Lol, I was reading about that.
But should Harry feel remorse about torturing someone evil, when he himself has suffered at their hands?
Stuff happens in war - sometimes you have to take a low-blow
And also... IT'S A BOOK!

okay harry is flawed-
but that is what makes him so perfect!

He's a war criminal?

When was I going to be announced?

Oh for goodness sake. You have to be cruel to be kind. Harry could have killed the guy, and he's had unforgivable curses on him plenty of times. Carrow probably used it on people himself. Anyway, when you're fighting for your life, do you really have time to stop and think about morals of what you have do? Unless you're playing chess, I don't advise you to stop, sit down and construct a debate about the consequences of fighting someone.

I might not agree with the severity of her tone, but she has a point. There are multiple spells Harry could have used such as Stupefy, Incarcerous, and the like, rather than Crucio. Stupefy is used to prevent your opponent from harming you- self defense. Crucio's entire point is to cause physical pain. Harry's motivation was more revenge than self defense. The fact that he later Stunned Amycus proves that his intent was to prevent him from getting in his way as he sought the Diadem. He used the Cruciatus Curse as a way to give Amycus 'what he deserved.' However, if you continue in that line of thinking, Harry deserves to be Imperiused and Crucio'd by someone, and I don't think any of us would go so far as to say that. As soon as I read this passage I didn't like Harry's choice. But I'm glad Jo wrote it. It underlines her theme of choices and doing what's right instead of what's easy. And I'm glad she didn't have Harry reflect back on it. The reader is forced to contemplate Harry's choice and decide for themselves if it was right or not.

I agree with Pottermaniac (Post #13).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pottermaniac

Edit: I changed my mind, it's not just a book, it's a worldwide phenomenon. Now Chicken Soup for the Soul, or Computers for Dummies, those are just books. People, you visit SS everyday, how could you call it just a book? Something tells me fans wouldn't say Harry Potter were just a book, if this were a debate on whether Ginny really likes Harry.

Many have said 'it's just a book.' Yes, it is. But it's a book that sold millions of copies. Think of how many people read that passage. But like I said, I think it's good Jo wrote it. I'd rather have her write it and force people to think about the morality of it and reach their own conclusion (whether they decide it was right or wrong) than have it not be in the book at all.

I see the point.
There was no need to torture him 'for the greater good'. Harry just lost his temper. And he sunk to the criminals level.
But that is the very reason why I like the scene: Harry shows he is not annoyingly perfect.

I think that one thing we have to remember is Harry was still a child. He was dealing with things that no child should have to deal with. He didn't have the mental capacity to fully understand what he was doing. Does it make it right? No. But it also doesn't make it right that he had to take on the burden of saving the entire world. I think it shows us what can happen when a child is placed into a horrible situation and bombarded by wrong doings. It's amazing how quickly the evils of the world can consume and change a person.

what???? some people are just INSANE!

That's what we don't like to admit: our laws forbid torturing while allow killing.

It's not surprising. After seven books it's hard to adopt a neutral position.
Maybe that is another quality of HP: it doesn't only reflect our society in the story but also shows us how easily manipulable we are, considering our point of view as readers.

While I don't think Jo sits down and decisively plans to teach "lessons of the day", I think what you've said in these quotes is very true. The HP world has always been brutally realistic when it comes to life & death, JKR doesn't shy away from showing her characters in a harsh light, thereby challenging us as readers. I'm glad she encourages her readers to engage intellectually with her text...which is why it saddens me to see people say "It's just a book" whilst at the same time devoting hours to it on a website. It's a total contradiction of terms.

Whaaat? That doesn't make any sense at all. It's not like he did it for fun, he just wanted his friends to be safe! My goodness...

That's mean! Nobody's perfect! Why doesn't she have a go at Voldie? He's really evil! Maybe Harry should have used a cheering charm instead, that would help him in his fight against evil!

Same here.

I'm also quite sad how people have reacted towards this woman, who clearly only has the best of intentions. Mrs. Chakrabarti has a background in this sort of thing, in reality, and she is entitled to her opinion, as each one of us are, without having to be called a weirdo, or a fool.

She never said she hated Harry Potter, she mentioned she was a huge fan. And she's not having a go at Voldemort because the case against Voldemort is pretty clear already. The lady is simply expressing her impressions of Harry's acts just like each of us do on these forums (whether we realise it or not) everyday.

