^^I'm all for flawed characters; I don't mind them at all. I think flaws are what really make a character interesting. What I don't like is when characters don't have a sense of morality. That's what bugs me the most.
It doesn't bother me that Harry used the Unforgivables (I would've pulled my hair out had he used the disarming charm one more time), baring Crucio because it merely causes pain for the pleasure of the castor[-er?]. What bothers me more is that he uses them so casually and without feeling the slightest bit of remorse. I understand that it is war - I really do. But even the event being a "war" doesn't excuse the flippancy with which Harry using the Unforgivables was dealt. Yes, Amycus was horrible and bad but he is still a human being. It shouldn't be easy to torture another human being without feeling remorse. It shouldn't be easy to kill another human being without feeling the slightest remorse. Correct me if I'm wrong but the good side typically represents what is morally superior. What is morally superior in Harry when he doesn't consider the repercussions of his actions? To draw a parallel or rather contrast, Seeley Booth (from the show "Bones") was a sniper. Trained to kill, I suppose you could say. He faught in a war and yet, he felt remorse over taking the life of a General who led numerous genocides. He feels awful when he kills another human being. That's what makes him morally superior than the people he kills. Even though they both kill numerous people, He realizes that he hasn't just killed a "bad guy", but killed a husband, a brother, a father, a son for the 'greater good'. Not just that, he works with the FBI to "tip the cosmic balance" in his favour as he wants to put as many criminals in jail as the people whose life he took away, regardless of how well deserved it was; his humanity is what really gives him the edge in morality over the bad guys. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Harry. The introspection was needed to really show how Harry (and the rest of the good guys) was any better than Bellatrix or the other bad guys.
I certainly don't believe that the Amycus experience falls into the self-defence category. Harry was under the Cloak and wasn't in line of direct harm from Carrow. Even if he does kill or torture (again, don't see how torture is supposed to be morally better), being the good guy, he should feel remorse for his actions. I don't think that he shouldn't have used the Unforgivables sans Crucio - rather, I think that he should have felt remorse over his actions. He is just so off-handed about it.
It's in the US edition on page 593. In the event that you have a different edition, here's how the part that I'm referring to follows:
[quote=DH]*tweaked to contextualize*
And he [Amycus] spat in her [McGonnagall's] face.
Harry pulled the Cloak off himself, raised his wand, and said "You shouldn't have done that."
The Death Eater was lifted off his feet. He writhed through the air like a drowning man, thrashing and howling in pain, and then with a cruch and a shattering of glass, he smashed into the front of a bookcase and crumpled, insensible, to the floor.
"I see what Bellatrix meant," said Harry, the blood thundering through his brain, "you need to really mean it."
(DH, 593)[/quote]
Hindi TV Shows
Sports
Music Corner
Anupamaa
