonnagal would too. I’d be the first one to buy him a firewhisky at the Hog’s Head. And I’d punch the lights out of anyone who berated Harry about it.
It sounds like you want Harry to be so heavenly minded to be of no earthly good, as the saying goes.
I want to understand your point of view. Do you think Harry is pure of heart? To me, pure of heart means that having weighed the options and considered the consequences you are sure that what you are doing will not blemish you purity.
Fake Moody describes the cruciatus as “Pain”. As has been said above pain can be used as discipline, punishment or, go too far, damage and torture. Harry’s been on the receiving end of cruciatus a number of times. He knew what it was all about. He didn’t try to break Amycus, just enough to stop him with a punishment that fit the crime.
Go Harry!
Matthew
Mia,
You rightly point out how these rules have been stressed throughout the series. Resorting to them has always been presented as wrong. And I think Snape’s “No Unforgivable Curses for you, Potter!†as Liz reminded us, is conclusive. According to the rules set out throughout the series, Hary has crossed the line.
But I still feel that it’s more because Rowing has not given herself any ‘good’ options to express Harry’s outrage. It was not the time to introduce a new spell, so what else could be done?
I think we could have Dumbledore ask Harry the question that he asked Snape.
To Snape “You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliationâ€.
To Harry “You alone know whether it will harm your soul to punish a despicably evil child torturer so those children will avoid pain and humiliationâ€
Obviously Harry would say “It would not!”
Matthew
I see it like this: The use of the Unforgivable Curses is strictly forbidden, because nobody should be allowed to deprive someone of his free will, to torture or to kill him. The ethical values of the Wizarding World are reflected in this law. It does not only protect potential victims, but also offenders.
The law was repealed during the first war by Barty Crouch sen., but Mad-Eye Moody preferred to lose a leg, an eye and part of his nose instead of using these curses whenever he could avoid them. I guess, he looked very beautiful when he found himself complete and whole at whatever was his equivalent to Harry’s King’s Cross.
We can probably assume that the law is repealed in exceptional circumstances like war. But like many others I would have preferred Harry not using the Cruciatus as means of revenge. Harry made a mistake, although understandable and not unforgivable – especially in view of how much good he has done. I do, however, not feel comfortable with a message that everything is allowed if only the other one deserves it. Once you start like that, you run the risk to end up with lynch law. So, I would very much appreciate if JKR could tell us how she thinks about it.
Rena, I agree with everything you’ve just said. Harry’s curse was a mistake, in my opinion, he didn’t do anything literally unforgivable. I don’t believe that Rowling meant to establish a general rule here or legitimise the use of torture on the “bad guys†per se. That wouldn’t be consistent with all that she’s written so far.
It is very interesting that we have Snape instructing Harry on the non-use of unforgivable curses. He uses a good bit of “dark” or unforgivable magic when specifically following AD’s orders: AK to kill AD, imperio to control the frumpy guy (I forget his name) at the beginning of DH to suggest the many Harry’s, and sectumsepra is shot at a death eater during the chase at the beginning of DH (in only inadvertently hits George).
I’m not enough of a master of the books to recall if Snape uses it much otherwise; perhaps we are to assume so given his past, and he certainly acts like a vindictive jerk quite a lot even while carrying being allied with AD, but I don’t recall how much we actually see him using dark magic. Harry’s endorsement of Snape at the end, not only naming his child, but calling him one of the bravest men he ever knew, must say at least something about all that.
All you said about the DE’s perverting Hogwarts and everything it stands for are very true. Remember back in PS Harry said that if Voldemort gets his way he’d turn Hogwarts into a school for the Dark Arts? Well, that’s very much what they’ve done, or were well on their way to doing.
Not being British, and not having gone to a British “Public” school, I don’t know this of my own knowledge, but I have been told that part of the ethos is that the older students were supposed to protect and mentor the younger ones. Harry may have ’stopped out’ of Hogwarts, but he is still very much a part of Hogwarts in spirit, and the idea of the younger ones being tortured must make him almost physically ill.
Remember also, Minerva is his favorite teacher and female; if Molly Weasley is Harry’s substitute mother, then Prof. McG. is his substitute grandmother. No man who is any sort of man at all will stand and see his grandmother treated that way.
Finally, if we see Harry as a Christ-figure, remember what Jesus said about those who harm children? “It were better if a millstone were to be tied around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” Perhaps Harry should have conjured a millstone around Callow’s neck and teleported him into the lake, but that would have taken too much time; a Crucio is an acceptable substitute.
Revgeorge–
I’m not sure that I believe that torture is best defined by the degree of pain inflicted. Paddling a child is not (by most people)considered torture; forcing a piece of bamboo under someone’s fingernail would be. But I’ve actually had a piece of bamboo forced under my fingernail (by accident), and it hurt much less than some of the bumps on the rump I’ve received.
One thing I do think is that torture is prolonged infliction of pain, but I’m not sure where to take it from there. It’s not simple.
From a plot standpoint, I felt that we had to see Harry crucio-ing Amycus — had to see Harry perform an Unforgivable Curse and mean it, demonstrate the ability and the mindset to hurt deatheaters (as w/ many other commenters, I found his Imperius curse far less cruel and bothersome. It didn’t really count).
After Snape doubts Harry’s ability to perform/mean unforgivable curses at the end of HBP, Rowling needs to show us that he can. It makes his self-sacrifice to Voldemort in The Forest meaningful and complete. There are other defenseless victims; we see first that Harry can defend himself & then that he chooses not to.
Yet, the torture of Amycus is disturbing, and I think Harry the character (distinct from JKR’s plotting) realizes that it is a mistake. However well-deserved the Crucio was, the relish that Harry feels is dangerous to him. As Josh #17 observes, Harry recognizes this (perhaps semi-consciously) when he leaves the Unforgivable Curses behind, going back to Expelliarmus when facing Voldemort at the end.
Linn–
You make some very good points.
Matthew–
Harry didn’t kill Voldemort. Voldemort essentially killed himself with his own rebounding AK, so the question of whether killing him would harm Harry’s soul doesn’t really come up.
I never even mentioned it.
Neither did I.
Matthew–
If it wasn’t you, I’m sorry. I know someone did.
No probs.
Matthew
Jo has just answered the question about Harry’s Cruciatus in the Live Chat. I don’t remember the exact wording, but she said that Harry never was a saint, he was a flawed human being like Snape. His greatest weaknesses were anger and (sometimes) arrogance. At the time he cast the curse he was very angry indeed.
This is an explanation I can live with, because she didn’t justify the curse as such but ascribed it to Harry’s flawed humanity.