an official HP work deciding that the curses previously considered "unforgivable" by the liberal humanist wizarding society are actually a little forgivable as the franchise declines is a spectacular metaphor for liberalism's descent into fascist cruelty in crisis.
This has always bothered me. Why is the "instant death" spell considered unforgiveable?
I can understand the torture spell, or mind control spell to be considered abhorrent, but why a spell whose effect can not only be achieved by a huge number of other spells, even ones cast without speaking (e.g. the wand-flick gunshot), but which can also be achieved through basic muggle technology?
Why is a spell like "Sectum Sempra" considered acceptable, despite permanently maiming the target, leaving them writhing in pain, and if not treated, killing them too?
A more intelligent author might have defined entire categories of spells as unforgiveable, like a wizard Geneva Convention, and would have probably included stuff like Horcruxes, necromancy, etc.
Addendum:
A better way to define it would also have been to say that the spell effects themselves aren't directly what leads to such harsh punishment. Instead, they carry symbolic meaning, and are the signature spells of the Death Eaters, that were appropriated by them.
So basically, there are alternative spells you could use to achieve similar effects -- but by using one of these 3 particular ones, you are outing yourself as a Wizard Nazi. So basically the spell form of a swastika, wolfsangel, sonnenrad, etc.
Why is the “instant death” spell considered unforgiveable?
I mean, broadly speaking, because it murders people.
why a spell whose effect can not only be achieved by a huge number of other spells, even ones cast without speaking (e.g. the wand-flick gunshot), but which can also be achieved through basic muggle technology?
So much shit in Wizard World can just be reversed out. You can literally regrow your bones, ffs. The Big Three are politically problematic as much as they are ethically challenged. Mind Control spell created a serious problem of judicial inquiry, as any individual could plausibly claim "I was under the influence" when accused of a crime. Torture was a threat to the bureaucracy, as - similar to Mind Control - it compelled the release of classified information to outside parties. And the Murder Spell was a problem, I suspect, primarily because only Very Powerful Wizards could stick the landing. Weaker political figures didn't want to get kicked off the ladder by some rogue asshole with magical muscles.
Why is a spell like “Sectum Sempra” considered acceptable
Its not. This is a spell that one wizard invented in his free time and virtually nobody else knows. Its not on the Big Three list by way of obscurity. Harry only avoids expulsion and a ticket to Azkabahan because his use of the spell is covered up.
A more intelligent author might have defined entire categories of spells as unforgiveable, like a wizard Geneva Convention, and would have probably included stuff like Horcruxes, necromancy, etc.
Sure. But its a children's book not a legal text. She picks three narrative-significant spells and highlights them as Unforgiveable primarily in the negative. These are the three primary weapons of the Snake Eaters and so the liberal technocracy decided to explicitly ban their use in response to the uprising. Introducing them as "Unforgivable" gives her an opportunity to outline who used them, how they were used, and why they play such a significant role in the story.
Introducing a chapter on "The regulations and prohibitions with regard to alchemical transmutations" might make for some interesting Deep Lore, but won't have any serious significance in a book about Wizard Middle School.
but a lot of it is just lazy worldbuilding. yeah, you can use the instant killing spell to kill someone, so its illegal. but in the last movie molly blows up bellatrix. why isnt that spell illegal? painless death is banned but exploding someone isn't? why not just say "there are many illegal spells, here are the big three that are most often used" or something
Eh. The world building - particularly in the early novels - was fine. "Here are three plot-relevant spells that the bad guys use, and also let me introduce you to the children of the spells' victims." Perfectly fine narrative framing.
but in the last movie molly blows up bellatrix. why isnt that spell illegal?
Because people love explosions and it was a way to climatically end the fight. I totally agree that this particular scene was shameless fan service and derailed the liberal narrative. But that was the tail end of the final book, so shrug. A lot of dumb shit happened in Book 7.
why not just say “there are many illegal spells, here are the big three that are most often used” or something
They do say that. For students, every spell is illegal to cast until they reach their majority. You also need a license to Apparate. And Ron Weasley's dad magically tinkering with mechanical devices is strongly implied to be against some assortment of wizarding regulations. Something we discover in passing after Ron and Harry crash the flying car in Book 2.
The focus on the "Big Three" is not to simply say that these are "illegal" but that they are "unforgivable". As in "sinful" rather than simply "unlawful". Mad Eye Moody teaching these spells to children is supposed to be a big red flag regarding his allegiance and motivation in Book 4.
