GOF Chapter 14: The Unforgivable Curses

[oryx_leucoryx]

(or - curses which can be unforgivable or gallant, depending on who casts them on whom)

My sporks may become more sporadic, nor will I be responding as much as I have so far, as Real Life is becoming more demanding. I still hope to create opportunities for discussions among you. Enjoy!

By the third day of classes Neville melted his 6th cauldron. Was that 6 in one lesson or the 6th since he started at Hogwarts? In any case, he disemboweled horned toads for detention. But since horned toads are actually some species of lizard I don't think his near nervous collapse had to do with thoughts on Trevor, just the effort of a repetitive, unpleasant task.

It isn't the fourth year running that Severus 'failed' to get the DADA job, Harry. The world was not created the day you entered Hogwarts.

Severus is avoiding 'Moody''s eyes. Is the real Moody a Legilimens? I think this avoidance supports Moody's involvement in Severus' interrogation during or after VoldieWar I.

Real-Moody's choice of textbook 'The Dark Forces: A guide to Self-Protection' is the same book Quirrell assigned to them in first year. Maybe that's the standard DADA text back from Prof Merrythought's days. At any rate, I'm wondering now about Umbridge's claim that Quirrell's lessons were age-appropriate. Well, maybe it was a very thick book, with sections for each year.

But 'Moody' is much cooler - he is not going to teach from the book at all! (He's just the opposite of Umbridge, who wanted the students to have books out and wands away.) Yes! He is going to bring them up to scratch about what wizards can do to each other! After some 12 years under Imperius, he gets to demonstrate Dark Arts in front of admiring students! Oh, how Barty is going to enjoy himself this year!

Yes, Barty, you owe one to Ron's dad. (I wonder if Arthur ever contemplated how his shenanigans assisted Voldemort's return. I wish he admitted to it when he claimed Percy was being recruited as a spy. If he gave his example of being used without his knowledge it might have gone over better than open accusation.) Barty, your retirement will be much quieter than you think.

Aha, the Ministry approves of demonstrating illegal Dark curses to 6th years like the twins. But 'Moody' claims to have Albus' approval to accelerate the curriculum a bit. Knowing Albus' attitude to the Ministry I wouldn't be surprised if that were true.

Arthur *would* know about Imperius. As one who dealt with victims of it or as a victim himself? Alas, Imperiurized!Arthur was never confirmed.

"Think it's funny, do you? You'd like it, would you, if I did it to you?" That will be put to test next lesson. Interesting that it is a DE who makes the students think of the difference in perspective between a spectator and a victim. Of course he is not just a perpetrator but a former victim himself.

"I could make it jump out of the window, drown itself, throw itself down one of your throats ..." - Thanks to Elkins for pointing out those were exactly Barty's fears - that his father would force him to commit suicide. Especially after the QWC, when it turned out he could throw the curse off and Winky was no longer around to supervise him.

I can see how practice can help recognize when one is under Imperius and therefore one needs to resist it, but how does one avoid being hit by it? Perhaps Barty was trying to give the students a false sense of security - imagining they'd be able to recognize the wand movement or the beginning of the incantation?

(BTW Ron only knew one Unforgivable Curse, and he wasn't completely certain about that one either. I guess Arthur never mentioned the other 2? Nor did, say, the AK come up in the context of how Molly's brothers died?)

It is so creepy to know that it is Barty inviting Neville to speak about the Cruciatus. Yes, it was popular once. With you. (Don't worry, it wasn't the spider Hermione was being compassionate for. Still, I like it that she opposed a teacher for an upset classmate.)

OK, in a class that includes several purebloods and at least one wizarding-raised half-blood, how come Hermione is the only one who knows about the AK?

Harry is the only one who survived the AK. Unless you count all those who managed to duck behind something or conjure a blocking object in time.

The use of any Unforgivable on a fellow human being earns you a life sentence in Azkaban. Casting them on spiders is fine. As well as on human beings who aren't your fellows, I suppose. That can sometimes be gallant, if you are the right kind of person.

