On horcruxes and the saving of souls

[likeaglass]

It was sunny and the grounds around him were full of laughing people, and even though he felt as distant from them as though he belonged to a different race, it was still very hard to believe as he sat here that his life must include, or end in, murder....

OotP, 855-856

Comments

[ariadneelda]

Yes, I, too, can't see Rowling having Harry actually kill Voldemort and thus become a murderer with a ripped soul. But I don't think she intends for Snape to kill him, either, no matter how much I'd LOVE to see that. I find it very possible that Snape will help Harry in some way in the end but commiting the actual act of killing Voldemort and becoming a hero to the eyes of Harry, the reader and generally everyone? I fear Rowling doesn't like Snape enough for that. :( I rather think Harry will find a way other than murder to vanquish Voldemort, although I've no idea what that could be. But it would be so GREAT if it was actually Snape who did it... Or even if it was thanks to Snape's self-sacrifice that Harry managed to defeat Voldemort. Oh, we can always hope, right? ;)

[likeaglass]

No, I don't think Rowling likes Snape all that much, either. On the other hand, I think she's perfectly capable of using him to make her point, that there is no black and white, and it's all about choices. And I'm not sure she's above using however many interviews she's done as one giant red herring, either, so I tend to take what she says will happen with a grain of salt.

I rather think Harry will find a way other than murder to vanquish Voldemort, although I've no idea what that could be

Hm, interesting point. I'd like to think JKR would have mentioned the way to kill Voldemort by now, which is why I'm leaning towards someone needing to use AK, but she could always throw in something completely unexpected.

But it would be so GREAT if it was actually Snape who did it... Or even if it was thanks to Snape's self-sacrifice that Harry managed to defeat Voldemort. Oh, we can always hope, right? ;)

God, it SO would. Proving Harry wrong, once again :D

[likeaglass]

Oh, it's definitely psychological (which I did mention in the essay, btw). I think Harry has a lot of latent power and could use the dark arts; he's just, like Dumbledore, a bit too noble for that. And the horcrux bit was a typo. I actually meant murder, so thanks for catching that :D

The priori incantatem bit is partly why I think someone else is going to have to AK Voldemort. It's in the nature of these books to have a big climactic battle scene at the end, and I can see priori incantatem playing a role in the 7th book battle. Harry's wand and Voldemort's connect, leaving someone else free to cast the killing curse. I suspect that's why Voldemort made such a big deal about "leave him to me!" and all that, because the golden cage that came out of the wands wasn't actually protecting them or anything, and they were still vulnerable to attack.

I have a theory about the Harry-as-Horcrux thing, which is that he'll need to die, then come back. It's based on Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces, which talks about the

[sigune]

Interesting essay!

Like you, I agree that Harry can't, and in fact mustn't, kill. It will be difficult for me to accept, in the world that Rowling has created, that Harry vanquishes Voldemort by Avada Kedavra. It would be descending to the level of the bad guys and, indeed, tearing his soul. I believe with you that, quite apart from any motives or plans we can only take a stab at, Snape made the right choice by not encouraging a sixteen-year-old to kill someone, even if it meant he had to do the killing himself; he effectively saved Draco's soul.

I sometimes think that Snape's capacity to kill - or more generally, to do extreme things that other, 'softer' people would object to - is one of the reasons why Dumbledore kept him around at all... He needs people like that; an army of goody-goodies was never going to suffice, witness his friendship with Mad-Eye Moody *and* his own extreme demands of people (like Harry in the cave).

Still, I do feel that Snape's killing Dumbledore (even if he was already dying, and even if it was

[likeaglass]

Thanks :)

I believe with you that, quite apart from any motives or plans we can only take a stab at, Snape made the right choice by not encouraging a sixteen-year-old to kill someone, even if it meant he had to do the killing himself; he effectively saved Draco's soul.

Oh yes, definitely. Snape may or may not have been working for Dumbledore, and he may or may not have only been doing it to save his own skin, but whatever the reason, the outcome is the same. A teenager's soul was saved from destruction, at great personal cost.

I sometimes think that Snape's capacity to kill - or more generally, to do extreme things that other, 'softer' people would object to - is one of the reasons why Dumbledore kept him around at allYes, I've thought that, as well. I can't imagine McGonagall or Remus letting loose with an AK, but Snape is obviously the exception

[amanuensis1]

(Paraphrase) "No unforgiveables from you, Potter, you haven't the nerve for it!"--Not the exact quote, I know, but I think that's a word of caution from Snape--don't let your soul be taken by them, boy. Yup, I can definitely see this.

[likeaglass]

Oooh, good point! Snape shielding Harry by being snarky...why I am I seeing a pattern here? When I get my book, this quote is definitely going in the essay, thanks!

[sigune]

ICON WORSHIP!!!
:D

And word.

[amanuensis1]

The Potterverse is a cleverer story than an episode of Scooby Doo, darn it! ^_^

At the Risk of Sounding Greek....

[wemyss]

(Here via HPE, by the bye) - but: am I missing a distinction and a definition of terms? Or do you in fact mean to posit that there is no distinction between killing (even in war according to its laws, even in self-defence, even in defence of another, and so on) and murder? Because, before I can address yr vy interesting points, I think that wants clarification and defining. There is, I submit, a huge difference between not being able to murder and not being able to kill.

Re: At the Risk of Sounding Greek....

[likeaglass]

I definitely see your point...however, I don't know that there's an explicit distinction made in HP. Harry, as shown in the first quote, thinks even killing Voldemort would be murder, even though it would undoubtedly be in self-defense, as is the case every time they've dueled.

Of course, I don't know if one's soul would be ripped if one merely killed, as you say, versus committing murder, as Slughorn didn't make explicit any difference in the terms, and no where else in the text (that I can recall) has JKR made such a distinction in terms. I'm assuming they're approximately equal, and that even killing in self-defense would cause some damage to one's soul.