![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Brilliant observations! You've finally given a coherent explanation to the unfathomable but unique type of nausea that I've been feeling when it comes to the cruelty of the Potterverse. Thanks so much for that!
You point out several very important things, but I think you absolutely nailed it by uncovering the pattern for not only the clean-handed receiving of vengeance but also the sweet unpunished violence on those you're indifferent to. That's really... It really makes me worry about the mental states the kids reading the series are nudged into identifying with, because a normal person would generally feel icky about torturing other people, even if those victims have wronged others (though not others close enough to you that the wronging is personal, like Lily is to Snape) and therefore are thought to "deserve it" (TM).
That's why we were so shocked at Harry cruciating Amycus, seemingly so casually and without due legitimization. I mean, in a perfect world torturing other people is bad, period, obviously, but you'd at least understand and sympathize with him if he had done it to save his own neck, or in retaliation to him cruciating Hermione. Heck, if he had succeeded in this spell right after Bella killed Sirius, or Snape killed Dumbledore, I wouldn't have questioned JKR's claim that the cruciatus just shows you "Harry is only human." But it's just creepy that a 17-year-old boy is cruciating a man without any strategic necessity or personal rage / self-preservation instinct, and this should be lauded on as a sign of his "gallantness" (whatever that is) and explained as "he's just an ordinary guy." That's not an ordinary-guy reaction (at least, not the kind of ordinary guy who fails to cruciate a man who murdered his favorite mentor in front of his frozen eyes) and asking readers to enjoy it is an invitation to enjoy torture just because it's torture. Ewww...
Just a few minor points--
You might say Quirrell was killed by Dumbledore. Who, of course, couldn't have done the logical thing and kicked him out (either physically or metaphorically) when the criminal was plotting to come after his philosopher stone. Oh, no, can't have that. That wouldn't be gallant. But once he's threatening ickle Harry's life (which is a situation he allowed -- or really, more or less staged -- but whatever) well now he's gloriously justified in jumping into the ring and doing whatever damaged to what's left of Quirrell's body.
And I don't really think Sirius rates much higher than Snape on this warped morality scale of the Potterverse. Especially not in PoA: he was coming after Peter with personal vengeance, exactly as Snape was after him for Lily's sake, but that vengeance never gets carried out -- in a sense because Harry talked him out of it, yes, but they don't even succeed in handing Peter over to the so-called justice system. Whereupon Peter would have suffered. But he escapes. Which I think goes to support your theory here that avenging yourself or your own loved ones is never allowed in HP as a good thing.
And then in OotP Sirius jumps into the fray when Harry and co. get cornered by Death Eaters. Along with all the rest of the Order members who arrived -- including Dumbledore -- but only Sirius dies because he was throwing murderous hexes around at the people who had threatened to hurt his own godson. All the rest of them were with less personal reasons and they all survive -- even Remus. The instant Sirius dies Harry goes half mad, but Remus is capable of keeping his head and holding him back. Coincidence? I'm sure it is. But in this series there's a structured pattern to all the coincidences that are allowed to happen.
This is so, so creepy. And you're right, the scariest thing of it is that the whole tale fits this single pattern, from PS/SS all the way to the end of DH.
You point out several very important things, but I think you absolutely nailed it by uncovering the pattern for not only the clean-handed receiving of vengeance but also the sweet unpunished violence on those you're indifferent to. That's really... It really makes me worry about the mental states the kids reading the series are nudged into identifying with, because a normal person would generally feel icky about torturing other people, even if those victims have wronged others (though not others close enough to you that the wronging is personal, like Lily is to Snape) and therefore are thought to "deserve it" (TM).
That's why we were so shocked at Harry cruciating Amycus, seemingly so casually and without due legitimization. I mean, in a perfect world torturing other people is bad, period, obviously, but you'd at least understand and sympathize with him if he had done it to save his own neck, or in retaliation to him cruciating Hermione. Heck, if he had succeeded in this spell right after Bella killed Sirius, or Snape killed Dumbledore, I wouldn't have questioned JKR's claim that the cruciatus just shows you "Harry is only human." But it's just creepy that a 17-year-old boy is cruciating a man without any strategic necessity or personal rage / self-preservation instinct, and this should be lauded on as a sign of his "gallantness" (whatever that is) and explained as "he's just an ordinary guy." That's not an ordinary-guy reaction (at least, not the kind of ordinary guy who fails to cruciate a man who murdered his favorite mentor in front of his frozen eyes) and asking readers to enjoy it is an invitation to enjoy torture just because it's torture. Ewww...
Just a few minor points--
You might say Quirrell was killed by Dumbledore. Who, of course, couldn't have done the logical thing and kicked him out (either physically or metaphorically) when the criminal was plotting to come after his philosopher stone. Oh, no, can't have that. That wouldn't be gallant. But once he's threatening ickle Harry's life (which is a situation he allowed -- or really, more or less staged -- but whatever) well now he's gloriously justified in jumping into the ring and doing whatever damaged to what's left of Quirrell's body.
And I don't really think Sirius rates much higher than Snape on this warped morality scale of the Potterverse. Especially not in PoA: he was coming after Peter with personal vengeance, exactly as Snape was after him for Lily's sake, but that vengeance never gets carried out -- in a sense because Harry talked him out of it, yes, but they don't even succeed in handing Peter over to the so-called justice system. Whereupon Peter would have suffered. But he escapes. Which I think goes to support your theory here that avenging yourself or your own loved ones is never allowed in HP as a good thing.
And then in OotP Sirius jumps into the fray when Harry and co. get cornered by Death Eaters. Along with all the rest of the Order members who arrived -- including Dumbledore -- but only Sirius dies because he was throwing murderous hexes around at the people who had threatened to hurt his own godson. All the rest of them were with less personal reasons and they all survive -- even Remus. The instant Sirius dies Harry goes half mad, but Remus is capable of keeping his head and holding him back. Coincidence? I'm sure it is. But in this series there's a structured pattern to all the coincidences that are allowed to happen.
This is so, so creepy. And you're right, the scariest thing of it is that the whole tale fits this single pattern, from PS/SS all the way to the end of DH.