Oh, how the Gryffindors enjoyed the demonstration of Dark Arts in class! A pity Hogwarts only teaches defense, really!

If Neville and Harry (and Hermione, of course) were disturbed by the class but Ron wasn't - does this mean Imperiurized!Arthur is false?

Now I'm wondering how this lesson went with the 4th year Slytherins. Did they know the names of the Unforgivables? Did they pretend not to know? Did 'Moody' taunt Draco with the Imperius Curse? Whom did he taunt with the others?

'Moody' invites Neville to tea. So spooky when one knows who that is. I wonder how Neville reflects on his interactions with 'Moody' later on, when he learns the truth. Because Harry is completely unperturbed that it was a DE who gave him the idea to become an Auror.

Moody attacks first, asks questions later. Does anyone need more evidence the real one was a Gryffindor?

Oh, Neville received a book about water plants. Which Harry will need later that year. But as Neville is mostly invisible to Harry the book won't be of any help.

Barty's act is going fine - Harry is now comparing him to Remus.

Harry and Ron are making up predictions for Divination. Oddly they actually do reflect the events of the coming year, though on a more extended schedule: danger of burns - may be about the skrewts, as Ron says, but also about the dragon Harry will face in almost 3 months. Losing a treasured possession - foreshadows the second task. Getting stabbed in the back by someone Harry thought was a friend - Ron's reaction to Harry's name emerging from the goblet, or 'Moody' turning out to be a DE who attempts to kill Harry? I'm not sure what losing a fight or a bet were about, though this is Hogwarts so there's always a lot of fighting going on, and of course this is the year of gambling.

Since Hermione isn't around to tell them off, Crookshanks is doing it for her. Why don't you go snarling at 'Moody', Crookshanks?

The twins are conspiring about blackmailing Ludo, again. (No, Crookshanks doesn't care about that either.)

Ron seems to be drowning twice. Well, he will be underwater for hours on end. Does this count? OTOH Harry dying by decapitation is a bit of a stretch - Voldmeort likes the AK, that leaves the victim's body intact.

Here comes SPEW, with 50 badges! Ron is treasurer, because he is so financially responsible and Harry is secretary, because Hermione said so.

Hermione's research revealed that elves have been enslaved for centuries, but not anything about what magic is involved to enforce their status. She came up with goals for her campaign without any input from the elves themselves, which shows just how much she believes in treating them as persons with wills of their own.

Hedwig is back with Sirius' reply. It took her under 2 weeks to fly from Surrey to whichever tropical location Sirius was staying at and back to Scotland. Sirius decides that things are serious enough to justify his return, but Harry blows it off. Doesn't he remember that Peter escaped? That Albus believed Trelawney's prophecy about him returning Voldemort to power was true? Wouldn't that put him in danger? (And not only him...)

Later we will learn that Sirius also reported about Harry's dream to Albus. So at this moment Albus knows the following: Peter left Hogwarts in June, probably on his way to Albania. Bertha Jorkins disappeared in Albania not long afterwards. Tom left Albania (must have been reported by Albus' 'sources') and must have arrived in Britain recently. Albus may already be aware of Frank Bryce's disappearance in Little Hangleton, (Or he may find out this tidbit later on.) Also, someone loyal to Voldemort was (probably) present at the QWC.

Comments

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Interesting that it is a DE who makes the students think of the difference in perspective between a spectator and a victim./

Good point. It's also sad, considering how Harry will use two of the Unforgivable Curses in DH with no consequences, even though he himself was a victim of the Cruciatus and the Imperius Curse at one time.

/OK, in a class that includes several purebloods and at least one wizarding-raised half-blood, how come Hermione is the only one who knows about the AK?/

The same reason why she knows things about the wizarding world that Ron doesn't know. Because she's special/observant/smart/well-read/etc. Pick your fan justification.

/The use of any Unforgivable on a fellow human being earns you a life sentence in Azkaban. Casting them on spiders is fine. As well as on human beings who aren't your fellows, I suppose. That can sometimes be gallant, if you are the right kind of person./

Which is why Harry's use of them in DH was so maddening. What ever happened to the Unforgivable Curses being the worst things ever, something that automatically sent you to jail? Was Barty just lying to the class?

