Re: Downplaying Mulciber's actions
(Anonymous)
I see what you mean. I'd have much preferred it myself if we'd been given more than Lily's word that Mulciber was up to no good. That she eventually married James isn't a ringing endorsement of her moral sense. The reason I'm still willing to take her word over Snape's is because the (admittedly minimal) evidence favors it. Mulciber and Avery and Snape all became DEs. It always seemed more plausible than not that they were already turning to the dark side in their teens.
Besides, Lily specifically says there was Dark magic involved. For me, and I may be in the minority here, the assumption that Dark magic is always more or less bad is the simplest and most logically consistent. So whatever Mulciber was trying to do = bad. Equally, of course, Harry's evil for casting Cruciatus and James is a huge hypocrite for using potentially Dark spells out of Snape's book. This isn't how the author wants me to read, but it's consistent with the text and their characters as written -- that is, nothing about Harry says he's too good of a person to use an Unforgivable, imo.
-L
Besides, Lily specifically says there was Dark magic involved. For me, and I may be in the minority here, the assumption that Dark magic is always more or less bad is the simplest and most logically consistent. So whatever Mulciber was trying to do = bad. Equally, of course, Harry's evil for casting Cruciatus and James is a huge hypocrite for using potentially Dark spells out of Snape's book. This isn't how the author wants me to read, but it's consistent with the text and their characters as written -- that is, nothing about Harry says he's too good of a person to use an Unforgivable, imo.
-L