IRL weapons control treaties are also very strange and inconsistent a lot of the time. You can burn a man alive with a flamethrower, but it's illegal to blind him with a laser.
fuck i forgot about that. and everything about the dementors where they're described in uniquely horrific terms, and they're torturing someone who wasn't even guilty, but somehow no one actually questions their use by civilized wizarding society.
an official HP work deciding that the curses previously considered "unforgivable" by the liberal humanist wizarding society are actually a little forgivable as the franchise declines is a spectacular metaphor for liberalism's descent into fascist cruelty in crisis.
Also having the painless kill spell as worse than the Death Potions they use for capital punishment.
This has always bothered me. Why is the "instant death" spell considered unforgiveable?
I can understand the torture spell, or mind control spell to be considered abhorrent, but why a spell whose effect can not only be achieved by a huge number of other spells, even ones cast without speaking (e.g. the wand-flick gunshot), but which can also be achieved through basic muggle technology?
Why is a spell like "Sectum Sempra" considered acceptable, despite permanently maiming the target, leaving them writhing in pain, and if not treated, killing them too?
A more intelligent author might have defined entire categories of spells as unforgiveable, like a wizard Geneva Convention, and would have probably included stuff like Horcruxes, necromancy, etc.
Addendum: A better way to define it would also have been to say that the spell effects themselves aren't directly what leads to such harsh punishment. Instead, they carry symbolic meaning, and are the signature spells of the Death Eaters, that were appropriated by them.
So basically, there are alternative spells you could use to achieve similar effects -- but by using one of these 3 particular ones, you are outing yourself as a Wizard Nazi. So basically the spell form of a swastika, wolfsangel, sonnenrad, etc.
Well, until they kept showing up on the uniforms of Ukrainian soldiers, anyway
It's more nuanced than that! Not that a tankie like you could ever understand.
deleted by creator
I mean, broadly speaking, because it murders people.
So much shit in Wizard World can just be reversed out. You can literally regrow your bones, ffs. The Big Three are politically problematic as much as they are ethically challenged. Mind Control spell created a serious problem of judicial inquiry, as any individual could plausibly claim "I was under the influence" when accused of a crime. Torture was a threat to the bureaucracy, as - similar to Mind Control - it compelled the release of classified information to outside parties. And the Murder Spell was a problem, I suspect, primarily because only Very Powerful Wizards could stick the landing. Weaker political figures didn't want to get kicked off the ladder by some rogue asshole with magical muscles.
Its not. This is a spell that one wizard invented in his free time and virtually nobody else knows. Its not on the Big Three list by way of obscurity. Harry only avoids expulsion and a ticket to Azkabahan because his use of the spell is covered up.
Sure. But its a children's book not a legal text. She picks three narrative-significant spells and highlights them as Unforgiveable primarily in the negative. These are the three primary weapons of the Snake Eaters and so the liberal technocracy decided to explicitly ban their use in response to the uprising. Introducing them as "Unforgivable" gives her an opportunity to outline who used them, how they were used, and why they play such a significant role in the story.
Introducing a chapter on "The regulations and prohibitions with regard to alchemical transmutations" might make for some interesting Deep Lore, but won't have any serious significance in a book about Wizard Middle School.
but a lot of it is just lazy worldbuilding. yeah, you can use the instant killing spell to kill someone, so its illegal. but in the last movie molly blows up bellatrix. why isnt that spell illegal? painless death is banned but exploding someone isn't? why not just say "there are many illegal spells, here are the big three that are most often used" or something
Eh. The world building - particularly in the early novels - was fine. "Here are three plot-relevant spells that the bad guys use, and also let me introduce you to the children of the spells' victims." Perfectly fine narrative framing.
Because people love explosions and it was a way to climatically end the fight. I totally agree that this particular scene was shameless fan service and derailed the liberal narrative. But that was the tail end of the final book, so shrug. A lot of dumb shit happened in Book 7.
They do say that. For students, every spell is illegal to cast until they reach their majority. You also need a license to Apparate. And Ron Weasley's dad magically tinkering with mechanical devices is strongly implied to be against some assortment of wizarding regulations. Something we discover in passing after Ron and Harry crash the flying car in Book 2.
The focus on the "Big Three" is not to simply say that these are "illegal" but that they are "unforgivable". As in "sinful" rather than simply "unlawful". Mad Eye Moody teaching these spells to children is supposed to be a big red flag regarding his allegiance and motivation in Book 4.
IRL weapons control treaties are also very strange and inconsistent a lot of the time. You can burn a man alive with a flamethrower, but it's illegal to blind him with a laser.
I guess there is no other application for an instant death curse. But a fire spell could do other things
fuck i forgot about that. and everything about the dementors where they're described in uniquely horrific terms, and they're torturing someone who wasn't even guilty, but somehow no one actually questions their use by civilized wizarding society.