/Oh, how the Gryffindors enjoyed the demonstration of Dark Arts in class! A pity Hogwarts only teaches defense, really!/

Is that supposed to be a jab at Draco's line on the train about the "defense rubbish" at Hogwarts? ;)

/'Moody' invites Neville to tea. So spooky when one knows who that is. I wonder how Neville reflects on his interactions with 'Moody' later on, when he learns the truth./

I've always wondered about that. Neville never brings it up in the rest of the series, so we never do find out what his reaction was. I've read a few fanfics where Neville is traumatized after he finds out the truth, even going as far as to feel terribly guilty for enjoying Barty's company and liking him because he thinks that by doing so, he was betraying his parents.

/Since Hermione isn't around to tell them off, Crookshanks is doing it for her. Why don't you go snarling at 'Moody', Crookshanks?/

Because that would give away "Moody's" secret? JKR forgot about it? Or maybe both.

[https://me.yahoo.com/a/gNLVidA.xeLuPiOU_2B_USM.HYNFjA--#b0b6b (from livejournal.com)]

The use of any Unforgivable on a fellow human being earns you a life sentence in Azkaban. Casting them on spiders is fine. As well as on human beings who aren't your fellows, I suppose. That can sometimes be gallant, if you are the right kind of person./

Which is why Harry's use of them in DH was so maddening. What ever happened to the Unforgivable Curses being the worst things ever, something that automatically sent you to jail? Was Barty just lying to the class?

I actually found Harry's use of the Unforgivables very interesting (back when I still thought things were leading up to a spectacular and heartwrenching finish). The book said something to the effect of "Harry was surprised at how easy it was to cast Imperio", and then after that, we all saw how much he enjoyed doing the Crucio. I thought JK was leading us up to the grand finale of the Avada Kedavra he would cast (because from what we saw he was certainly ready to go there) - at Voldemort, probably - thereby splitting his soul, showing us the ugly nature of Gryffindor heroism when it's untempered by values of respect and compassion that should be common to all Houses. I mean, Slughorn did give us the truism that murder is the most terrible crime, and I'd think that should apply in every case, no matter whom you're murdering.

*sigh* Oh for the things that never were.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I thought JK was leading us up to the grand finale of the Avada Kedavra he would cast (because from what we saw he was certainly ready to go there) -

I came across another fan once who mooted the same theory ... he was a literary sort of fellow who was looking very hard for reasons to praise Rowling and the sunken canon. "How marvellous of Jo to make us think that Harry was going to use an AK!! How *stupid* of those 'hater' fans who moan and whinge about his using the first two Unforgivables! How clever are we, the loyal fans o' Jo, to perceive her incredible brilliance!". That sort of thing.

Except -

- at Voldemort, probably - thereby splitting his soul, showing us the ugly nature of Gryffindor heroism when it's untempered by values of respect and compassion that should be common to all Houses.

This fan's theory was that 'Jo' meant for Harry to back away from using an AK all along, thus showing us how noble and heroic and all around *wonderful* he was.

I'd say he's closer to Rowling's mindset than you. :-) Rowling would never think of her Harry as 'bad' or showing an 'ugly nature of Gryffindor heroism'. Or that such exists.

Maybe that's what Rowling was trying to do. If so she did a very bad job of it. I was quite disengaged by the end of the novel from the rest of the errors and bad writing, but those two scenes, re-read on their own, still fail to move me. There's no real build-up of suspense, or anticipation that Harry would be naughty, or anything like that at all. Just using the Imperius for expediency and the Cruciatius because ... he was a petulant child. Not of a growing attraction to the 'dark side'.

And of course, at the end of the show, there was absolutely no pressure on Harry at all. No *pressure* to use this ultimate of Unforgivables to save his friends and the magical world. No, Harry's author dropped a deus ex machina right into his lap to save him any such stress.

A complete cop-out, if that was Rowling's plan with Harry and the Unforgivables.

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

I personally never even thought about Harry using the AK - in fact I was truly hoping for something much more brilliant in the final meeting.

