![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Italics = ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
billywiggy.
---
It's an interesting point you make about how [Umbridge] might be affected by wearing the locket in DH. I'd never thought of that before. I wonder if JKR did, honestly.
But to focus on OotP:
Umbridge is pretty hateful. I think most, if not all, fans agree on this. She is supposed to be. We feel little if any remorse about the torments purposely inflicted upon her: we feel she deserves them. Why? Because she has initiated the "evil" actions, I suppose. And yet, I wonder. I know, from a reader's perspectve, that treating her nicely would not likely have had any effect. She seems like the type who likes to inflict pain because she is in a position of power; because she can.
And yet... I feel shadows of a "because she exists" type of justification. Just because someone inflicts pain on ourselves, does that make it "right" to exact revenge? where is the line?
Now who's overanalyzing? lol!
(full text of reply to that)
Cruciatus curse on one of the Carrows in front of McGonagall simply because he spat on her, and McGonagall's reaction is something along the lines of 'how gallant!'
I saw the comedic value there, but it seemed like a really morbid way to make the joke. I am not against black humour as a concept, but the setup was wrong. If we were already in an absurd scenario where morality was not under consideration, then fine, the rules of the game are different, and it's "okay" to find a torture curse funny.
But as it is, I don't get the feeling, at all, that that's the framework in which we're expected to consider this scene. I mean, I can grasp the concept that sometimes a hurtful, even "evil" action can have an ultimately "good" outcome. But that consideration should be reflected somehow in the stream of consciousness of the perpetrator or his/her observers. Otherwise, it comes across just as many fans have perceived: a double standard.
This is the same author who shows Dumbledore convincing Harry to ignore the wailing baby-like soul-bit in the 'afterlife'. It's not worthy of pity, it's not worthy of concern.
That bothered me hardcore. Perhaps Dumbledore is ultimately right, and nothing can effectively be done. It would make sense to me, in a worldview that is at least trying to be religiously neutral, that Voldemort's "sins" could only be forgiven by he himself, and nothing Harry could do could actually have any effect.
But Harry should *try*! He's "good", right? Good people *try* even if they are sure they will ultimately fail, because there may at least be *some* beneficial effect, right? Dumbledore's coldness bothers me a lot, and Harry's acceptance of it bothers me more.
Even aside from all that, it would prove the moral superiority of the Harry side, and by extension the Dumbledore side, which I find it bizarre that Dumbledore would not want validation for. Maybe this is a last, tiny reflection of the whole Dumbledore/Grindelwald dynamic, and DD still finds it impossible to forgive even now that he himself has died, but I think by this point we are getting way deeper than JKR intended.
billywiggy.---
It's an interesting point you make about how [Umbridge] might be affected by wearing the locket in DH. I'd never thought of that before. I wonder if JKR did, honestly.
But to focus on OotP:
Umbridge is pretty hateful. I think most, if not all, fans agree on this. She is supposed to be. We feel little if any remorse about the torments purposely inflicted upon her: we feel she deserves them. Why? Because she has initiated the "evil" actions, I suppose. And yet, I wonder. I know, from a reader's perspectve, that treating her nicely would not likely have had any effect. She seems like the type who likes to inflict pain because she is in a position of power; because she can.
And yet... I feel shadows of a "because she exists" type of justification. Just because someone inflicts pain on ourselves, does that make it "right" to exact revenge? where is the line?
Now who's overanalyzing? lol!
(full text of reply to that)
Cruciatus curse on one of the Carrows in front of McGonagall simply because he spat on her, and McGonagall's reaction is something along the lines of 'how gallant!'
I saw the comedic value there, but it seemed like a really morbid way to make the joke. I am not against black humour as a concept, but the setup was wrong. If we were already in an absurd scenario where morality was not under consideration, then fine, the rules of the game are different, and it's "okay" to find a torture curse funny.
But as it is, I don't get the feeling, at all, that that's the framework in which we're expected to consider this scene. I mean, I can grasp the concept that sometimes a hurtful, even "evil" action can have an ultimately "good" outcome. But that consideration should be reflected somehow in the stream of consciousness of the perpetrator or his/her observers. Otherwise, it comes across just as many fans have perceived: a double standard.
This is the same author who shows Dumbledore convincing Harry to ignore the wailing baby-like soul-bit in the 'afterlife'. It's not worthy of pity, it's not worthy of concern.
That bothered me hardcore. Perhaps Dumbledore is ultimately right, and nothing can effectively be done. It would make sense to me, in a worldview that is at least trying to be religiously neutral, that Voldemort's "sins" could only be forgiven by he himself, and nothing Harry could do could actually have any effect.
But Harry should *try*! He's "good", right? Good people *try* even if they are sure they will ultimately fail, because there may at least be *some* beneficial effect, right? Dumbledore's coldness bothers me a lot, and Harry's acceptance of it bothers me more.
Even aside from all that, it would prove the moral superiority of the Harry side, and by extension the Dumbledore side, which I find it bizarre that Dumbledore would not want validation for. Maybe this is a last, tiny reflection of the whole Dumbledore/Grindelwald dynamic, and DD still finds it impossible to forgive even now that he himself has died, but I think by this point we are getting way deeper than JKR intended.
no subject
Date: November 19th, 2007 08:36 pm (UTC)From:Why the fuck is Harry's sacrifice more significant than anybody else's? Why did Harry's "willingness to die" create a special magic forcefield around Hogwarts, but not the willingness to die of every single other person in the damned school?
Seriously. People had already died before Harry even left to see Snape's death (hell, Snape had been fighting to protect the WHOLE DAMN SCHOOL ALL YEAR), and yet HARRY'S death is what does it? Well, aren't you just so fucking special?
I think he has a point about Jo being obsessed with death...
no subject
Date: November 19th, 2007 09:39 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: November 19th, 2007 11:48 pm (UTC)From:Harry does that. He tells Voldemort to show remorse when he meets him, which was established as the only way to save his soul. Good people try only if there is any theoretical chance of sucess, they might try first aid when it's too late, but they don't give first aid to half decayed corpses.
no subject
Date: November 20th, 2007 12:08 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: November 20th, 2007 04:21 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: November 20th, 2007 04:49 am (UTC)From: