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

[detritius.livejournal.com]

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?

That just strikes me as odd. That would be like a bunch of fourteen and fifteen year old Muggles not knowing about guns, wouldn't it? But then, the wizarding world does seem to be pretty lacking in things like comic books, movies, and TV shows where kids could find out about that stuff. It's not like there's a wizarding Law and Order or whatever - the only way they'd find out is if someone told them or if they read it in a book, and probably a dry, information-only book at that.

Remind me, why is this world supposed to be so much better than the real one, again?

[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.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

What is with the abuse of animals in these books? And not even Hermione seems to object. If it isn't disemboweling toads, it's turning animals into inanimate objects for no particular reason. I can't imagine that that would be a pleasant experience.

Animal Abuse

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, it wasn't the spider Hermione was being compassionate for. … Casting them on spiders is fine.

It's OK If A Gryffindor Does It. Or if you do it to spiders. Or other animals. Or if you just happen to feel like it. Or …

Yeah, the animal abuse throughout the series bothered me, too.

[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]

Alas, Imperiurized!Arthur was never confirmed.

What's with this (old fandom?) theory?

Arthur was under the thrall of a *love potion* to Molly! Nothing to do with the Imperius!

:-)

(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?) ... 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?

No-one knew about it prior to this book. I'd say it's pretty certain that Rowling only dreamed up the 'Unforgivables' when writing book 4.

I've always thought that, in a 'real' magical world based on Rowling's work - i.e. a world properly mapped out - the DEs would have been using AKs and nothing else. We've had a discussion touching on this sort of thing here on CapsLock before. Magically unblockable, no more demanding or 'dark' than any other curse ... of course they'd be using it!

Rather silly to learn all the other defence spells when they were all useless to an 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.

Maybe that was something Rowling didn't think about until the end of OotP. Or does a gravestone actually protect Harry at the end of this book? Rather than just taking an AK that wasn't going to hit they boy anyway?

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.

Oh, stop it. :-) Her heart's in the right place. S.P.E.W.'s one and only goal is to help the elves, what more do you want? Shush.

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.

Now hold on there. Real life isn't as important as (criticising) Harry Potter! :-)

I hope the demands of your real life are good ones and look forward to seeing your future posts.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Remind me, why is this world supposed to be so much better than the real one, again?

Because children, teenagers, don't know anything about the wizarding equivalent of a gun? :-)

But that has to be an error of Rowling's ... they all know about the dark lord, after all, and he was spraying the Killing Curse around as if he knew no other spell in DH.

[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.

[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.

[fishinginthemud.livejournal.com]

Her heart's in the right place. S.P.E.W.'s one and only goal is to help the elves, what more do you want?

I get really uncomfortable with the way every single character craps on Hermione for caring about the elves. Sure, Rowling took the easy way out and made them love being slaves, so now Harry gets to have a slave of his very own, but the way everyone is so adamant to defend the status quo is just sad. Sure, Harry and Ron are selfish, unthinking assholes, and there's no hope of making them change their minds, but she could have found some support somewhere.

[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.

[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'

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

One would think that she could have gotten support from Hagrid, considering that he's also a member of a stigmatized race. But no, Hagrid tells her that it's in house elves' "nature" to serve and refuses to join SPEW.

Yes, Hermione is going about her goal the wrong way, but at least she's *trying.* At least she recognizes that something is wrong, unlike everybody else who couldn't care less, even when it doesn't make sense. For example, why doesn't Harry think that house elves' slavery is odd and wrong? He grew up in a world where slavery is illegal. The first house elf that he met was one who'd been treated badly by his masters and whom Harry had subsequently freed. Yet Harry just goes along with Ron in thinking that Hermione should just accept how things are?

And what about the other Muggle-borns at Hogwarts? They don't care that there's this whole race of sentient beings who are enslaved by wizards? Do they just rationalize that house elves aren't technically human, so their slavery somehow isn't like slavery in the Muggle world? Do they think that it's just another tradition in the wizarding world that they need to get accustomed to and that they don't understand? I can't believe that literally *nobody* else cared about Hermione's campaign.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Yay! Someone else to help me defend our heroine Hermione Granger!! :-)

I'm not a Ron *hater* but I don't think much of his character; he didn't lend that much to the Trio and his main purpose, I feel, was to weigh Harry down and continually push for the status quo, just as you say. Hermione would be pushing for something - doing homework, saving the elves, seeing threats - and Ron would be all "she's mental, Harry, forget about it/her".

Which I why I like those fanfics where Ron is jettisoned and Harry, now taking on board more of Hermione's influence, is vastly improved by the experience. :-)

but she could have found some support somewhere.

That would have been very interesting indeed.

Say if someone, like Neville, actually supported Hermione in a pursuit which was dear to her.

Why, she'd drift out of the Holy Trinity, become 'best friends' with that other person.

THIS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

So Rowling just ignored the possiblity, full stop. No other muggle-born around who could see Hermione's point of view. At all. Uh huh.

[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).

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

And what about the other Muggle-borns at Hogwarts? They don't care that there's this whole race of sentient beings who are enslaved by wizards?

I hadn't seen your comment when I made the same point, which only just occurred to me.

I think Rowling either didn't think about the other muggle-borns, or deliberately kept things super-simplistic and ignored them. Because otherwise there would have been good reasons for Hermione to - gasp! - leave the Trio, or expand her circle of friends. And that would have upset Rowling's simple series.

Slavery and S.P.E.W.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I think part of what's confusing about the S.P.E.W. storyline is that Hermione usually represents the authorial voice. However, in this situation, I'm pretty sure that Hermione isn't speaking for Rowling. Rather, Hermione is speaking here for the readers (or perhaps Rowling's subconsciousness) whom Rowling imagines will argue that all slavery is wrong. I think Rowling included the S.P.E.W. storyline simply so that she could pay lip service to slavery generally being evil and then assure her readers that the enslavement of house-elves isn't a problem.

The problem, though, is that Rowling seems to be working with a rather simplistic understanding of slavery. She seems to have pretty much limited the issues of slavery to 1.not getting paid for doing menial labor and 2.abuse from masters. Therefore, since house elves want to do menial labor for free, and since only "evil" masters like the Malfoys abuse their elves, that means that the enslavement of house-elves is okay.

She seems to have missed the fact that slavery is also evil because it leaves individuals with very little, if any, power over their own lives. Real slaves don't get to choose whom they work for. They don't get to choose where they live. They don't get to choose whom they'll marry. They can't do anything if a master decides to separate a family. They can't say "no" in sexual situations....

Because Rowling apparently hasn't given much consideration to the lack of power and choice that real slavery entails, she has done little to address those issues regarding house-elves. Thus, we don't really know how much power house-elves have in their relationships with their families. And, while house-elves are clearly sentient beings, they aren't human, and so we don't really know if they have the cognitive ability to be able to make decisions about their own lives--they're clearly quite intelligent in some ways, but they are also rather child-like in some of their behavior.

We can't, as readers, determine whether or not house-elf slavery is wrong because Rowling has simply failed to consider all the reasons why real slavery is.