And all we got was the two (Harry and Voldemort) doing the exact same spell they'd always been doing.

I was hoping Voldie would be defeated in some sort of wow! Magical way! That JKR was going to come up with something much more interesting.

Harry doing unforgivables turned me off, because we were lead to believe in canon that this was horrible dark evil magic that 'good' people just shouldn't do.

Add into that in an interview someone did complain and ask her about harry doing the torture curse and that they were disappointed that Harry did that.

JKR's answer was to use "Snape" as the scapegoat, saying that Harry isn't perfect, like Snape. Sorry paraphrasing a little because I don't have the quote handy right now...but I could never understand WHY she needed to use Snape? Did she assume the fan asking the question was a snape fan! LOL!

Either way. I think her having him do unforgivables was a way to try and make him 'less' perfect. Because there was that argument that seemed to pop up about Harry being perfect.

But if Harry is supposed to be the moral compass of the story - having him just randomly do an unforgivable torture on someone just seems to throw off the whole story to me. It makes me like Harry less. It doesn't make me like the carrows or support what they did, but Harry's actions make me question the whole idea of him holding a position as an auror.

Plus when JKR goes on wiht saying the wizard world is now perfect and everything is 'tra-la-la' - I mean ya know, for me it makes me wonder how many people have had to face down Harry and his amazing unforgiables now that he's a big man auror.

[fishinginthemud.livejournal.com]

She's weirded out that people like Snape because she didn't mean for him to be likable. She probably thought people would like Harry more if he were "bad," because Snape is "bad" and people like him, right? She even gave Harry a "cool," "action hero" line, didn't she? What gives? She forgot that Snape wasn't getting his ass kissed by everyone and their mother in the books for being the fount of all love and purity. Either that or she has no idea how this anti-hero business works.

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I think she knows what she made, what she was doing with Snape as the anti-hero, even if in interviews she acts as if it's shocking that some fans like Snape. Or she gives some some mis-drected non-sense about another character when she answers a Snape question.

Something keeps telling me what she says in an interview can be purely for show. Like she plays her cards close to the vest and doesn't let on that she knew exactly what was going to happen when she made a character like Snape.

The thing is, most folks don't want to admit they're getting played by an author; ya know we all want the facts and not a show when we're asking direct questions but in a lot of interviews she always seemed to be playing a little bit of a game with how she answered the questions.

For all the interviews and the 'gasps' at the Snape-lovin'-fans, sometimes I just think there is this undercurrent of the author knowing what she invented in Snape. She was always tight lipped about the character and she was saving his story for the last book. So I do think that in interviews it's a case of her playing to the majority of fans who fail to see where she was really directing the story.

I mean ya know, there can be something said for how some readers were lead by the nose and didn't listen when some readers were saying after HBP that the DD death was some kinda setup. I remember how some people were dead set that Snape was evil before and after HBP that seemed to make them go into extreme mode to trumpet their belief.

There were readers saying there was something going on with Lily/Snape before it was ever remotly revealed. And I remember seeing all these ideas/theories being shot down by the diehards readers that had to believe what JKR was presenting on the surface.

[fishinginthemud.livejournal.com]

I agree that she probably does know why Snape is appealing, but that doesn't explain why she felt the need to humiliate and punish him so thoroughly. Unless she just didn't realize how it would come off, because she was in such a rush to finish the book and be done with the whole thing. I don't believe for a second that she understands what makes Harry so loathsome, or why it's inappropriate to compare his Crucio with Snape's behavior.

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

Heck I don't really remember Severus crucio'ing anyone. And like you, I do think the last book was rushed. Hell, Harry and Voldie doing the same spells we'd seen as their favorite spells just comes off as 'same old same old'

I just think having Harry do the unforgivables was kind of unforgivable.

To me it doesn't prove his 'baddass' because he can do those spells. To me it's just a cheap shot move on the authors part, who seems to have forgotten the rules she made for her 'bad evil spells'

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I was hoping Voldie would be defeated in some sort of wow! Magical way! That JKR was going to come up with something much more interesting.

This is a big difference between us. I don't think I would have liked *any* wow! deus ex machina! popping up just now! when it's needed! how convenient! 'magical way' that was introduced right at the very end. For me Harry's invented-on-the-spot transitive rule of wand ownership was much like Hermione going to the library and finding a spell that kills all dark lords whose names begin with 'V'.

I very much prefer a series which builds towards its climax, subtly marshalling all of the various players into place, assembling a solution out of pieces we already knew but never saw coming.

Harry doing unforgivables turned me off, because we were lead to believe in canon that this was horrible dark evil magic that 'good' people just shouldn't do.

And that was something else that Rowling failed to do - make the 'Unforgivables' truly unforgivable. She told us the spells, stuck a label on them, that was it.

Say that, instead, the spells were SHOWN to be horrible ... terrible things happen to a wizard who uses them, he'll be swayed to the 'dark side', whatever. They would have had a hell of a bigger impact then.

it makes me wonder how many people have had to face down Harry and his amazing unforgiables now that he's a big man auror.

YES. The first time Harry's faced with a bad situation, even someone threatening his life, AND THERE'S NO CONVENIENT ELDER WAND MALARKY TO SAVE HIM ... what's he going to do? Why, a 'Crucio' like he tried with Draco in book 6! Or maybe even an AK. Why not? He was never punished for his using the 'unforgivables', after all!

[sunnyskywalker]

I didn't want a whiz-bang special effects duel either. In fact I kind of expected the Expelliarmus replay, and thought it had potential - Harry grows to have even stronger willpower than he did in the graveyard, or Voldemort's soul is unraveling which affects the strength of his magic, or something else which had already been set up (even that being truly unafraid of death makes you immune to AK, as sappy as that would have been, would have at least made more sense with what we had in the books), and then Voldemort is once again killed by his own violent spell because someone acts defensively instead of offensively. But last-minute, long-distance wand communication with new and special rules? WTF is that about?

And it is just baffling how Harry has no hesitation about using the Unforgivables, doesn't worry about it afterward, and it has no consequences.

Congratulations

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

You would have been better suited to finishing the series than JKR or whoever actually wrote Deathly Hallows. But then, that is true of a great many fans and ex-fans of the series.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Well, this theory would probably work better if Harry had an actual personality, but it would have actually been really interesting, I think.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Yes. If Harry had had a real 'heroic' personality and we were shown his tussling with the 'dark side' - why shouldn't I use these curses, they're really effective, no-one's going to know, I'm fighting VOLDEMORT after all, everyone will understand, the death eaters are using them all - and that it would lead him down a dark trail, make him less 'good' - then it might have worked.

It's a classic trope, which is why my pseudo-literary acquaintance was trying so hard to make DH fit, to see what simply wasn't there. Or - if Rowling had intended just that - what hadn't been done very well.

[https://me.yahoo.com/a/gNLVidA.xeLuPiOU_2B_USM.HYNFjA--#b0b6b (from livejournal.com)]

This fan's theory was that 'Jo' meant for Harry to back away from using an AK all along, thus showing us how noble and heroic and all around *wonderful* he was.

Yes, I got the impression that's what JK really wanted to show us. Murder is the worst crime, so as long as Harry doesn't murder anyone, he's a hero. He can go and torture people and remove their free will as much as he wants, he'll still be a hero.

I don't really buy that Harry is as 'innocent' as all that, either. He may not have cast an Avada Kedavra, but he still killed Voldemort, even if in an indirect sort of way. JK seems to imply that Harry can walk up to a man and taunt him into destroying himself, and still be the golden, perfect hero he is.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Murder is the worst crime, so as long as Harry doesn't murder anyone, he's a hero.

Yes. Rowling was very careful to make sure that none of the Trio killed (although people here have brought up how Harry offed Quirrell in book #1. That was unwitting self-defence I guess).

It would have been an infinitely superior book, though, if Rowling had shown us a Harry who was in *turmoil* over it, agonising over his having to be a killer. She did a little bit of that at the end of OotP, when she had Harry angsting over being either "murderer or murdered", I think it went. Just one line.

But then in book 6 she makes it clear that he's out for revenge, it's personal:

"I'd want him finished," said Harry quietly. "And I'd want to do it."

And then in the final climax of the series he's under absolutely no pressure at all. He puts everything on the line on the HOPE that a sentient stick was going to side with him. What if he'd been wrong? Harry would have died, and - if you toe the Rowling line - the magical world would have been lost.

(Of course the whole series was in tatters by that point; anyone could kill Voldemort, it never had to be Harry to finish him, the whole "this is between him and me" was ridiculous melodrama, terribly cliched, etc.)

He may not have cast an Avada Kedavra, but he still killed Voldemort, even if in an indirect sort of way. JK seems to imply that Harry can walk up to a man and taunt him into destroying himself, and still be the golden, perfect hero he is.

I guess I agree. The fact is that Harry didn't have to kill Voldemort. Anyone could have arrested the horcrux-less and supporter-less dark lord at that point. Particularly if you go along with the just-like-Lily's-only-completely-different magical protection that Harry had granted all of the castle defenders.

I wrote a parody - only a few paragraphs - that supports exactly what you say, that Harry didn't have to kill Riddle. It's here (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/4478688/1/Harrys_Sacrifice).

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

This fan's theory was that 'Jo' meant for Harry to back away from using an AK all along, thus showing us how noble and heroic and all around *wonderful* he was.

Except that's not noble and heroic. It's selfish and cowardly. Nobility and heroism lie in doing what needs to be done, even if it's ugly, dirty, painful, and thankless just because it needs to be done. (Which is why Snape is regarded as a hero by so many people.) If Voldemort is so dangerous he needs to die to save society from him, then the noble and heroic thing to do is to kill him, not refrain from doing so because of your own personal qualms.

Here I go again: In Warriors, Fireheart recognizes Tigerclaw has to die because Tigerclaw is determined to take over the forest and enslave all the cats, and he'll kill anyone who stands in his way. Fireheart doesn't want to kill Tigerclaw; he'd rather everybody live in relative peace together, with just the normal clan rivalries. But he's willing to put his own scruples aside and do what's necessary for the good of his society.

Once Tigerclaw is dead (I trust it's not a spoiler that the ruthless villain dies), Fireheart is not happy, triumphant, or exultant. He's sad and regretful that such a brilliant, brave, talented cat chose to use his abilities to destroy his society instead of improve it. It reminded me of how, after the bad guy had been defeated at the end of a Get Smart episode, Maxwell Smart would sadly say, "If only he'd used his talents for niceness instead of evil."

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

That's a wonderful look at it; thank you for pointing this out. I'm going to bring it up if this sort of discussion ever pops up again in forums that I frequent. :-)

You're so so right - the hero is *selfish* if he abstains from decisive action because of his own personal qualms. If those are the only reasons why he shouldn't kill the bad guy; if otherwise it's clear that it's the right thing to do, that society will pardon him, etc.

Good stuff!

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much for your praise. It really means a lot to me. :-) I'm thrilled to know you think enough of my ideas to use them elsewhere.

However, I think you're missing my point a little bit. The right thing to do is still the right thing even if you are the only one who knows it's the right thing. Suppose Rowling had given us a much more interesting story, like this one (which would make a great fanfic, BTW):

We have the same basic setup on the surface, but underneath, things are completely different. Dumbledore wants to rule the wizarding world, but he doesn't want to appear to rule it. So he sets himself up as a wise, kindly old man, completely free from that nasty ambition. He sets up friendless orphan Tommy Riddle (who is a normal person, not a psychopath) as Evil Lord Voldemort. While pretending to be the Epitome of Goodness, DD consolidates his power by committing acts of murder and terrorism, which he covers up with a combination of memory charms, Imperius, and other manipulations as being the work of Voldemort and his Death Eaters. Because Tommy is a nobody and DD is St. Albus, nobody believes Tommy when he protests his innocence. His "followers" are condemned automatically because they're "his followers." DD even cons Snape into becoming his "double agent." By accident, Slytherin cunning, or a combination of both, Snape comes to realize what's really going on. He also realizes nobody will believe him, and that the only way to stop DD is to kill him. He does this, even though he doesn't want to kill anyone, even though he knows he'll be be vilified by his society. Snape either escapes but has to live his life out in lonely exile, or, even more tragically, he is killed by DD's dupes and goes down in history as a traitorous monster who killed the saintly, trusting old man who tried to help him. Tommy and "his followers" either escape into exile, are killed, or, most tragically, die in Azkaban after years of suffering, vainly protesting their innocence to the end.

