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

gaeta November 29 2005, 23:55:34 UTC

Interesting theory. I still think Harry's going to have to kill Voldemort somehow, but your theory offers a nice symmetry with HBP -- Draco unable to kill Dumbledore and Snape stepping in.

likeaglass November 30 2005, 00:06:56 UTC

Thanks for reading and commenting :D

here from HP_essays amihan_811 November 30 2005, 00:02:42 UTC

Great points. Agree with most of them. Harry wouldn't chose to have his soul torn, even if it means saving the wizarding world. Unlike Voldemort, he's not prepared to win at all costs. Maybe Voldemort will make a gross miscalculation and end up being stabbed at the back by either Peter or Snape (I'd rather it be Peter, since it was his betrayal of the Potter's hiding place that led to Voldemort's first defeat, seems fitting that he'd be responsible for it this time around as well). It wouldn't be the first time Voldemort underestimated those he considered beneath him.

Re: here from HP_essays likeaglass November 30 2005, 00:29:24 UTC

Harry wouldn't chose to have his soul torn, even if it means saving the wizarding world. Unlike Voldemort, he's not prepared to win at all costs.

EXACTLY. And that's the main difference between them, and the one that I think we as readers are supposed to latch on to, the one that's supposed to mean the most.

Peter's another candidate, certainly. I think I just fixated on Snape because of the end of HBP, and my love of him as a character. I think, though, that Snape has been more important to the series overall - he's been there since the beginning, challenging the trio's perspectives on good and evil, after all, and I think it would be a nice parallel to the first book if Snape is the one that ends up saving Harry yet again - but that Peter will end up doing something heroic and redeeming, like killing Fenrir for instance.

And you're definitely right that Voldemort tends to underestimate his supposed inferiors.

Killing Curses terra_belle November 30 2005, 04:25:10 UTC

I agree, in that it's pretty much 90% certain that Harry won't use the Killing curse on Voldemort. However, I disagree on that Snape would (and live through it ( ... )

Re: Killing Curses likeaglass December 9 2005, 20:41:41 UTC

However, I disagree on that Snape would (and live through it).

Well, I never said he'd live through it, more's the pity. But it would an appropriately dramatic method of redeeming himself, wouldn't it?

If I remember correctly (with no books handy, I may be off), in GoF when Voldemort revives himself using Harry's blood, he doesn't *nullify* Harry's protection - after all, Harry's mother is still dead - but actually *absorbed* it.Actually, we're never told exactly what the purpose of using Harry's blood was, and I would agree with you that Voldemort absorbed it except for HBP. In Ch 3 (I think), Dumbledore asks the Dursleys to let Harry stay with them until his 17th birthday, at which point the protection from his mother will no longer exist. If the protection lasted only until he was legally an adult wizard, then Voldemort, who has been an adult wizard for a looong time, wouldn't have the same protection. And the protection Harry had had would have been no protection at all. I can't imagine what Dumbledore's "look of triumph" ( ... )

Not all killing is murder. anonymous November 30 2005, 05:01:08 UTC

My legal dictionary defines murder as "the unlawful killing, deliberately and with malice aforethought, of a human being by another human being ( ... )

Re: Not all killing is murder. likeaglass December 11 2005, 22:33:13 UTC

But I don't know if JKR makes a distinction. Legal definition or no, I think it would leave a rotten taste in my mouth (and a lot of others') if Harry 'kills' Voldemort.

I think the main point, and the one illustrated by the quote at the beginning of the essay, is that Harry thinks it would be murder. And I don't think he could live with that. As Dumbledore said, choices are what define a person, and I don't think Harry could choose what he feels would be murder. I don't think the argument that Voldemort isn't completely human would erase that.

courtaud November 30 2005, 09:04:53 UTC

Here via hp_essays.

Dumbledore keeps telling Harry that Voldemort is no longer human, so maybe Harry will come to believe that killing him is not murder.

And when it came out that the prophecy was just self-fulfilling - and this meant Harry is not bound to kill Voldemort - Dumbledore said that Harry could want to kill him anyway, in revenge of his parents. Harry seemed ready to accept the idea.

mcity December 2 2005, 12:44:31 UTC

Dumbledore didn't say the prophecy was self-fulfilling. He said that to much store was set by it.

courtaud December 2 2005, 23:09:24 UTC

"No, it doesn't!" said Dumbledore, sounding impatient now. Pointing at Harry with his black, withered hand, he said, "You are setting too much store by the prophecy!"

"But," spluttered Harry, "but you said the prophecy means -“

"If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not! Do you think every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?"

So, the prophecy was fulfilled because Voldemort believed the prophecy. An unheard prophecy does not work. If Harry believes the prophecy the he makes the same mistake Voldemort made.

But Harry believed the prophecy because Dumbledore encouraged him to do so, and clearly told him that his destiny was to kill the Dark Lord or be killed by him, what floored me was:

"But," said Harry, bewildered, "but last year, you said one of us would have to kill the other ( ... )

likeaglass December 11 2005, 22:43:52 UTC

So, the prophecy was fulfilled because Voldemort believed the prophecy. An unheard prophecy does not work. If Harry believes the prophecy the he makes the same mistake Voldemort made.

Hmm, that's not how I interpreted that. Dumbledore isn't saying that a prophecy has to be heard to come true, he's saying that this particular prophecy was set into motion because Voldemort heard a part of it. I don't think that means that the prophecy must be fulfilled in its entirety. I think that's what Dumbledore meant when he said Harry was setting too much store by the prophecy; just because the first part happened doesn't mean that the second part, that one of them must kill the other, needs to happen as well.

Does Harry even show a furious desire for revenge? Will he begin to feel it now that Dumbledore has told him he has one....Dumbledore is quite forcefully seducing Harry into killing Voldemort.No, I don't think he has one. I think the only 'furious desire for revenge' he has is to punish Snape, not Voldemort. It is disturbing that ( ... )