Comments | likeaglass: On horcruxes and the saving of souls

likeaglass

On horcruxes and the saving of souls

Nov 28, 2005 21:12

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

( The purpose of this (rather scattered and informal, forgive me) essay is to refute this statement of Harry's from OotP, and deal with the fallout from the conclusion that Harry can't possibly murder someone, even Voldemort. )

fandom: harry potter, meta: theories

Comments 51

a_white_rain November 29 2005, 22:15:18 UTC

I'd like to agree with you - but Harry, in HBP, used Black Magic twice. One with Draco and again with Snape. Harry seems to be taking steps towards darkness.

And he also wants to kill off Death Eaters and Voldemort, now. I don't think he CAN right now, but I think it's possible that Harry will be able to kill Voldemort in the end.

Then again, I'm sure that Snape isn't a good guy and will tempt Harry to the dark side.

likeaglass November 29 2005, 23:01:16 UTC

But when he used Sectumsempra, he didn't know what it was. I don't know that he could successfully cast it if he did know; even if he could, AK's a bit more powerful and, er, unforgiveable. Harry may be taking steps towards darkness, and I agree that he is, but I don't think he could go all the way dark.

And wanting to kill of DEs and Voldemort is a bit different than actually doing it, or being able to do it for that matter. Like I said, I think it would mess up JKR's little world view if Harry actually killed Voldemort or a DE.

Then again, I'm sure that Snape isn't a good guy and will tempt Harry to the dark side.

Well, there's a major difference between us, isn't there? I don't know that my theory works if you don't think Snape will turn out good in the end.

a_white_rain December 8 2005, 23:54:14 UTC

Oh, I hardly think he's dark or evil, now. I'm sure he doesn't even realize he has a darker side.

I'm not exactly sure where she's going with the Snape-Draco-Harry thing, but it's one of the few things I'm looking foward to in the last book.

likeaglass December 9 2005, 20:24:36 UTC

I think he does know he's got a dark side; he just likes to attribute it to Voldemort and pretend it's not really him that's dark.

I'm not exactly sure where she's going with the Snape-Draco-Harry thing, but it's one of the few things I'm looking foward to in the last book.

Totally agree :D

Thread 5

ireactions November 29 2005, 22:17:47 UTC

I think, considering all the people Voldemort has murdered and plans to murder, the campaign of terror he has unleashed, the sheer threat he intentionally and determinedly poses to just about anyone who doesn't pratice his racist, blood-supremicist views -- well, I think Voldemort absolutely has to die. And I don't think it would be wrong at all for Harry to kill him; Voldemort has destroyed any claim he has to human rights of any kind and he is too dangerous and too powerful a wizard for incarceration to be practical or even possible. And I wouldn't think any less of Harry for killing him.

That said, I'm bang alongside anyone who points out Harry doesn't have the means of killing anyone as powerful as Voldemort.

likeaglass November 29 2005, 23:06:14 UTC

Oh, I agree completely - Voldemort has to die, and I wouldn't think any less of Harry for killing him, either. That being said, I just don't see it for the series. Whether JKR likes it or not, this series is being consumed by children and young adults, an impressionable audience. It wouldn't be cricket to have the hero going around killing people, even if said person deserves it. I don't see Machiavellian, vigilante justice happening in the HP series.

That said, I'm bang alongside anyone who points out Harry doesn't have the means of killing anyone as powerful as Voldemort.

Word.

woman_ironing November 29 2005, 22:22:25 UTC

likeaglass November 29 2005, 23:11:33 UTC

It is hard to imagine Harry doing Avada Kedavra. But Harry has killed. He killed Quirrell and DiaryTom. And a basilisk - with a sword! And as a baby he as good as killed Voldemort! Okay, Quirrell and Voldemort perhaps weren't entirely intentional, the basilisk not human, and DiaryTom not yet fully human, but still ...

Er, I think you kind of took my rebuttal :D But, yes, I think there is a difference between intentional and unintentional murder, and AK is definitely intentional.