In that scenario, killing Dumbledore would be still be the right thing to do because it was the only way to save society from his depredations. It doesn't matter that Snape will be condemned by his society now and in the future. The heroic thing to do is to kill the bad guy even if you're the only one who realizes he's a bad guy. Even if you have to sacrifice your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor for all time. That is true heroism: Doing the right thing just because it needs to be done, no matter the consequences to yourself.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much for your praise. It really means a lot to me. :-) I'm thrilled to know you think enough of my ideas to use them elsewhere.

Oh dear, I hope I didn't come across as big-headed or anything when I said that, I'm just a HP fan like anyone else here. It's just that I'm delighted when I come across new ideas, insights I never saw, even after all these years in the fandom. (That's why I like this community.) I love it when I can add a good meaty point to my arsenal of arguments. :-) Because I've been in the fandom for 7 years (which makes me a novice compared to many here) the pace of oh-my-gosh-I-never-saw-that epiphanies has slowed down a lot. I got excited when I read your post. :-)

Suppose Rowling had given us a much more interesting story, like this one (which would make a great fanfic, BTW):

Hmmm, a couple of things there which are in common with the fanfic 'The Truth' here (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5442672/1/The_Truth) by Clell65619. Just a couple.

I guess the point at which we diverge - as of my last post, anyway - is the requirement for society to approve of the hero's actions, even if it's murder. Hmm, I dunno. If Rowling was trying to worry her readers about Harry turning into a 'killer' then she failed dismally on multiple fronts. But the cliche she would have been aiming for would have been along the lines of someone's who's killed - even for the best of reasons - is the 'lesser' of a man/hero because of it.

Maybe the 'Avatar: The Last Airbender' series did that thing better. I won't spoil that series for you, if you haven't watched it, but the hero there has the same dilemma - everyone assumes he's going to kill the bad guy, he doesn't want to. In that series the drama and tension is ramped up by people's rejoinders along the lines of "well, if you're not going to kill him, what are you going to do? / You will fail / Society will be DOOMED". Rowling didn't even try to do any of that; she just invented a never before seen rule of wand lore for Harry to use, zero drama.

Anyway, if Harry *had* killed Riddle - well, he did, sort of - no-one would have batted an eye, he was off the hook, society blessed him for it. If the 'hero' has to kill even if society holds him to be 'evil' for doing so ... well, yes, I can see how that would be even more dramatic, causing we readers to side with the hero, bond with him even more strongly. As long as (a) we readers are *completely* convinced that the bad guy had to go down, and that (b) there was no other way to do it

So yes, I'd read that fanfic. :-)

That is true heroism: Doing the right thing just because it needs to be done, no matter the consequences to yourself.

Which is the big point/insight of your post of yesterday. I'd read the posts of my literary acquaintance and others all trying to pump up Rowling's attempt (if there was one) to focus completely on *Harry*. They - and I - never saw this higher mode of heroism.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Wow! You didn't? But that's precisely why so many of us see Snape as a hero. Because he does the right thing, even though it costs him everything, and perhaps even against his inclinations, because it's the right thing.

And no, you can't argue that "he does it all for Lily". Lily doesn't give a hang for him, and, besides, she's dead. Snape knows this. My friend Sionna_Raven and also Rexluscus have argued persuasively about what Snape's dedication to Lily really shows.

My two cents!

I really like this discussion, btw. You are all so clear on exactly why Harry isn't a hero. Personally, I find it disgusting that the boy gets away with torture and compulsion/brainwashing, yet will not kill his enemy. Killing Voldemort, in defense of his friends and his world, would at most be a venial sin. The others are mortal sins, IMHO.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Wow! You didn't? But that's precisely why so many of us see Snape as a hero.

Oh. No, when I said this:

Which is the big point/insight of your post of yesterday. I'd read the posts of my literary acquaintance and others all trying to pump up Rowling's attempt (if there was one) to focus completely on *Harry*. They - and I - never saw this higher mode of heroism.

I was focusing entirely on *Harry* the whole time. When I said "higher mode of heroism" I was considering oneandthetruth's remarks and how they could have applied to Harry, but didn't, and how Harry isn't a hero because of it. And how others, the pro-Jo canon apologists, struggle to try and fit Harry into the hero mould.

I see oneandthetruth's quick reference to Snape in his first of his two comments, but otherwise he was talking about an alternative storyline featuring the Half Blood Prince, not the actual canon.

But no, I never saw Snape as a hero, not for an instant. Because he's a nasty son of a gun, I guess, and also because Rowling puts up the crush on Lily as the sole reason/motivation for his siding with Dumbledore. And that excuse just fails miserably. Mix that in with all the rest of Rowling's stupidity - Dumbledore conveniently keeping the details of Snape's allegiance a secret, thus artificially pumping up the mystery, but making the story a crock in the process, for example - and yeah, any 'heroism' of Snape's got lost with the rest of the bad writing, for me.

It wasn't until a year or so ago that a correspondent on another forum pointed out to me what I felt was a critical fact that I'd missed - that Snape *hadn't* been doing it all because of a 20 year crush on a teenage girl who'd not only spurned him totally but had married his worst enemy and born that enemy a son - but that he sincerely was on the side of the angels. Because there was a critical period between Dumbledore telling Snape that Harry was destined to die and Snape's own death where he could have - should have, if it had been a case of 'all for Lily' - renounced Dumbledore, once he'd realised that he was *not* to save Lily's child.

But he didn't. So that "lately, those I could not save" line (whatever it was, exactly) wasn't just a throwaway sentence.

So, Snape a 'good guy', okay, I can see it intellectually, although it's not clear enough in the shambles and ruins of Rowling's writing to impress me on an emotional level.

Snape a 'hero'? That's even further left field for me at this point. I guess I can see it. Hmmm. I guess this makes you Snape fans more in approval of Rowling's writing than I thought, since she made a point of Harry's calling his son 'Severus' to honour the man's bravery.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Oh dear, I hope I didn't come across as big-headed or anything when I said that, I'm just a HP fan like anyone else here. It's just that I'm delighted when I come across new ideas, insights I never saw, even after all these years in the fandom. (That's why I like this community.) I love it when I can add a good meaty point to my arsenal of arguments. :-) Because I've been in the fandom for 7 years (which makes me a novice compared to many here) the pace of oh-my-gosh-I-never-saw-that epiphanies has slowed down a lot. I got excited when I read your post. :-)

No, I was referring to the fact I come from an emotionally abusive family, so I'm used to being told I'm stupid and/or crazy. Having someone tell me my ideas are great is still a rare pleasure.

BTW, I only entered the fandom 2 years ago.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

That sounds like it would be a very cool story! I think that I've seen a few fanfics that play with this idea: that Dumbledore is the real villain behind the scenes and Tom Riddle is the scapegoat.

[fishinginthemud.livejournal.com]

I thought JK was leading us up to the grand finale of the Avada Kedavra he would cast (because from what we saw he was certainly ready to go there)

And in the end, she just couldn't take him there. Rowling talks a big game about Harry not being a saint (which wouldn't bother me if he didn't get treated like one), but when it comes down to it, she's as big a pants-pissing coward as Draco Malfoy. Disgusting.

[https://me.yahoo.com/a/gNLVidA.xeLuPiOU_2B_USM.HYNFjA--#b0b6b (from livejournal.com)]

Yes, it is a disgusting cop-out on JK's part. I don't mind that Harry's not a saint. I *do* mind that JK thinks this gives him license to commit war crimes without the slightest thought for the enormity of what he's doing.