It doesn't bother me so much how Harry did this act, as it does seing how people simply shrug it off, or disrespect a woman who remarked it and did no more than mention it during an interview.

She's not trying to take the books off the shelves here!

Edit: Sorry... I just can't seem to let this thing go. >.< I just have to say that I don't mind people rejecting her idea, but you have to do it respectfully.

And I still think she's right.

Harry was against a murderous DE, in that situation it became kill or be killed. His goal was to get and destroy the Horcruxes, and DEs got in the way. How many good guys were killed? Fred, Tonks, Lupin, Sirius, the Potters, and many others! What's one DE? Really, it was his own fault for being on the wrong side.

*Shakes head annoyedly* I'm not even going to say a thing..

I'm sad this article doesn't haver Rupert pictures, but you have a point SHE who is Pottermaniac (sorry, all the maniacs I know are guys so I thought ... )

People are so quick to jump the gun without actually thinking about it. Anything perceived as an attack on the fandom automatically must be met with derision and insults, and I think that's really childish, which is why I think the HP books are children's books, I mean if one were to poll the readership ... *fires the cannons*

But yes, I was very disappointed in people dismissing HP as just a book, when it's so much more ... a reflection of society NOW, what's popular, what's relevant, as I think can be clearly seen in the political undertone of Ootp, and no I don't mean the movie, though it's there too (But film tends to be less intellectual than literature *fires the cannons* you know it does, spoon feed the masses and use base propaganda ... evil liberals ... Grrr ... which is to say nothing of conservative media ... *looks at the SS news* )


I just think people's popular reactions are an example of what's acceptable today in society, the whole, 'shoot first ask questions later' mentality, which is to say nothing of bunny hate 'the ends justify the means'. I think if you stand for something you should represent it, even when no one is looking. Just a thought ... Yes, Harry isn't perfect, I'm not saying he is, I don't think anyone argued he was, but this smacks of evil, pure and simple, and yes I think people who justify their argument with 'seemed right at the time' or 'reacted in danger' are right. Maybe those are valid reasons why Harry did what he did, but ... failure to show remorse ...

Harry's whole stance for not siding with the Ministry and Scrimgeour in books 6 & 7 was that he did not like the methods they were employing to fight the battle against Voldemort ...

This here is a total about face ... and while it's true this isn't the first time Harry tried an unforgivable ... well ... don't look at me ... It was the Dursley's bad upbringing which is a whole other can of worms ... and that's because I'm leaving out the whole messianic hero figure element and my love of bunnies ... just saying.


Not if you spend those hours on this website playing, "Harry is my man ..." Quality hours, not quantity hours ... and I'm still appalled that no one is shocked at the misuse of bunnies ... seriously ... did no one but me read Watership Down?

EDIT: Then there's the whole, 'willing to sacrife Neville to win' OMG! Harry really is one cold *Teddy drags Otty away before he gets in trouble* This is why I love Ron best ... he doesn't crucio people!!!!!!!!!!111

Actually, I think Harry was mistaken when he used the Curcio curse. I knew that Harry was angry and Amycus kind of deserves it but he can do any other spell. I knew Harry is not a saint but you shouldn't be a saint to not do some thing like that. I'm a normal human but I still don't want to torture people and be happy with that. But of course it's still a book and a story.

Well I also think That Harry just wanted to help his friends and he saw no other chance to do so....

OMG.I guess that they just have to take their own time to get over it.Harry Potter is just a BOOK!Not to be rude or anything but some people should keep their opinion to themselves. Because it can be a bit annoying.

~Maria

That is so true Otts. Words right out of my head.

All I can do is scoff, mate. You know that's not what I'm about.

I conceed, slightly, but it's still evidently more than "just" a book, even moreso since people can participate in games as well as discussion. So saying otherwise is hypocrisy.

If it's "just a book" then why do you spend time on a fansite? Because it's not "just" a book to you. Think through your argument. You can't toss phrases like that about out of convenience, especially since doing so is a direct contradiction of your own words. And no, people shouldn't be silenced, that is censorship.

Harry is not perfect in anyway come on it is only a book

Hi, Grindelwald! Nice to know your still out there; I thought Voldy killed you.

ok shes a bit of a freak...

th prson who woz complaining about th so calld torture tht is lol

The point of him using the curse is to get control of him, he did not continue to torture him once he had him under control. Do we not use the weapons of our enemies in war? It was war, and sometimes you have to use certain tactics in war. Like I said, it would have been different had he continued to torture him beyond what little he did to get him under control.