The prophecy doesn't talk about killing or murdering; it's all about vanquishing and dying.No, it doesn't, but I can't see any other way to get rid of Voldemort once and for all. There could be another way to kill Voldemort, but I would like to think that JKR set up the climax sufficiently, and that we've already seen the means for "vanquishing" Voldemort. The only thing I can think of that would do this is AK. Basically it comes down to my faith in JKR as a writer, that she's set all the pieces in place and now only has to checkmate in Book 7 ( ... )

woman_ironing November 30 2005, 00:06:26 UTC

I'm a great believer in Harry being able to do whatever is necessary. He certainly intended to kill DiaryTom, and didn't the diary spurt inkblood and Tom scream a bit? (Or maybe that was just the film?) I think I might be disappointed if Harry actually kills Voldemort though, unless he does so in order to save someone else perhaps. But I think somehow that something more than killing Voldemort is necessary and Harry will understand this and again do whatever is necessary. One can be vanquished by love, after all.

Thanks for the icon love! Of course I didn't make it but borrowed it from someone cleverer.

likeaglass November 30 2005, 00:40:19 UTC

He certainly intended to kill DiaryTom, and didn't the diary spurt inkblood and Tom scream a bit?

Well, but DiaryTom isn't human. I don't think you would rip your soul by stabbing a diary. Yes, the diary spurted ink and screamed, but destroying a magical object, even if it is a horcrux, seems to me to be a major step away from actually destroying a person, from taking someone's life.

But I think somehow that something more than killing Voldemort is necessary and Harry will understand this and again do whatever is necessary. One can be vanquished by love, after all.I'm a big fan of Harry pulling through in the end, as well, but, like you, would be majorly disappointed if what he needs to do is kill someone. I think what I like most about Harry is his innocence, that he hasn't been spoiled by all these horrible things happening to him. Like Dumbledore said, he has intimate connections to Voldemort and the Dark Arts, yet he's not succumbed to them ( ... )

Thread 8

(The comment has been removed)

likeaglass November 29 2005, 23:12:42 UTC

You mean Voldemort's just going to die after Harry destroys the remainng horcruxes?

(The comment has been removed)

likeaglass November 29 2005, 23:28:23 UTC

Ah, I see. But the protection coming from his mother will no longer be effective after he's seventeen, so unless Harry hunts down four remaining horcruxes and faces off with Voldemort in the space of a month, I don't see how he could live through an AK. He might save Ginny, but he'd most likely die in the process.

Thread 6

beyond_pale November 29 2005, 22:59:48 UTC

There must be something in the water. I decided two days ago that Snape would do in Voldemort after Harry took out the Horcruxes, a friend posted the exact same thing on another forum yesterday, and here's a third.

Just more incentive to amass together all my various posting in various places and assemble them into a big post-HBP blowout.

What I really like about your approach to this notion is the insistence on Harry's "innocent" use of magic; this interests me because it's been my wont to point out that in Snape's Worst Memory, James was using "gag" hexes and jinxes, while Snape attacked with some fairly Dark looking spells (did I catch a nonverbal Sectumsempra in there?) So, if unconsciously, you draw a parallel between Harry and his da that I approve of. Although, this strategy did, famously, backfire on no one less than Hermione, which says something about its limited application. And as I point out in my essay on Voldemort, attempting to block an Unforgivable with a disarming charm is supreme idiocy (incidentally, who was it ( ... )

likeaglass November 29 2005, 23:21:07 UTC

There must be something in the water. I decided two days ago that Snape would do in Voldemort after Harry took out the Horcruxes, a friend posted the exact same thing on another forum yesterday, and here's a third.

o.0 Wow, must be. Great minds obviously think alike :D

Yes, Harry's innocence has always been very important to his character, I think, which was made especially clear in HBP when Dumbledore said (paraphrase) that it was remarkable that Harry'd never been tempted to go dark.

And as I point out in my essay on Voldemort, attempting to block an Unforgivable with a disarming charm is supreme idiocy

Well, Harry's never been the brightest bulb, has he? But, again, I think it'd be contrary to his character to use anything darker than impedimentia or expelliarmus. Good point about Snape teaching Harry expelliarmus, though! I'd not thought of that, but that spell has been most useful in fighting of Voldemort and various sundry DEs.

(Love your icon, btw)