Discussion:
Harry the killer
(too old to reply)
eggplant107
2003-11-29 21:51:16 UTC
Permalink
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.

Eggplant
Nathan Francom
2003-11-29 22:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
I tend to agree with you in most respects on this. The PC crowd has gone
waaaaaaayyyy too far. It doesn't just border on the rediculous, it is so
far past rediculous that it is rediculous. I also would be /very/
dissappointed is JKR didn't kill of V, although, I don't think it will be
the bloody battle variety of killing. I believe that V will be pushed
through or forced to walk through the stone archway with the veil where he
will not be able to get back to this reality/dimension/life/whatever. I do
take exception to what you said about Harry stopping Sirius and Lupin from
killing Wormtail in book 3. It is never a mistake to refrain from taking a
life. Life should be considered sacred since we only have one of them. It
will come back to reward Harry later in book 7 I am sure. Harry is stronger
and wiser but again, saving Wormtails life was not a mistake. Even
Dumbledore knows that this is the case. I believe that at the end of book
7, it will just be Harry, Lord Thingy, and Wormtail. Harry is about to die
but Wormtail either steps in front of the spell to save Harry or he hurtles
himself at V and that causes them both to pass through the stone archway.
Just a theory but this would be some kind of vindication for Wormtail. It
would give him a chance to redeem himself.
richard e white
2003-12-02 09:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathan Francom
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
I tend to agree with you in most respects on this. The PC crowd has gone
waaaaaaayyyy too far. It doesn't just border on the rediculous, it is so
far past rediculous that it is rediculous. I also would be /very/
dissappointed is JKR didn't kill of V, although, I don't think it will be
the bloody battle variety of killing. I believe that V will be pushed
through or forced to walk through the stone archway with the veil where he
will not be able to get back to this reality/dimension/life/whatever. I do
take exception to what you said about Harry stopping Sirius and Lupin from
killing Wormtail in book 3. It is never a mistake to refrain from taking a
life. Life should be considered sacred since we only have one of them. It
will come back to reward Harry later in book 7 I am sure. Harry is stronger
and wiser but again, saving Wormtails life was not a mistake. Even
Dumbledore knows that this is the case. I believe that at the end of book
7, it will just be Harry, Lord Thingy, and Wormtail. Harry is about to die
but Wormtail either steps in front of the spell to save Harry or he hurtles
himself at V and that causes them both to pass through the stone archway.
Just a theory but this would be some kind of vindication for Wormtail. It
would give him a chance to redeem himself.
The only misstake was blacks and Lupins. they should have stunned Peter
rather then chaneing him to other people.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Kish
2003-11-29 22:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant107
Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
It wasn't presented as a mistake there.
Tim Behrendsen
2003-11-29 23:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner.
I have a gut feeling that Harry will have to kill a Death Eater in book 6, and need to
deal with the consequences. Perhaps even Lucius, which would give Draco a strong
motivation to join V (which I fully expect him to do). This would fit into JKR's pattern
of upping the moral stakes in Harry's life in every book.

That said, I don't necessarily need a traditional "death" for Voldemort to have a
satisfying end. In fact, I think it's a given that the "final blow" won't come from a
straight duel. I'm sure JKR has a clever end in store for Voldemort. But the prophecy says
that one has to "die" at the hand of the other, so I fully expect that die means dead, and
not just some word game of "die" means "Voldemort turns back into Tom Riddle, who becomes
a nice guy".
Post by eggplant107
Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
IMO it wasn't a mistake to spare Wormtail. Even soldiers are ethically bound not to kill
prisoners. Killing in self-defense is one thing, murdering a helpless prisoner is another.
Harry was ethically right not to become judge, jury and executioner.
Toon
2003-11-30 08:34:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:11:13 -0800, "Tim Behrendsen"
Post by Tim Behrendsen
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner.
I have a gut feeling that Harry will have to kill a Death Eater in book 6, and need to
deal with the consequences. Perhaps even Lucius, which would give Draco a strong
motivation to join V (which I fully expect him to do). This would fit into JKR's pattern
of upping the moral stakes in Harry's life in every book.
I thought Draco announced his intentions to join at the end of GOF. I
mean, how can anyone doubt he's planning to join when he's old enough.
eggplant107
2003-11-30 10:08:05 UTC
Permalink
I do take exception to what you said about
Harry stopping Sirius and Lupin from killing
Wormtail in book 3. It is never a mistake
to refrain from taking a life.
I strongly disagree. If Harry had let them kill Wormtail Cedric would
still be alive, Sirius too, and the most evil wizard in a thousand
years would not be on the verge of conquering the planet.

Egg[lant
Joe Reynolds
2003-12-01 04:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant107
I do take exception to what you said about
Harry stopping Sirius and Lupin from killing
Wormtail in book 3. It is never a mistake
to refrain from taking a life.
I strongly disagree. If Harry had let them kill Wormtail Cedric would
still be alive, Sirius too, and the most evil wizard in a thousand
years would not be on the verge of conquering the planet.
Egg[lant
Herein lies a dilemma: How can we know what WOULD have happened had we done
or said something different than what we did? We can't. It is entirely
possible that if Wormtail had been killed, V-t would have found another,
more evil henchman. One that might have done far worse than Wormtail.

Then again, maybe not.

-Joe
Toon
2003-12-01 08:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant107
I do take exception to what you said about
Harry stopping Sirius and Lupin from killing
Wormtail in book 3. It is never a mistake
to refrain from taking a life.
I strongly disagree. If Harry had let them kill Wormtail Cedric would
still be alive, Sirius too, and the most evil wizard in a thousand
years would not be on the verge of conquering the planet.
Egg[lant
It would have happened eventually. Harry didn't kill V, and he hast
to (or be killed by V), so, sooner or later, V would return. Maybe
Cedric and Sirius would still be alive at the end, maybe not. But
it's not much of a mistake as V has to return.
DM
2003-11-30 01:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
The fanfic I'm writing touches on this very point. One character chides
Harry for not having the killer instinct to survive a duel with Voldemort.

I agree, Harry needs to get tough. It's going to come to a point when
Harry must decide, his life or Voldemort's. Sp far, Harry has received
help in one form or another, but in the end, he'll have to face the Dark
Lord one-on-one.
--
DM
--

,_,
(O,O)
( )
-"-"-

Blatantly stealing Frank Ney's idea of parody quotes:

"You mean, let me understand this ... cuz I ... maybe its me, maybe I'm a
little f**ked up maybe. I'm funny, how? Funny, like I'm a clown? I amuse
you. I make you laugh? I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? Whattya you mean
funny? Funny how? How am I funny?" - Goodfella Ron Weasley

HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+++FF= QA
CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
HP/He-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
Toon
2003-11-30 08:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by DM
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
The fanfic I'm writing touches on this very point. One character chides
Harry for not having the killer instinct to survive a duel with Voldemort.
I agree, Harry needs to get tough. It's going to come to a point when
Harry must decide, his life or Voldemort's. Sp far, Harry has received
help in one form or another, but in the end, he'll have to face the Dark
Lord one-on-one.
--
DM
No, it won't be you or me type of action. it'll be I must stop V form
killing anymore loved ones. It'll probably be like watching
Dumbledore die in front of him.
Sirius Kase
2003-11-30 15:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
The fanfic I'm writing touches on this very point. One character chides
Harry for not having the killer instinct to survive a duel with Voldemort.
I agree, Harry needs to get tough. It's going to come to a point when
Harry must decide, his life or Voldemort's. Sp far, Harry has received
help in one form or another, but in the end, he'll have to face the Dark
Lord one-on-one.
--
DM
No, it won't be you or me type of action. it'll be I must stop V form
killing anymore loved ones. It'll probably be like watching
Dumbledore die in front of him.
And that way of thinking means that both might die, Harry could
sacrifice himself killing voldy so that more innocent people wouldn't
die. don't like that ending, but it is very likely.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
drusilla
2003-12-01 00:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
The fanfic I'm writing touches on this very point. One character chides
Harry for not having the killer instinct to survive a duel with Voldemort.
I agree, Harry needs to get tough. It's going to come to a point when
Harry must decide, his life or Voldemort's. Sp far, Harry has received
help in one form or another, but in the end, he'll have to face the Dark
Lord one-on-one.
--
DM
No, it won't be you or me type of action. it'll be I must stop V form
killing anymore loved ones. It'll probably be like watching
Dumbledore die in front of him.
And that way of thinking means that both might die, Harry could
sacrifice himself killing voldy so that more innocent people wouldn't
die. don't like that ending, but it is very likely.
I htought about that theory too, and it looks very probable, but, how
could JKR treat that kind of death? It's in some way, a suicide. Are
our societies ready for that? Are they going to say JKR is saying the
kids 'kill yourselves if this can improve things for the ones you
love? She has to be very carefuly how she's going to kill Harry,
especially if is in that way: sacrificing his own life.
Sirius Kase
2003-12-01 00:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
The fanfic I'm writing touches on this very point. One character chides
Harry for not having the killer instinct to survive a duel with Voldemort.
I agree, Harry needs to get tough. It's going to come to a point when
Harry must decide, his life or Voldemort's. Sp far, Harry has received
help in one form or another, but in the end, he'll have to face the Dark
Lord one-on-one.
--
DM
No, it won't be you or me type of action. it'll be I must stop V form
killing anymore loved ones. It'll probably be like watching
Dumbledore die in front of him.
And that way of thinking means that both might die, Harry could
sacrifice himself killing voldy so that more innocent people wouldn't
die. don't like that ending, but it is very likely.
I htought about that theory too, and it looks very probable, but, how
could JKR treat that kind of death? It's in some way, a suicide. Are
our societies ready for that? Are they going to say JKR is saying the
kids 'kill yourselves if this can improve things for the ones you
love? She has to be very carefuly how she's going to kill Harry,
especially if is in that way: sacrificing his own life.
I hate to think of the reaction if she kills him off. Could be
dangerous for both her and impressionable young ones. There are plenty
of kids who would die for a "good cause".
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
Joe Reynolds
2003-12-01 04:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
The fanfic I'm writing touches on this very point. One character chides
Harry for not having the killer instinct to survive a duel with Voldemort.
I agree, Harry needs to get tough. It's going to come to a point when
Harry must decide, his life or Voldemort's. Sp far, Harry has received
help in one form or another, but in the end, he'll have to face the Dark
Lord one-on-one.
--
DM
No, it won't be you or me type of action. it'll be I must stop V form
killing anymore loved ones. It'll probably be like watching
Dumbledore die in front of him.
And that way of thinking means that both might die, Harry could
sacrifice himself killing voldy so that more innocent people wouldn't
die. don't like that ending, but it is very likely.
I htought about that theory too, and it looks very probable, but, how
could JKR treat that kind of death? It's in some way, a suicide. Are
our societies ready for that? Are they going to say JKR is saying the
kids 'kill yourselves if this can improve things for the ones you
love? She has to be very carefuly how she's going to kill Harry,
especially if is in that way: sacrificing his own life.
At the risk of sounding cliche,

but honestly, not only is society ready for this, but in some ways it has
been primed. Look at the works which have influenced the fantasy genre...

Lord of the Rings features Lord Boromir sacrificing himself to save the
party and redeem himself. Not to mention Gandalf's sacrificial act in Moria.

C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia (one of the stated influences on JKR's
writing) features the Lion Aslan being sacrificed on the Stone Table for the
crime of Edmund. (on a personal note, this was the series that got me hooked
on fantasy back in 1st grade.)

DragonLance has Sturm making a "last stand" against the Dragon Hordes and
dying.

So many other fantasy greats feature a saviour figure as a self-sacrifice
for the salvation of humanity (or elven-kind, or dwarven-kind, etc.)

I won't even go into the obvious religious allusions that could be drawn
(i.e. Christ's sacrifice for all of humanity).

So YES our society would be ready to accept Harry's self-sacrificial death,
should that be necessary.

-Joe
j
2003-12-01 08:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Reynolds
So many other fantasy greats feature a saviour figure as a self-sacrifice
for the salvation of humanity (or elven-kind, or dwarven-kind, etc.)
True, but in every situation that you've pointed out, the character dying is
A central character, not THE central character. I'm all for main characters
being killed off if it's what needs to happen, and I know JK's writing the
series for herself, but I honestly can't see the potterverse surviving
Harry's death.
Post by Joe Reynolds
I won't even go into the obvious religious allusions that could be drawn
(i.e. Christ's sacrifice for all of humanity).
(Putting aside all discussion as to what I believe when it comes to
religion) Again, you're totally right, and Jesus is only one of many god
figures in world religion/mythology to sacrifice themselves for the good of
humanity; but Harry isn't a god, and a religion will not spring up around
his teachings (hee hee, or maybe it will, but that's a frightening
thought) - he's a fictional hero. It's realistic to think that he could die
in a final fight with Voldy, but the premise of the series isn't realistic
to begin with.
Post by Joe Reynolds
So YES our society would be ready to accept Harry's self-sacrificial death,
should that be necessary.
Society in general would go on, but the Potter fiends of the universe will
be crushed; the younger, the moreso.
Joe Reynolds
2003-12-01 13:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
Post by Joe Reynolds
So many other fantasy greats feature a saviour figure as a
self-sacrifice
Post by j
Post by Joe Reynolds
for the salvation of humanity (or elven-kind, or dwarven-kind, etc.)
True, but in every situation that you've pointed out, the character dying is
A central character, not THE central character. I'm all for main
characters
Post by j
being killed off if it's what needs to happen, and I know JK's writing the
series for herself, but I honestly can't see the potterverse surviving
Harry's death.
That depends on your definition of surive. Sure there may not be any more
Harry Potter books, as such, but the series itself would not become worse
simply through his death. The series could easily end on a hopeful note.
Harry may have died, but at least the world is not destroyed for the time
being. There could even be opportunity for later series based on the lives
of the characters in a post-Harry world. Why shouldn't (for example) Ron and
Hermione end up married (admittedly somewhat far-fetched, but possible) and
naming their first-born son Harry Jr. Maybe he would even be a reincarnated
Harry Potter that would have to save the world from the NEXT great evil.

It could happen.

All I'm saying is that for an author of JRK's talent, the death of the hero
would not be a hardship.
Post by j
Post by Joe Reynolds
I won't even go into the obvious religious allusions that could be drawn
(i.e. Christ's sacrifice for all of humanity).
(Putting aside all discussion as to what I believe when it comes to
religion) Again, you're totally right, and Jesus is only one of many god
figures in world religion/mythology to sacrifice themselves for the good of
humanity; but Harry isn't a god, and a religion will not spring up around
his teachings (hee hee, or maybe it will, but that's a frightening
thought) - he's a fictional hero. It's realistic to think that he could die
in a final fight with Voldy, but the premise of the series isn't realistic
to begin with.
Again, you are correct. He is more the Hero figure than a god. However,
heros throughout world mythology have been known to be self-sacrificial as
well.
Post by j
Post by Joe Reynolds
So YES our society would be ready to accept Harry's self-sacrificial
death,
Post by Joe Reynolds
should that be necessary.
Society in general would go on, but the Potter fiends of the universe will
be crushed; the younger, the moreso.
At this point I simply disagree. I think JRK could handle allowing Harry to
die in such a way as to end it on a positive note, thus sparing the youth of
our respective countries overly traumatic travail and grief.

Joe
---

Outside of a dog,
Books are man's best friend.
Inside a dog,
It's too dark to read.
-Grouch Marx
Sirius Kase
2003-12-01 13:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
Post by Joe Reynolds
So many other fantasy greats feature a saviour figure as a self-sacrifice
for the salvation of humanity (or elven-kind, or dwarven-kind, etc.)
True, but in every situation that you've pointed out, the character dying is
A central character, not THE central character. I'm all for main characters
being killed off if it's what needs to happen, and I know JK's writing the
series for herself, but I honestly can't see the potterverse surviving
Harry's death.
Big difference in Harry and most savior figures. He isn't godlike, he
is a mostly ordinary person thrust into extraordinary situations. He is
very easy to relate to. Many readers do. I don't think most people
relate to Aslan or Gandalf, maybe Frodo, but I don't. Kids would be
more likely to emulate a character they relate to.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
Toon
2003-12-02 08:06:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:56:56 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by j
Post by Joe Reynolds
So many other fantasy greats feature a saviour figure as a self-sacrifice
for the salvation of humanity (or elven-kind, or dwarven-kind, etc.)
True, but in every situation that you've pointed out, the character dying is
A central character, not THE central character. I'm all for main characters
being killed off if it's what needs to happen, and I know JK's writing the
series for herself, but I honestly can't see the potterverse surviving
Harry's death.
Big difference in Harry and most savior figures. He isn't godlike, he
is a mostly ordinary person thrust into extraordinary situations. He is
very easy to relate to. Many readers do. I don't think most people
relate to Aslan or Gandalf, maybe Frodo, but I don't. Kids would be
more likely to emulate a character they relate to.
I'm more Bilbo, myself.
Toon
2003-12-02 08:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
Post by Joe Reynolds
So many other fantasy greats feature a saviour figure as a self-sacrifice
for the salvation of humanity (or elven-kind, or dwarven-kind, etc.)
True, but in every situation that you've pointed out, the character dying is
A central character, not THE central character. I'm all for main characters
being killed off if it's what needs to happen, and I know JK's writing the
series for herself, but I honestly can't see the potterverse surviving
Harry's death.
Post by Joe Reynolds
I won't even go into the obvious religious allusions that could be drawn
(i.e. Christ's sacrifice for all of humanity).
(Putting aside all discussion as to what I believe when it comes to
religion) Again, you're totally right, and Jesus is only one of many god
figures in world religion/mythology to sacrifice themselves for the good of
humanity; but Harry isn't a god, and a religion will not spring up around
his teachings (hee hee, or maybe it will, but that's a frightening
thought) - he's a fictional hero. It's realistic to think that he could die
in a final fight with Voldy, but the premise of the series isn't realistic
to begin with.
Considering people in some country dress up as Ned Flanders from the
Simpsons each week for their religious doings, I'd believe in people
forming a Harry religion.
Loretta
2003-12-06 08:50:58 UTC
Permalink
No greater love than giving ones self for another
isn't that what Harry so do?
Toon
2003-12-01 08:56:42 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:28:15 GMT, "Joe Reynolds"
Post by eggplant107
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never
kill
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Post by eggplant107
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry
kill
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Post by eggplant107
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing
Voldemort
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Post by eggplant107
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is
not
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Post by eggplant107
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
The fanfic I'm writing touches on this very point. One character
chides
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Harry for not having the killer instinct to survive a duel with
Voldemort.
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
I agree, Harry needs to get tough. It's going to come to a point
when
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Harry must decide, his life or Voldemort's. Sp far, Harry has
received
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
help in one form or another, but in the end, he'll have to face the
Dark
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Lord one-on-one.
--
DM
No, it won't be you or me type of action. it'll be I must stop V form
killing anymore loved ones. It'll probably be like watching
Dumbledore die in front of him.
And that way of thinking means that both might die, Harry could
sacrifice himself killing voldy so that more innocent people wouldn't
die. don't like that ending, but it is very likely.
I htought about that theory too, and it looks very probable, but, how
could JKR treat that kind of death? It's in some way, a suicide. Are
our societies ready for that? Are they going to say JKR is saying the
kids 'kill yourselves if this can improve things for the ones you
love? She has to be very carefuly how she's going to kill Harry,
especially if is in that way: sacrificing his own life.
At the risk of sounding cliche,
but honestly, not only is society ready for this, but in some ways it has
been primed. Look at the works which have influenced the fantasy genre...
Lord of the Rings features Lord Boromir sacrificing himself to save the
party and redeem himself. Not to mention Gandalf's sacrificial act in Moria.
C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia (one of the stated influences on JKR's
writing) features the Lion Aslan being sacrificed on the Stone Table for the
crime of Edmund. (on a personal note, this was the series that got me hooked
on fantasy back in 1st grade.)
DragonLance has Sturm making a "last stand" against the Dragon Hordes and
dying.
So many other fantasy greats feature a saviour figure as a self-sacrifice
for the salvation of humanity (or elven-kind, or dwarven-kind, etc.)
I won't even go into the obvious religious allusions that could be drawn
(i.e. Christ's sacrifice for all of humanity).
So YES our society would be ready to accept Harry's self-sacrificial death,
should that be necessary.
-Joe
They just won't form a world wide religion around him.

"And he went through that veil with the evil one, never to return,
thus giving us all a chance at life."
Toon
2003-12-01 08:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
The fanfic I'm writing touches on this very point. One character chides
Harry for not having the killer instinct to survive a duel with Voldemort.
I agree, Harry needs to get tough. It's going to come to a point when
Harry must decide, his life or Voldemort's. Sp far, Harry has received
help in one form or another, but in the end, he'll have to face the Dark
Lord one-on-one.
--
DM
No, it won't be you or me type of action. it'll be I must stop V form
killing anymore loved ones. It'll probably be like watching
Dumbledore die in front of him.
And that way of thinking means that both might die, Harry could
sacrifice himself killing voldy so that more innocent people wouldn't
die. don't like that ending, but it is very likely.
I htought about that theory too, and it looks very probable, but, how
could JKR treat that kind of death? It's in some way, a suicide. Are
our societies ready for that? Are they going to say JKR is saying the
kids 'kill yourselves if this can improve things for the ones you
love? She has to be very carefuly how she's going to kill Harry,
especially if is in that way: sacrificing his own life.
I think she'll exposition it as doing whatever you must, no matter
what the cost to yourself, then kill yourself, it'll make things
better. And if anybody reads HP kills himself to save people, and
actually thinks they should kill themselves to make things better,
then we're better off without them. Too dangerous.

If you actually think you're form Krypton and can fly like Superman,
you severer to be seriously injured/dead from jumping. Does us all a
favor. You're too dangerous to have around.
Sirius Kase
2003-12-01 14:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toon
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
No, it won't be you or me type of action. it'll be I must stop V form
killing anymore loved ones. It'll probably be like watching
Dumbledore die in front of him.
And that way of thinking means that both might die, Harry could
sacrifice himself killing voldy so that more innocent people wouldn't
die. don't like that ending, but it is very likely.
I htought about that theory too, and it looks very probable, but, how
could JKR treat that kind of death? It's in some way, a suicide. Are
our societies ready for that? Are they going to say JKR is saying the
kids 'kill yourselves if this can improve things for the ones you
love? She has to be very carefuly how she's going to kill Harry,
especially if is in that way: sacrificing his own life.
I think she'll exposition it as doing whatever you must, no matter
what the cost to yourself, then kill yourself, it'll make things
better. And if anybody reads HP kills himself to save people, and
actually thinks they should kill themselves to make things better,
then we're better off without them. Too dangerous.
If you actually think you're form Krypton and can fly like Superman,
you severer to be seriously injured/dead from jumping. Does us all a
favor. You're too dangerous to have around.
Problem is that young people who think they can save society by dying
are very likely to take innocent victims with them. That is the whole
motivation behind suicide attacks.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
DM
2003-12-01 12:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
The fanfic I'm writing touches on this very point. One character chides
Harry for not having the killer instinct to survive a duel with Voldemort.
I agree, Harry needs to get tough. It's going to come to a point when
Harry must decide, his life or Voldemort's. Sp far, Harry has received
help in one form or another, but in the end, he'll have to face the Dark
Lord one-on-one.
--
DM
No, it won't be you or me type of action. it'll be I must stop V form
killing anymore loved ones. It'll probably be like watching
Dumbledore die in front of him.
And that way of thinking means that both might die, Harry could
sacrifice himself killing voldy so that more innocent people wouldn't
die. don't like that ending, but it is very likely.
I htought about that theory too, and it looks very probable, but, how
could JKR treat that kind of death? It's in some way, a suicide. Are
our societies ready for that? Are they going to say JKR is saying the
kids 'kill yourselves if this can improve things for the ones you
love? She has to be very carefuly how she's going to kill Harry,
especially if is in that way: sacrificing his own life.
Yikes! Here's a consideration. What if Harry kills himself in order to save the others and, like the protection he received
from his mother's sacrifice, ends up protecting his friends who ultimate destroy Voldemort.

Would that fit in the prophecy?
--
DM
--

,_,
(O,O)
( )
-"-"-

Blatantly stealing Frank Ney's idea of parody quotes:

"You mean, let me understand this ... cuz I ... maybe its me, maybe I'm a little f**ked up maybe. I'm funny, how? Funny, like
I'm a clown? I amuse you. I make you laugh? I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? Whattya you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?" -
Goodfella Ron Weasley

HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+++FF= QA CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
HP/He-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
Sirius Kase
2003-12-01 14:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by DM
Post by drusilla
Post by Sirius Kase
And that way of thinking means that both might die, Harry could
sacrifice himself killing voldy so that more innocent people wouldn't
die. don't like that ending, but it is very likely.
I htought about that theory too, and it looks very probable, but, how
could JKR treat that kind of death? It's in some way, a suicide. Are
our societies ready for that? Are they going to say JKR is saying the
kids 'kill yourselves if this can improve things for the ones you
love? She has to be very carefuly how she's going to kill Harry,
especially if is in that way: sacrificing his own life.
Yikes! Here's a consideration. What if Harry kills himself in order to save
the others and, like the protection he received
from his mother's sacrifice, ends up protecting his friends who ultimate destroy Voldemort.
Would that fit in the prophecy?
That would if the prophecy was that both must die. But it isn't. As
explained by Dumbledore, one will kill the other, they can't both live.
But I don't accept Dumbledore's explanation at face value.

Obviously, both are sort of alive right now, but they are wasting their
lives by being obsessed with each other. I'm impressed by how much
Harry does in spite of his Voldemort problem, he seems less encumbered
than Voldemort, who seems to have put everything on hold until he gets
rid of Harry.

And someday, everyone dies, right? So unless they die simultaneously,
there will be a timeframe when only one is alive, then comes a time that
neither is alive. This is pretty much the case for all relationships
where both people are alive at the same time.

So to put it bluntly, I don't accept Dumbledore's explanation.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
Toon
2003-12-02 08:05:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:08:30 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Obviously, both are sort of alive right now, but they are wasting their
lives by being obsessed with each other. I'm impressed by how much
Harry does in spite of his Voldemort problem, he seems less encumbered
than Voldemort, who seems to have put everything on hold until he gets
rid of Harry.
Well, that's cause V knows Harry can destroy him. Harry never knew
that, so, he was free to do whatever, knowing some dude tried to off
his entire family, and only he survived, and through that, became
critical for a resurrection. Thereafter, it was simple because V
wanted to prove his superiority, and then for Book 5, it was because
Harry twice defied him,a nd continuing the kill Harry because he
nearly killed em and made everyone think I'm inferior to him
mentality..
Sirius Kase
2003-12-02 17:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toon
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:08:30 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Obviously, both are sort of alive right now, but they are wasting their
lives by being obsessed with each other. I'm impressed by how much
Harry does in spite of his Voldemort problem, he seems less encumbered
than Voldemort, who seems to have put everything on hold until he gets
rid of Harry.
Well, that's cause V knows Harry can destroy him. Harry never knew
that, so, he was free to do whatever, knowing some dude tried to off
his entire family, and only he survived, and through that, became
critical for a resurrection. Thereafter, it was simple because V
wanted to prove his superiority, and then for Book 5, it was because
Harry twice defied him,a nd continuing the kill Harry because he
nearly killed em and made everyone think I'm inferior to him
mentality..
Good point, and I think that is why Dumbledore withheld knowledge of the
prophecy from Harry. He wanted to enjoy a "normal" childhood. Now that
he knows too much, he can't help but consider Voldemort in everything he
does. But then again, it was getting difficult for him to not think
about Voldemort anyway, so it is probably a good thing for him to know.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
Toon
2003-12-03 09:02:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:37:22 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:08:30 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Obviously, both are sort of alive right now, but they are wasting their
lives by being obsessed with each other. I'm impressed by how much
Harry does in spite of his Voldemort problem, he seems less encumbered
than Voldemort, who seems to have put everything on hold until he gets
rid of Harry.
Well, that's cause V knows Harry can destroy him. Harry never knew
that, so, he was free to do whatever, knowing some dude tried to off
his entire family, and only he survived, and through that, became
critical for a resurrection. Thereafter, it was simple because V
wanted to prove his superiority, and then for Book 5, it was because
Harry twice defied him,a nd continuing the kill Harry because he
nearly killed em and made everyone think I'm inferior to him
mentality..
Good point, and I think that is why Dumbledore withheld knowledge of the
prophecy from Harry. He wanted to enjoy a "normal" childhood. Now that
he knows too much, he can't help but consider Voldemort in everything he
does. But then again, it was getting difficult for him to not think
about Voldemort anyway, so it is probably a good thing for him to know.
He spent his non wizard summer thinking V was going to attack him.
And since his mind and body was possessed, he most certainly will.
And now there's the prophecy. But just like with living in
Muggleland, it was to keep Harry normal. That was too big a deal for
a kid to deal with. Heck, with all that happened, Dumbledore didn't
want to make him a prefect, to keep him from being bogged down.
Because being used to resurrect your parents killer really takes a
psychological toll on somebody.
Sirius Kase
2003-12-03 18:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toon
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:37:22 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:08:30 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Obviously, both are sort of alive right now, but they are wasting their
lives by being obsessed with each other. I'm impressed by how much
Harry does in spite of his Voldemort problem, he seems less encumbered
than Voldemort, who seems to have put everything on hold until he gets
rid of Harry.
Well, that's cause V knows Harry can destroy him. Harry never knew
that, so, he was free to do whatever, knowing some dude tried to off
his entire family, and only he survived, and through that, became
critical for a resurrection. Thereafter, it was simple because V
wanted to prove his superiority, and then for Book 5, it was because
Harry twice defied him,a nd continuing the kill Harry because he
nearly killed em and made everyone think I'm inferior to him
mentality..
Good point, and I think that is why Dumbledore withheld knowledge of the
prophecy from Harry. He wanted to enjoy a "normal" childhood. Now that
he knows too much, he can't help but consider Voldemort in everything he
does. But then again, it was getting difficult for him to not think
about Voldemort anyway, so it is probably a good thing for him to know.
He spent his non wizard summer thinking V was going to attack him.
And since his mind and body was possessed, he most certainly will.
And now there's the prophecy. But just like with living in
Muggleland, it was to keep Harry normal. That was too big a deal for
a kid to deal with. Heck, with all that happened, Dumbledore didn't
want to make him a prefect, to keep him from being bogged down.
Because being used to resurrect your parents killer really takes a
psychological toll on somebody.
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add the
strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be easier for
both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but even
Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone just
because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not to
trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so strongly.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
Miranda
2003-12-04 02:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Sirius Kase <***@earthlink.net> wrote in news:siriuskase-***@news06.east.earthlink.net:

<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere in
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid to
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about Harry
himself...

Miranda
Sirius Kase
2003-12-04 04:05:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere in
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid to
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about Harry
himself...
Miranda
I didn't disagree about the added strain of being a prefect. And what
else would you call it that Dumbledore wouldn't look Harry in the eye?
I call it lack of trust - that he couldn't trust Harry to not be
possessed by Voldemort. Harry recognized it as lack of trust, but he
didn't know why, which bothered him a lot all year.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
gjw
2003-12-04 04:45:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:05:56 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere in
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid to
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about Harry
himself...
Miranda
I didn't disagree about the added strain of being a prefect. And what
else would you call it that Dumbledore wouldn't look Harry in the eye?
I call it lack of trust - that he couldn't trust Harry to not be
possessed by Voldemort. Harry recognized it as lack of trust, but he
didn't know why, which bothered him a lot all year.
It wasn't a lack of trust in Harry. That is, Dumbledore did not think
that Harry would do anything to betray him. Dumbledore simply realized
that if Harry could see Voldemort's thoughts, Voldemort might be able
to see Harry's thoughts - in other words, he didn't trust Voldemort -
and who does?
richard e white
2003-12-04 06:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by gjw
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:05:56 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere in
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid to
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about Harry
himself...
Miranda
I didn't disagree about the added strain of being a prefect. And what
else would you call it that Dumbledore wouldn't look Harry in the eye?
I call it lack of trust - that he couldn't trust Harry to not be
possessed by Voldemort. Harry recognized it as lack of trust, but he
didn't know why, which bothered him a lot all year.
It wasn't a lack of trust in Harry. That is, Dumbledore did not think
that Harry would do anything to betray him. Dumbledore simply realized
that if Harry could see Voldemort's thoughts, Voldemort might be able
to see Harry's thoughts - in other words, he didn't trust Voldemort -
and who does?
and he did not trust in harry to tell him this fact?


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Sirius Kase
2003-12-04 17:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard e white
Post by gjw
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:05:56 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere in
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid to
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about Harry
himself...
Miranda
I didn't disagree about the added strain of being a prefect. And what
else would you call it that Dumbledore wouldn't look Harry in the eye?
I call it lack of trust - that he couldn't trust Harry to not be
possessed by Voldemort. Harry recognized it as lack of trust, but he
didn't know why, which bothered him a lot all year.
It wasn't a lack of trust in Harry. That is, Dumbledore did not think
that Harry would do anything to betray him. Dumbledore simply realized
that if Harry could see Voldemort's thoughts, Voldemort might be able
to see Harry's thoughts - in other words, he didn't trust Voldemort -
and who does?
and he did not trust in harry to tell him this fact?
Thanks, Richard, you nailed it in one line
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
gjw
2003-12-04 23:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard e white
Post by gjw
It wasn't a lack of trust in Harry. That is, Dumbledore did not think
that Harry would do anything to betray him. Dumbledore simply realized
that if Harry could see Voldemort's thoughts, Voldemort might be able
to see Harry's thoughts - in other words, he didn't trust Voldemort -
and who does?
and he did not trust in harry to tell him this fact?
Same problem. Whatever he tells to Harry, he (possibly) tells to
Voldemort.
richard e white
2003-12-05 13:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by gjw
Post by richard e white
Post by gjw
It wasn't a lack of trust in Harry. That is, Dumbledore did not think
that Harry would do anything to betray him. Dumbledore simply realized
that if Harry could see Voldemort's thoughts, Voldemort might be able
to see Harry's thoughts - in other words, he didn't trust Voldemort -
and who does?
and he did not trust in harry to tell him this fact?
Same problem. Whatever he tells to Harry, he (possibly) tells to
Voldemort.
But telling that to Harry would louse nothing as V would all ready know
of the proficey and where it was kept. he just does not know the end of the
proficey. so the is no reason to tell Harry as much as V all ready knows.
and it would have Helped Harry a lot to know that much. and I think it would
have ben smart to tell harry why he was not trusted. Then he would have
known that the odd mind games could be played by both sides and he would not
mind not knowing what is going on if he knew that anything he knew might be
known by V as well. in fact it would be safer if some of harry's memoreiies
where removed.
Harry has the odd habit of finding out things that most people don't want
him to know. Haveing Harry try and avoide all info that might help V and
tell DD when hi did find something would have ben a greater help then a
problum. I would not expect Harry to go to DD himself. in fact I would have
had him go to Mc Gonagol or use something to rtalk to Lupin or Mister or
miss W
as they where not as reckless as black.
I can not see why Harry was not told why he was to be avoided. And I can
not think of a good reason to skip telling him.

--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
gjw
2003-12-06 00:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard e white
Post by gjw
Same problem. Whatever he tells to Harry, he (possibly) tells to
Voldemort.
But telling that to Harry would louse nothing as V would all ready know
of the proficey and where it was kept. he just does not know the end of the
proficey. so the is no reason to tell Harry as much as V all ready knows.
and it would have Helped Harry a lot to know that much. and I think it would
have ben smart to tell harry why he was not trusted. Then he would have
known that the odd mind games could be played by both sides and he would not
mind not knowing what is going on if he knew that anything he knew might be
known by V as well. in fact it would be safer if some of harry's memoreiies
where removed.
But if he tells Harry that he knows Voldemort might be watching
through his (Harry's) eyes, then Dumbledore lets Voldemort know that
he knows... Perhaps that's something he didn't want him to know.
Troels Forchhammer
2003-12-07 01:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by gjw
Same problem. Whatever he tells to Harry, he (possibly) tells to
Voldemort.
. . But telling that to Harry would lose nothing as V would allready
know of the prophecy and where it was kept. he just does not know the
end of the prophecy. so the is no reason to tell Harry as much as V all
ready knows. and it would have Helped Harry a lot to know that much. and
I think it would have been smart to tell harry why he was not trusted.
There is one thing that might explain this in OotP-37 'The Lost Prophecy'

" 'You see,' Dumbledore continued, 'I believed it could not be
long before Voldemort attempted to force his way into your
mind, to manipulate and misdirect your thoughts, and I was not
eager to give him more incentives to do so. I was sure that if
he realised that our relationship was - or had ever been -
closer than that of headmaster and pupil, he would seize his
chance to use you as a means to spy on me. "

The real reason why Dumbledore didn't tell Harry during OotP (obviously it
doesn't explain why he didn't tell Harry earlier) is that he was afraid
that Voldemort, through his connection with Harry, would learn of
Dumbledore's own weakness - his love for Harry. He says it himself
elsewhere in the chapter,

"I defy anyone who has watched you as I have - and I have
watched you more closely than you can have imagined - not to
want to save you more pain than you had already suffered. What
did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and
creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here
and now you were alive, and well, and happy?"

This is, IMO, where we should look for the explanation of why Dumbledore
didn't tell anything to Harry. Not because he feared what Voldemort might
learn from the information Dumbledore would give to Harry, but because he
feared what Voldemort might learn from the contact itself.
--
______ | Troels Forchhammer
___/L_][_/(__ | Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
(___{__{__{___7 |
`(_)------(_)-' | My other .sig is a Rolls ...
Toon
2003-12-04 08:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by gjw
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:05:56 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere in
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid to
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about Harry
himself...
Miranda
I didn't disagree about the added strain of being a prefect. And what
else would you call it that Dumbledore wouldn't look Harry in the eye?
I call it lack of trust - that he couldn't trust Harry to not be
possessed by Voldemort. Harry recognized it as lack of trust, but he
didn't know why, which bothered him a lot all year.
It wasn't a lack of trust in Harry. That is, Dumbledore did not think
that Harry would do anything to betray him. Dumbledore simply realized
that if Harry could see Voldemort's thoughts, Voldemort might be able
to see Harry's thoughts - in other words, he didn't trust Voldemort -
and who does?
Except that doesn't affect Prefecthood. I mean, do Prefects get to
hear Secret Order business?
Sirius Kase
2003-12-04 17:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toon
Post by gjw
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:05:56 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere in
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid to
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about Harry
himself...
Miranda
I didn't disagree about the added strain of being a prefect. And what
else would you call it that Dumbledore wouldn't look Harry in the eye?
I call it lack of trust - that he couldn't trust Harry to not be
possessed by Voldemort. Harry recognized it as lack of trust, but he
didn't know why, which bothered him a lot all year.
It wasn't a lack of trust in Harry. That is, Dumbledore did not think
that Harry would do anything to betray him. Dumbledore simply realized
that if Harry could see Voldemort's thoughts, Voldemort might be able
to see Harry's thoughts - in other words, he didn't trust Voldemort -
and who does?
Except that doesn't affect Prefecthood. I mean, do Prefects get to
hear Secret Order business?
I'm sure prefects have meetings where they discuss stuff that shouldn't
get repeated. Interesting that prefect meetings weren't mentioned.
Ordinarily, Harry might not notice, but with his two best friends being
prefects, wouldn't their absence be mentioned?
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
Richard Eney
2003-12-05 02:45:40 UTC
Permalink
<snip>

<Dumbledore not trusting Harry>
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Except that doesn't affect Prefecthood. I mean, do Prefects get to
hear Secret Order business?
I'm sure prefects have meetings where they discuss stuff that shouldn't
get repeated. Interesting that prefect meetings weren't mentioned.
Ordinarily, Harry might not notice, but with his two best friends
being prefects, wouldn't their absence be mentioned?
Maybe Harry was too grouchy to ask why his friends weren't around.
But IMO there is another good reason why Harry wasn't a prefect.
He didn't have the emotional control that even Ron had. Someone with
power over other kids who doesn't have enough emotional control might
abuse the office; yes, Malfoy did abuse it, but he has enough control
to have avoided that, he just chose to abuse it anyway. (Draco has
almost never physically attacked any of the gang overtly; generally he
makes verbal attacks until one of them attacks him. That shows control.)

Even after a lifetime with the Dursleys, it took someone like Umbridge
to teach Harry to control his outbursts at Hogwarts. Harry has way too
much power to be allowed to give orders to other kids before he's ready.
Ron was a much better risk.

=Tamar
Sirius Kase
2003-12-07 02:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Eney
Someone with
power over other kids who doesn't have enough emotional control might
abuse the office; yes, Malfoy did abuse it, but he has enough control
to have avoided that, he just chose to abuse it anyway. (Draco has
almost never physically attacked any of the gang overtly; generally he
makes verbal attacks until one of them attacks him. That shows control.)
It's a little off the thread, but Draco is one of those awful kids that
many adults tend to like. he puts most of his energy into getting other
kids in trouble, by using the adult authorities to do what he wants.
He's a manipulator more so than a plain and simple bully. He taunts
Harry and company into doing things that they shouldn't. Good for
McGonnagol that she didn't reward his tattling in the first book, but I
gather that usually he's much more successful than that. Naturally,
Umbridge thinks he's just great.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
richard e white
2003-12-05 13:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toon
Post by gjw
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:05:56 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
didn't know why, which bothered him a lot all year.
snip>
Post by gjw
It wasn't a lack of trust in Harry. That is, Dumbledore did not think
that Harry would do anything to betray him. Dumbledore simply realized
that if Harry could see Voldemort's thoughts, Voldemort might be able
to see Harry's thoughts - in other words, he didn't trust Voldemort -
and who does?
Except that doesn't affect Prefecthood. I mean, do Prefects get to
hear Secret Order business?
This part makes some sence to me as the Prefects do get info on the workings of
Hogwarts knowing passwords and the like as well as helping with sacurty when
needed. but this idea is shot down by makeing Dracco one. but that would still
leave them trying to get the password to G house. not hard for anyone with a cloak
like potters. And the DE had more then a few of them.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Sirius Kase
2003-12-04 17:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by gjw
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:05:56 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere in
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid to
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about Harry
himself...
Miranda
I didn't disagree about the added strain of being a prefect. And what
else would you call it that Dumbledore wouldn't look Harry in the eye?
I call it lack of trust - that he couldn't trust Harry to not be
possessed by Voldemort. Harry recognized it as lack of trust, but he
didn't know why, which bothered him a lot all year.
It wasn't a lack of trust in Harry. That is, Dumbledore did not think
that Harry would do anything to betray him. Dumbledore simply realized
that if Harry could see Voldemort's thoughts, Voldemort might be able
to see Harry's thoughts - in other words, he didn't trust Voldemort -
and who does?
you are taking the idea of lack of trust to be a defect in Harry. I'm
not. To reword it, Dumbledore thinks Voldy might be using Harry and he
also thinks Harry wouldn't be able to prevent it. This isn't a lack of
character, this is because he is young and presumably less powerful than
Voldermort. I wouldn't trust my kid alone in some parts of my city, not
because he's a bad kid, but because he doesn't have the experience and
size to deal with some people he might encounter.

Dumbledore's lack of trust was directed at the physical being of Harry
and Harry picked up on it. Dumbledore made a huge mistake by not
concealing his lack of trust and not explaining to Harry that he
shouldn't take it personally, that as you said, it was really Voldy he
distrusted.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
richard e white
2003-12-05 13:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by gjw
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:05:56 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere in
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid to
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about Harry
himself...
Miranda
I didn't disagree about the added strain of being a prefect. And what
else would you call it that Dumbledore wouldn't look Harry in the eye?
I call it lack of trust - that he couldn't trust Harry to not be
possessed by Voldemort. Harry recognized it as lack of trust, but he
didn't know why, which bothered him a lot all year.
It wasn't a lack of trust in Harry. That is, Dumbledore did not think
that Harry would do anything to betray him. Dumbledore simply realized
that if Harry could see Voldemort's thoughts, Voldemort might be able
to see Harry's thoughts - in other words, he didn't trust Voldemort -
and who does?
you are taking the idea of lack of trust to be a defect in Harry. I'm
not. To reword it, Dumbledore thinks Voldy might be using Harry and he
also thinks Harry wouldn't be able to prevent it. This isn't a lack of
character, this is because he is young and presumably less powerful than
Voldermort. I wouldn't trust my kid alone in some parts of my city, not
because he's a bad kid, but because he doesn't have the experience and
size to deal with some people he might encounter.
Dumbledore's lack of trust was directed at the physical being of Harry
and Harry picked up on it. Dumbledore made a huge mistake by not
concealing his lack of trust and not explaining to Harry that he
shouldn't take it personally, that as you said, it was really Voldy he
distrusted.
Yes that is a good way of putting it.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
richard e white
2003-12-04 04:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere in
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid to
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about Harry
himself...
Miranda
but he gave no reason until the end of the book. and a small reason after a
year of not saying anything to harry shows a big gap in trust. not to mention
that there was no reason to hide the fact that DD thought that Harry would be
used to gather info did not have to be hiden. it could have ben explained so
for that matter the exsistance of the proficy even if the info was held back as
to what it said. tho I can not think of why it was hidden from Harry after
book 4. in fact it would have helped harry understand Cedricks death. DD has
kept secrets for no real reason and I am rather surprised that Harry trust him
as much as he does.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
steveK
2003-12-04 12:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by richard e white
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere in
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid to
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about Harry
himself...
Miranda
but he gave no reason until the end of the book. and a small reason after a
year of not saying anything to harry shows a big gap in trust. not to mention
that there was no reason to hide the fact that DD thought that Harry would be
used to gather info did not have to be hiden. it could have ben explained so
for that matter the exsistance of the proficy even if the info was held back as
to what it said. tho I can not think of why it was hidden from Harry after
book 4. in fact it would have helped harry understand Cedricks death. DD has
kept secrets for no real reason and I am rather surprised that Harry trust him
as much as he does.
The explanation I read is that Dumbledore felt as though he was protecting
Harry's happiness by keeping the entire truth from him. He didn't protect
his happiness - a mistake he admitted. You're right that it could have been
explained earlier.

I also suspect that this is simply JKR's formula for writing - the big
explanation at the end of the book. It would be enjoyable if Book 6 began
with Dumbledore visiting Harry and saying, "Harry, there are a few other
items of interest to you. I was remiss not to discuss them with you at the
end of last term. First, about your mother...." Then we could get on with
the war with a better understanding of the motives of the characters and the
big finish, rather than being an explanation, could be the death of
Dumbledore.

stevek
Kish
2003-12-04 17:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by steveK
I also suspect that this is simply JKR's formula for writing - the big
explanation at the end of the book. It would be enjoyable if Book 6 began
with Dumbledore visiting Harry and saying, "Harry, there are a few other
items of interest to you. I was remiss not to discuss them with you at the
end of last term. First, about your mother...." Then we could get on with
the war with a better understanding of the motives of the characters and the
big finish, rather than being an explanation, could be the death of
Dumbledore.
That gives Dumbledore an incentive to save the explanations for the end,
doesn't it?

"...Yes, Harry, I'm sorry I didn't tell you sooner, but you see, I was
afraid if I explained it to you before (Quirrel was unmasked/the
basilisk was dead/etc.) I might not survive this year."
Sirius Kase
2003-12-04 17:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Reynolds
Post by richard e white
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere
in
Post by richard e white
Post by steveK
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid
to
Post by richard e white
Post by steveK
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about
Harry
Post by richard e white
Post by steveK
himself...
Miranda
but he gave no reason until the end of the book. and a small reason after
a
Post by richard e white
year of not saying anything to harry shows a big gap in trust. not to
mention
Post by richard e white
that there was no reason to hide the fact that DD thought that Harry would
be
Post by richard e white
used to gather info did not have to be hiden. it could have ben explained
so
Post by richard e white
for that matter the exsistance of the proficy even if the info was held
back as
Post by richard e white
to what it said. tho I can not think of why it was hidden from Harry
after
Post by richard e white
book 4. in fact it would have helped harry understand Cedricks death. DD
has
Post by richard e white
kept secrets for no real reason and I am rather surprised that Harry trust
him
Post by richard e white
as much as he does.
The explanation I read is that Dumbledore felt as though he was protecting
Harry's happiness by keeping the entire truth from him. He didn't protect
his happiness - a mistake he admitted. You're right that it could have been
explained earlier.
Another reason not to explain it Harry, if Voldy was using Harry to spy
on Dumbledore, then Voldy would know that Dumbledore was suspicious and
had his guard up whenever Harry was present. And he would know why,that
it wasn't that he was suspicious of Harry, that he was suspicious of
Voldy.
Post by Joe Reynolds
I also suspect that this is simply JKR's formula for writing - the big
explanation at the end of the book. It would be enjoyable if Book 6 began
with Dumbledore visiting Harry and saying, "Harry, there are a few other
items of interest to you. I was remiss not to discuss them with you at the
end of last term. First, about your mother...." Then we could get on with
the war with a better understanding of the motives of the characters and the
big finish, rather than being an explanation, could be the death of
Dumbledore.
If that's her formula, the big explanations aren't big enough. They
tend to create more questions than they answer. somehow, I don't think
she is relying on Dumbledore's *big* explanation to reveal much about
the plot and characterization, she does that by showing, not telling.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
steveK
2003-12-04 22:12:14 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
The explanation I read is that Dumbledore felt as though he was protecting
Harry's happiness by keeping the entire truth from him. He didn't protect
his happiness - a mistake he admitted. You're right that it could have been
explained earlier.
Another reason not to explain it Harry, if Voldy was using Harry to spy
on Dumbledore, then Voldy would know that Dumbledore was suspicious and
had his guard up whenever Harry was present. And he would know why,that
it wasn't that he was suspicious of Harry, that he was suspicious of
Voldy.
Post by steveK
I also suspect that this is simply JKR's formula for writing - the big
explanation at the end of the book. It would be enjoyable if Book 6 began
with Dumbledore visiting Harry and saying, "Harry, there are a few other
items of interest to you. I was remiss not to discuss them with you at the
end of last term. First, about your mother...." Then we could get on with
the war with a better understanding of the motives of the characters and the
big finish, rather than being an explanation, could be the death of
Dumbledore.
If that's her formula, the big explanations aren't big enough. They
tend to create more questions than they answer. somehow, I don't think
she is relying on Dumbledore's *big* explanation to reveal much about
the plot and characterization, she does that by showing, not telling.
She does reveal the plot through showing. My reply about a big explanation
may have been overly flippant but I do think we've come to expect some sort
of sit-down onversation with Dumbledore at the end of the school year.

Also, please take my silly suggestions to the auther as tongue-in-cheek.

steve k
Sirius Kase
2003-12-07 01:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
The explanation I read is that Dumbledore felt as though he was
protecting
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
Harry's happiness by keeping the entire truth from him. He didn't
protect
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
his happiness - a mistake he admitted. You're right that it could have
been
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
explained earlier.
Another reason not to explain it Harry, if Voldy was using Harry to spy
on Dumbledore, then Voldy would know that Dumbledore was suspicious and
had his guard up whenever Harry was present. And he would know why,that
it wasn't that he was suspicious of Harry, that he was suspicious of
Voldy.
Post by steveK
I also suspect that this is simply JKR's formula for writing - the big
explanation at the end of the book. It would be enjoyable if Book 6
began
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
with Dumbledore visiting Harry and saying, "Harry, there are a few other
items of interest to you. I was remiss not to discuss them with you at
the
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
end of last term. First, about your mother...." Then we could get on
with
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
the war with a better understanding of the motives of the characters and
the
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by steveK
big finish, rather than being an explanation, could be the death of
Dumbledore.
If that's her formula, the big explanations aren't big enough. They
tend to create more questions than they answer. somehow, I don't think
she is relying on Dumbledore's *big* explanation to reveal much about
the plot and characterization, she does that by showing, not telling.
She does reveal the plot through showing. My reply about a big explanation
may have been overly flippant but I do think we've come to expect some sort
of sit-down onversation with Dumbledore at the end of the school year.
yes, this does seem to be a bit of a ritual, doesn't it
Post by steveK
Also, please take my silly suggestions to the auther as tongue-in-cheek.
As if it could be otherwise, surely Jo isn't getting ideas from the
newsgroup. ;-)
Post by steveK
steve k
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
richard e white
2003-12-05 14:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Joe Reynolds
Post by richard e white
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere
in
Post by richard e white
Post by steveK
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid
to
Post by richard e white
Post by steveK
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about
Harry
Post by richard e white
Post by steveK
himself...
Miranda
but he gave no reason until the end of the book. and a small reason after
a
Post by richard e white
year of not saying anything to harry shows a big gap in trust. not to
mention
Post by richard e white
that there was no reason to hide the fact that DD thought that Harry would
be
Post by richard e white
used to gather info did not have to be hiden. it could have ben explained
so
Post by richard e white
for that matter the exsistance of the proficy even if the info was held
back as
Post by richard e white
to what it said. tho I can not think of why it was hidden from Harry
after
Post by richard e white
book 4. in fact it would have helped harry understand Cedricks death. DD
has
Post by richard e white
kept secrets for no real reason and I am rather surprised that Harry trust
him
Post by richard e white
as much as he does.
The explanation I read is that Dumbledore felt as though he was protecting
Harry's happiness by keeping the entire truth from him. He didn't protect
his happiness - a mistake he admitted. You're right that it could have been
explained earlier.
Another reason not to explain it Harry, if Voldy was using Harry to spy
on Dumbledore, then Voldy would know that Dumbledore was suspicious and
had his guard up whenever Harry was present. And he would know why,that
it wasn't that he was suspicious of Harry, that he was suspicious of
Voldy.
And do you really think that V would not see that anyways?
Even potter with his lack of knowing what was going on knew some thing was up and
give even that and V could fiugerd that out.
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Joe Reynolds
I also suspect that this is simply JKR's formula for writing - the big
explanation at the end of the book. It would be enjoyable if Book 6 began
with Dumbledore visiting Harry and saying, "Harry, there are a few other
items of interest to you. I was remiss not to discuss them with you at the
end of last term. First, about your mother...." Then we could get on with
the war with a better understanding of the motives of the characters and the
big finish, rather than being an explanation, could be the death of
Dumbledore.
If that's her formula, the big explanations aren't big enough. They
tend to create more questions than they answer. somehow, I don't think
she is relying on Dumbledore's *big* explanation to reveal much about
the plot and characterization, she does that by showing, not telling.
Is that part back wards or what?


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
gjw
2003-12-04 23:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by steveK
I also suspect that this is simply JKR's formula for writing - the big
explanation at the end of the book. It would be enjoyable if Book 6 began
with Dumbledore visiting Harry and saying, "Harry, there are a few other
items of interest to you. I was remiss not to discuss them with you at the
end of last term. First, about your mother...."
That sort of end/explanation scene dates back to the classic detective
novels, when, at the end of the book, the master detective would
gather all of the suspects in a room, lay out his evidence, explain
the meaning of the clues, and then reveal the identity of the
murderer.

A perfect example of this is the end of GoF, and the unmasking of the
fake Moody.

Saving that sort of revelation for last is one technique writers use
to keep the readers turning pages. They know you're curious, so they
keep questions unanswered so you'll keep reading.

In Rowling's case, she has to keep people hooked for seven books, so
she has to keep quite a few of the key questions unanswered until book
7...
richard e white
2003-12-05 13:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Reynolds
Post by richard e white
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Harry wasn't a prefect, partly because Dumbldore didn't want to add
the strain, but also because he didn't trust him. Life would be
easier for both Harry and Dumbledore if they trusted each other, but
even Dumbledore must earn Harry's trust, Harry never trusts anyone
just because he's supposed to. Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not
to trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so
strongly.
I don't really get that from the text, myself. IMO Dumbledore is sincere
in
Post by richard e white
Post by steveK
his explanation of the reason for not making Harry a prefect. I'd be
interestd to know what gives you a different sense? I know he was afraid
to
Post by richard e white
Post by steveK
look Harry in the eye, but that was about Voldemort more than about
Harry
Post by richard e white
Post by steveK
himself...
Miranda
but he gave no reason until the end of the book. and a small reason after
a
Post by richard e white
year of not saying anything to harry shows a big gap in trust. not to
mention
Post by richard e white
that there was no reason to hide the fact that DD thought that Harry would
be
Post by richard e white
used to gather info did not have to be hiden. it could have ben explained
so
Post by richard e white
for that matter the exsistance of the proficy even if the info was held
back as
Post by richard e white
to what it said. tho I can not think of why it was hidden from Harry
after
Post by richard e white
book 4. in fact it would have helped harry understand Cedricks death. DD
has
Post by richard e white
kept secrets for no real reason and I am rather surprised that Harry trust
him
Post by richard e white
as much as he does.
The explanation I read is that Dumbledore felt as though he was protecting
Harry's happiness by keeping the entire truth from him. He didn't protect
his happiness - a mistake he admitted. You're right that it could have been
explained earlier.
I also suspect that this is simply JKR's formula for writing - the big
explanation at the end of the book. It would be enjoyable if Book 6 began
with Dumbledore visiting Harry and saying, "Harry, there are a few other
items of interest to you. I was remiss not to discuss them with you at the
end of last term. First, about your mother...." Then we could get on with
the war with a better understanding of the motives of the characters and the
big finish, rather than being an explanation, could be the death of
Dumbledore.
stevek
That would be nice but I rather expect that Harry will have to do a lot more
random digging befor we find that out. and I think he needs a really big
shovle.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Meghan Noecker
2003-12-04 09:14:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:06:23 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not to
trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so strongly.
I got the impression that Dumbledore felt he made a grave mistake with
Tom Riddle. In the Chamber of Secrets, during Tom's memory scene,
Dumbledore asked Tom if he wanted to tell him something. He has asked
Harry that too. He probably has the leglimens skill and knows when
somebody is either being deceptive or holding something back.

Tom Riddle appeared to be an excellent student and well respected.
Dumbledore misjudged him. He knows that Harry has held back on telling
everything, and he knows that Harry is very similar to Tom Riddle. So,
he may be afraid to make the same mistake twice.


Meghan & the Zoo Crew
Equine and Pet Photography
http://www.zoocrewphoto.com
Sirius Kase
2003-12-04 18:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Meghan Noecker
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:06:23 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not to
trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so strongly.
I got the impression that Dumbledore felt he made a grave mistake with
Tom Riddle. In the Chamber of Secrets, during Tom's memory scene,
Dumbledore asked Tom if he wanted to tell him something. He has asked
Harry that too. He probably has the leglimens skill and knows when
somebody is either being deceptive or holding something back.
Tom Riddle appeared to be an excellent student and well respected.
Dumbledore misjudged him. He knows that Harry has held back on telling
everything, and he knows that Harry is very similar to Tom Riddle. So,
he may be afraid to make the same mistake twice.
That's my pet theory, almost. In my version, it is Snape who sees the
parallel triangle (Harry, Dumbledore, Snape) <=> (Riddle, Dippit,
Dumbledore) and can't prove it, but neither can Dumbledore disprove it.
The attempt by two good men to prove or disprove whether Harry is
another Tom Riddle without tipping him off is behind much of the story,
especially with regards to Snapes behavior.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
steveK
2003-12-04 22:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Meghan Noecker
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:06:23 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Maybe Dumbledore has good reasons not to
trust Harry, but he shouldn't telegraph his lack of trust so strongly.
I got the impression that Dumbledore felt he made a grave mistake with
Tom Riddle. In the Chamber of Secrets, during Tom's memory scene,
Dumbledore asked Tom if he wanted to tell him something. He has asked
Harry that too. He probably has the leglimens skill and knows when
somebody is either being deceptive or holding something back.
Tom Riddle appeared to be an excellent student and well respected.
Dumbledore misjudged him. He knows that Harry has held back on telling
everything, and he knows that Harry is very similar to Tom Riddle. So,
he may be afraid to make the same mistake twice.
That's my pet theory, almost. In my version, it is Snape who sees the
parallel triangle (Harry, Dumbledore, Snape) <=> (Riddle, Dippit,
Dumbledore) and can't prove it, but neither can Dumbledore disprove it.
The attempt by two good men to prove or disprove whether Harry is
another Tom Riddle without tipping him off is behind much of the story,
especially with regards to Snapes behavior.
I like this theory as it applies to Snape's motivation - an attempt to see
Harry through Snape's lens.

steve k.
Meghan Noecker
2003-12-05 09:40:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:14:37 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Meghan Noecker
I got the impression that Dumbledore felt he made a grave mistake with
Tom Riddle. In the Chamber of Secrets, during Tom's memory scene,
Dumbledore asked Tom if he wanted to tell him something. He has asked
Harry that too. He probably has the leglimens skill and knows when
somebody is either being deceptive or holding something back.
Tom Riddle appeared to be an excellent student and well respected.
Dumbledore misjudged him. He knows that Harry has held back on telling
everything, and he knows that Harry is very similar to Tom Riddle. So,
he may be afraid to make the same mistake twice.
That's my pet theory, almost. In my version, it is Snape who sees the
parallel triangle (Harry, Dumbledore, Snape) <=> (Riddle, Dippit,
Dumbledore) and can't prove it, but neither can Dumbledore disprove it.
The attempt by two good men to prove or disprove whether Harry is
another Tom Riddle without tipping him off is behind much of the story,
especially with regards to Snapes behavior.
--
Good thought. I see what you mean, and certainly Snape is suspicious
of him. I never thought of Dumbledore as supicious of him, but more
secondguessing himself. I believe that if he regrets anything, it
would be that he didn't catch Tom Riddle before he damaged so many
lives.


Meghan & the Zoo Crew
Equine and Pet Photography
http://www.zoocrewphoto.com
Sirius Kase
2003-12-07 02:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Meghan Noecker
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Meghan Noecker
Tom Riddle appeared to be an excellent student and well respected.
Dumbledore misjudged him. He knows that Harry has held back on telling
everything, and he knows that Harry is very similar to Tom Riddle. So,
he may be afraid to make the same mistake twice.
That's my pet theory, almost. In my version, it is Snape who sees the
parallel triangle (Harry, Dumbledore, Snape) <=> (Riddle, Dippit,
Dumbledore) and can't prove it, but neither can Dumbledore disprove it.
The attempt by two good men to prove or disprove whether Harry is
another Tom Riddle without tipping him off is behind much of the story,
especially with regards to Snapes behavior.
--
Good thought. I see what you mean, and certainly Snape is suspicious
of him. I never thought of Dumbledore as supicious of him, but more
secondguessing himself. I believe that if he regrets anything, it
would be that he didn't catch Tom Riddle before he damaged so many
lives.
I also think that Dumbledore likes Harry and Snape dislikes Harry which
puts more motivation behind their efforts. But neither know for sure,
it's just a gut feeling or character judging skills, something
Dumbledore is probably better at.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
Toon
2003-12-01 08:51:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:29:38 GMT, Sirius Kase
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Toon
Post by DM
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
The fanfic I'm writing touches on this very point. One character chides
Harry for not having the killer instinct to survive a duel with Voldemort.
I agree, Harry needs to get tough. It's going to come to a point when
Harry must decide, his life or Voldemort's. Sp far, Harry has received
help in one form or another, but in the end, he'll have to face the Dark
Lord one-on-one.
--
DM
No, it won't be you or me type of action. it'll be I must stop V form
killing anymore loved ones. It'll probably be like watching
Dumbledore die in front of him.
And that way of thinking means that both might die, Harry could
sacrifice himself killing voldy so that more innocent people wouldn't
die. don't like that ending, but it is very likely.
Yeah, but the fact Harry seemed to basically go into a panic when he
realized he must kill, no choice whatsoever, shows a foreshadowing to
a resolve through Love. It' snot self defense,a s Harry could care
less about himself. it's his love of his friends that'll do it.
Knowing he has to stop the pain, death, and hurting once and for all.
better to kill V than let THAT happen one more time. THAT being
whatever pushes Harry past his inate non killing instincts.
gjw
2003-11-30 03:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner.
JKR seems to be setting Voldemort up for a fall that won't necessarily
involve death. As we know, Voldemort is obsessed with avoiding death.
I see an ironic twist coming in which Voldemort will succeed in
avoiding death, but wish that he hadn't...

Note this passage from OotP:

'You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?' called Voldemort, his
scarlet eyes narrowed over the top of the shield. 'Above such
brutality, are you?'
'We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom,'
Dumbledore said calmly, continuing to walk towards Voldemort as though
he had not a fear in the world, as though nothing had happened to
interrupt his stroll up the hall. 'Merely taking your life would not
satisfy me, I admit — '
There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!' snarled Voldemort.
'You are quite wrong,' said Dumbledore, still closing in upon
Voldemort and speaking as lightly as though they were discussing the
matter over drinks..... 'Indeed, your failure to understand that there
are things much worse than death has always been your greatest
weakness — "
Post by eggplant107
Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent.
Slapping a convenient label on it ("war") does not change the nature
of an ethical dilemma. There have been millions of veterans who have
come home from wars, haunted for the rest of their lives by the
memories of what they were forced to do in combat, or what they saw
others do.
Post by eggplant107
Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
It wasn't a mistake. Harry did the right thing. And Wormtail will come
in handy one of these days...
steveK
2003-12-02 15:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by gjw
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner.
JKR seems to be setting Voldemort up for a fall that won't necessarily
involve death. As we know, Voldemort is obsessed with avoiding death.
I see an ironic twist coming in which Voldemort will succeed in
avoiding death, but wish that he hadn't...
<snip>

That's an interesting idea. Also think of other deaths that have been
discussed. Nicholas Flamel's next great adventure (or some such thing) and
Sir Nicholas' regret at not having gone on. Death in these instances seems
not such a bad thing.

stevek
Klaus Opel
2003-12-06 22:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by gjw
JKR seems to be setting Voldemort up for a fall that won't necessarily
involve death.
ACK.

Being some 2000 miles from home I can't have a look at the books, but
afair the prophecy told that [Harry] and the dark Lord can't exist at
the same time.

What about an end with Tom Riddle alive but having lost his magical
capabilities? (and that way no longer being the dark lord)

Or frozen in time, a statue like Hermione after looking at the serpent
though a mirror?

Klaus
--
Meine Absender-Adresse ist gültig, allerdings werden emails an diese
Adresse gnadenlos und ohne Benachrichtigung gelöscht.
Wer mir also schreiben will, ersetze den local part der Adresse durch
was anderes.
Tim Behrendsen
2003-12-07 18:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Opel
Hi,
Post by gjw
JKR seems to be setting Voldemort up for a fall that won't necessarily
involve death.
ACK.
Being some 2000 miles from home I can't have a look at the books, but
afair the prophecy told that [Harry] and the dark Lord can't exist at
the same time.
What about an end with Tom Riddle alive but having lost his magical
capabilities? (and that way no longer being the dark lord)
This has been suggested before, but I don't buy into it. It's not sure enough. There's
always a chance that he could get his powers back.

Given his history, it would irresponsible to do anything less than kill him.
Toon
2003-11-30 08:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
Let's see. This is the guy who killed his parents, forced him into
misery/abuse at the Dursely's, harmed his firends/associates families,
killed his school chum, and is responsible indirectly for the death of
his godfather, the only true family he had left, the near death of his
almost father Arthur Weasley, seriously freaked out Almost Mom Molly,
nearly killed the little sister of his best friend via a backup copy
of himself, and nearly offed his friends, as well as endlessly trying
to kill him (6 times). Throw in indirectly making him absolutely
miserable his fifth year, nearly got him expelled, and how he won't
stop hurting/killing others or Harry, how can Harry not want to kill
him to stop him? It's for the greater good. And Harry will be one of
the only people on Earth capable of murder for non self defense, that
nobody will bat an eyelash at for killing. Instead, he'd be a hero.
Even if the previous deaths aren't enough, Harry knows more death's
acoming. I can't see him not killing V in the end.
Klaus Opel
2003-12-06 22:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Toon
I can't see him not killing V in the end.
I see him disabeling V in a way that V (while still living) isn't able
to do more magic than Tom Riddle sr.

Klaus
--
Meine Absender-Adresse ist gültig, allerdings werden emails an diese
Adresse gnadenlos und ohne Benachrichtigung gelöscht.
Wer mir also schreiben will, ersetze den local part der Adresse durch
was anderes.
Alex Clark
2003-12-02 11:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. . . .
She will not cave to anyone or anything. Whatever the end is, she has
been setting it up for years, and it will be an expression of her own
beliefs. If it turns out that her beliefs, as shown in the end of book
7, are different from yours, then you may go ahead and say that she is
being "politically correct" if you want to. But saying this will not
cause her to have any political motives, nor will it put her in the
wrong, nor will it change the fact that the story ended in a way that
she believed was right.

Now let me make two comments concerning your idea of the right way to
end the series. Dumbledore has shown that you don't have to become
like the enemy in order to fight. George W. Bush has shown that those
who want to become like the enemy should not be trusted to get into a
fight.

Alex Clark

I arm old Voldemort
Cornelius Fudge
2003-12-03 00:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if
Rowling
Post by eggplant107
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. . . .
Harry kills millions of trees each year. Does that count?
:^)
Joe Reynolds
2003-12-03 00:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Clark
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. . . .
She will not cave to anyone or anything. Whatever the end is, she has
been setting it up for years, and it will be an expression of her own
beliefs. If it turns out that her beliefs, as shown in the end of book
7, are different from yours, then you may go ahead and say that she is
being "politically correct" if you want to. But saying this will not
cause her to have any political motives, nor will it put her in the
wrong, nor will it change the fact that the story ended in a way that
she believed was right.
Now let me make two comments concerning your idea of the right way to
end the series. Dumbledore has shown that you don't have to become
like the enemy in order to fight. George W. Bush has shown that those
who want to become like the enemy should not be trusted to get into a
fight.
Alex Clark
I arm old Voldemort
What on EARTH does Bush have to do with Potter??? Don't we get enough
politics in RL? Can't we stay off the danged political bandwagon while we
discuss literature?
-Joe
Kish
2003-12-03 00:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Reynolds
Post by Alex Clark
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. . . .
She will not cave to anyone or anything. Whatever the end is, she has
been setting it up for years, and it will be an expression of her own
beliefs. If it turns out that her beliefs, as shown in the end of book
7, are different from yours, then you may go ahead and say that she is
being "politically correct" if you want to. But saying this will not
cause her to have any political motives, nor will it put her in the
wrong, nor will it change the fact that the story ended in a way that
she believed was right.
Now let me make two comments concerning your idea of the right way to
end the series. Dumbledore has shown that you don't have to become
like the enemy in order to fight. George W. Bush has shown that those
who want to become like the enemy should not be trusted to get into a
fight.
Alex Clark
I arm old Voldemort
What on EARTH does Bush have to do with Potter??? Don't we get enough
politics in RL? Can't we stay off the danged political bandwagon while we
discuss literature?
The first post in this thread asserted that for Harry not to kill
Voldemort in the last book would be "caving to the politically correct
crowd." I'd say this thread started off on the political bandwagon.
RCLOVELY
2003-12-03 07:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant107
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
Post by eggplant107
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7
I have been thinking about this, and Harry -can't- kill Voldermort, at least
with a wand in a wizards duel. The wands they have are brother wands and if
they are made to fight against each other all they do is unite and produce the
prior incantum.
So, the question is how does Harry get rid of Voldermort if he can't use his
wand? He can't use his bare hands, Voldermort is to fast for him. A gun, at
least in the UK, is out. A knife, he would have to get in to close, and a bow
and arrow would be to far. Godric Griffindor's sword may work, but Harry isn't
learning fencing....yet.
I keep coming back to the prophecy, "one must die by the hand of the other" and
this may be it. According to my dictionary hand is not only the appendage at
the end of the arm. It also means servant or employee as in farm hand or ranch
hand. It also means a help "let me give you a hand with that."
There is one servant I keep coming back to, one with an unusual hand.
Petegrew/Wormtail is Voldermort's servant, yet he owes Harry his life. I think
somehow he will be involved with Voldermort death. Then there is Dobby. He is
a servant very loyal to Harry with powerful magic of his own. Maybe he will be
somehow involved in Voldermort death.
Any other ideas?

RC
gjw
2003-12-03 08:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by RCLOVELY
Post by eggplant107
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
Post by eggplant107
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7
I have been thinking about this, and Harry -can't- kill Voldermort, at least
with a wand in a wizards duel. The wands they have are brother wands and if
they are made to fight against each other all they do is unite and produce the
prior incantum.
I've brought this up before. I think the chances are that Voldemort
will get a new wand before he confronts Harry again (or use surrogates
to go after him). After all, Voldy was the one who lost that
mind/magic duel and had his wand go haywire. I don't think he'll take
a chance that it might happen again. He was virtually frozen to the
spot in the graveyard. If that were to happen in a battle when
Ministry aurors or Dumbledore happened to be around (instead of his
friendly DE's), it would be bye bye Voldemort.
Post by RCLOVELY
I keep coming back to the prophecy, "one must die by the hand of the other" and
this may be it. According to my dictionary hand is not only the appendage at
the end of the arm. It also means servant or employee as in farm hand or ranch
hand. It also means a help "let me give you a hand with that."
There is one servant I keep coming back to, one with an unusual hand.
Petegrew/Wormtail is Voldermort's servant, yet he owes Harry his life.
Now, if only Voldemort had replaced Wormtails hand with Harry's
hand... we might have an interesting scenario.

(But come to think of it, that would have left Harry with a
chopped-off hand, which would be a bit too much like Luke Skywalker at
the end of "Return of the Jedi".)
Sirius Kase
2003-12-03 18:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by gjw
Post by RCLOVELY
Post by eggplant107
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
Post by eggplant107
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7
I have been thinking about this, and Harry -can't- kill Voldermort, at least
with a wand in a wizards duel. The wands they have are brother wands and if
they are made to fight against each other all they do is unite and produce the
prior incantum.
I've brought this up before. I think the chances are that Voldemort
will get a new wand before he confronts Harry again (or use surrogates
to go after him). After all, Voldy was the one who lost that
mind/magic duel and had his wand go haywire. I don't think he'll take
a chance that it might happen again. He was virtually frozen to the
spot in the graveyard. If that were to happen in a battle when
Ministry aurors or Dumbledore happened to be around (instead of his
friendly DE's), it would be bye bye Voldemort.
Don't know why it appears that wizards only own one wand. We know they
can use each others' and that Ron can acquire a new one. It seems
reasonable that a wizard might own more than one, especially if he's a
collector. And Voldy has a good reason to acquire another even if he
can't go into a wand shop, he can take one of the deatheater's wands.
Might not be as good as his own for most uses, but his own is worthless
against Harry. It isn't like they are very expensive. Lucius could
score a lot of brownie points by buying a new wand for Voldy.
Post by gjw
Post by RCLOVELY
I keep coming back to the prophecy, "one must die by the hand of the other" and
this may be it. According to my dictionary hand is not only the appendage at
the end of the arm. It also means servant or employee as in farm hand or ranch
hand. It also means a help "let me give you a hand with that."
There is one servant I keep coming back to, one with an unusual hand.
Petegrew/Wormtail is Voldermort's servant, yet he owes Harry his life.
Now, if only Voldemort had replaced Wormtails hand with Harry's
hand... we might have an interesting scenario.
right, it wouldn't be cheating for Rowling to use a different definition
of Hand than the thing at the end of Harry's arm. So what qualifies as
Harry's Hand, loosely defined as anyone or anything that helps Harry
out? Wow, that's broad!
Post by gjw
(But come to think of it, that would have left Harry with a
chopped-off hand, which would be a bit too much like Luke Skywalker at
the end of "Return of the Jedi".)
Not a surprise at all to those who think Rowling is plagerising Star
Wars.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
Chistaya
2003-12-03 22:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Kase
Don't know why it appears that wizards only own one wand.
We know they can use each others' and that Ron can acquire
a new one. It seems reasonable that a wizard might own more
than one, especially if he's a collector.
I always assumed that there was an "optimal" wand for each
wizard. I don't know whether you could duplicate that
wand and get the same results from the copy or if the process
of making a wand endows it with something magical and unique.
Post by Sirius Kase
And Voldy has a good reason to acquire another even if he
can't go into a wand shop, he can take one of the deatheater's
wands. Might not be as good as his own for most uses, but his
own is worthless against Harry.
I interpreted this to mean that the wands were only useless if
they were being used against each other simultaneously (in a
duel). Presumably, Harry could sneak up on Voldemort while he
was asleep or otherwise wandless and cast an AK without the
Priori Incantatem coming into play. OTOH, one assumes that
Baby Harry was wandless at the time of their first meeting and
the AK didn't work, so maybe it is wrong to assume that
Harry could attack a wandless Voldemort without unexpected
repercussions.
Post by Sirius Kase
It isn't like they are very expensive. Lucius could
score a lot of brownie points by buying a new wand for Voldy.
If one assumes that there is only one "best wand" for each
wizard, Lucius would score more brownie points for destroying
Harry's wand. That way Voldemort could keep his own wand
and Harry would have to obtain a new one. (If that happens,
who wants to bet that Fawkes personally giving a feather to
Harry makes the wand even more powerful and special?)

***@aol.com
Sirius Kase
2003-12-04 04:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chistaya
Post by Sirius Kase
It isn't like they are very expensive. Lucius could
score a lot of brownie points by buying a new wand for Voldy.
If one assumes that there is only one "best wand" for each
wizard, Lucius would score more brownie points for destroying
Harry's wand. That way Voldemort could keep his own wand
and Harry would have to obtain a new one.
Yep, that would be better for the baddies
Post by Chistaya
(If that happens,
who wants to bet that Fawkes personally giving a feather to
Harry makes the wand even more powerful and special?)
That's a sure bet, unless the Dumbledore is Evil people are correct and
Falkes only saved Harry from the Baskalisk so he could be killed by the
real Voldemort.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
Alex Clark
2003-12-05 10:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chistaya
and Harry would have to obtain a new one. (If that happens,
who wants to bet that Fawkes personally giving a feather to
Harry makes the wand even more powerful and special?)
Would that make Fawkes Harry's hand? What a lot of hands he has! You
too could be Harry Potter's Hand! (A scuffle breaks out as Ginny and
Luna both try to be first in line.)

Alex Clark

Mod lover or ami, Ltd. (another anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)
Fish Eye no Miko
2003-12-05 19:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Clark
Post by Chistaya
and Harry would have to obtain a new one. (If that
happens, who wants to bet that Fawkes personally
giving a feather to Harry makes the wand even
more powerful and special?)
Would that make Fawkes Harry's hand? What a lot of hands he has! You
too could be Harry Potter's Hand!
Hello, folks and welcome back to "Who Want to be Harry Potter's Hand?"
Post by Alex Clark
(A scuffle breaks out as Ginny and Luna both try to be first in line.)
<Colin starts taking pictures to put on his Web Site, hotwitches.com>

Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Right now you are reading my .sig quote.
Richard Eney
2003-12-04 03:55:58 UTC
Permalink
<snip>

spoiler for OotP

10

8

6

4

2

0
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by gjw
Post by RCLOVELY
I keep coming back to the prophecy, "one must die by the hand of the
other" and this may be it. According to my dictionary hand is not
only the appendage at the end of the arm. It also means servant or
employee as in farm hand or ranch hand. It also means a help "let me
give you a hand with that." There is one servant I keep coming back
to, one with an unusual hand. Pettigrew/Wormtail is Voldermort's
servant, yet he owes Harry his life.
Now, if only Voldemort had replaced Wormtails hand with Harry's
hand... we might have an interesting scenario.
right, it wouldn't be cheating for Rowling to use a different definition
of Hand than the thing at the end of Harry's arm. So what qualifies as
Harry's Hand, loosely defined as anyone or anything that helps Harry
out? Wow, that's broad!
What about that Hand of Glory? Draco wanted to buy it.

Or Dobby, who serves Harry willingly.

=Tamar
Sirius Kase
2003-12-04 17:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Eney
Post by Sirius Kase
right, it wouldn't be cheating for Rowling to use a different definition
of Hand than the thing at the end of Harry's arm. So what qualifies as
Harry's Hand, loosely defined as anyone or anything that helps Harry
out? Wow, that's broad!
What about that Hand of Glory? Draco wanted to buy it.
That's a great idea. We just might see that thing again, especially
after they made a point of including it in the movie and the game. So
far, it has made only one appearance in the story and it didn't
contribute to the pot, but it follows the pattern of being featured
prominently enough to be used again later.

"The hand of the other" seems that Harry might have to be the owner of
it somehow. Why would he want such a thing, maybe a gift from Draco ;-)
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
Toon
2003-12-04 08:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by RCLOVELY
Post by eggplant107
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
Post by eggplant107
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7
I have been thinking about this, and Harry -can't- kill Voldermort, at least
with a wand in a wizards duel. The wands they have are brother wands and if
they are made to fight against each other all they do is unite and produce the
prior incantum.
So, the question is how does Harry get rid of Voldermort if he can't use his
wand? He can't use his bare hands, Voldermort is to fast for him. A gun, at
least in the UK, is out. A knife, he would have to get in to close, and a bow
and arrow would be to far. Godric Griffindor's sword may work, but Harry isn't
learning fencing....yet.
I keep coming back to the prophecy, "one must die by the hand of the other" and
this may be it. According to my dictionary hand is not only the appendage at
the end of the arm. It also means servant or employee as in farm hand or ranch
hand. It also means a help "let me give you a hand with that."
There is one servant I keep coming back to, one with an unusual hand.
Petegrew/Wormtail is Voldermort's servant, yet he owes Harry his life. I think
somehow he will be involved with Voldermort death. Then there is Dobby. He is
a servant very loyal to Harry with powerful magic of his own. Maybe he will be
somehow involved in Voldermort death.
Any other ideas?
RC
Perhaps Harry will convince V his evil ways are wrong, and help him
kill himself. Commonly called an anticlimactic let down.
Kevin Karpenske
2003-12-04 09:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toon
Perhaps Harry will convince V his evil ways are wrong, and help him
kill himself. Commonly called an anticlimactic let down.
*Snort*.
--
Kevin Karpenske, krk at firefox dot com

* The Twelve Towers Saga - http://www.firefox.com
* (A work-in-progress of original fiction.)
Sirius Kase
2003-12-03 18:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kish
Post by Joe Reynolds
What on EARTH does Bush have to do with Potter??? Don't we get enough
politics in RL? Can't we stay off the danged political bandwagon while we
discuss literature?
The first post in this thread asserted that for Harry not to kill
Voldemort in the last book would be "caving to the politically correct
crowd." I'd say this thread started off on the political bandwagon.
Differect politics, Bush has nothing to do with whether it is acceptible
in the little world of kiddy lit for a beloved hero to either kill or be
killed. Bush is in the real world where his belovedness is beside the
point and it is debatable whether it is okay for him to kill or be
killed. To tell you the truth, I'm not a Bush basher, but I don't love
him either. I trust him enough that I rather he kill than be killed.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
steveK
2003-12-02 15:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant107
I hear a lot of talk about how Harry is so sweet he could never kill
anyone, well, I would be very surprised and disappointed if Rowling
caves in to the politically correct crowd and doesn't have Harry kill
Voldemort in book 7, preferably in a bloody and rather horrible
manner. Remember this is a war and in wars nice kind decent people
kill people, even other nice kind decent people; so killing Voldemort
should not cause any ethical dilemma for Harry as the Dark Lord is not
nice kind or decent. Yes I know Harry stopped Sirius and Lupin from
murdering Wormtail in book3 but he's stronger and wiser now and I
don't think he'd make the same mistake again.
Eggplant
In my opinion, the scene with Bellatrix was meant to set up the idea that
Harry isn't able to effectively use unforgivable curses. He later states
outright to Dumbledore that he can't kill anyone.

I don't think he's learned this lesson yet, and probably won't learn it at
all.

stevek
Troels Forchhammer
2003-12-03 21:39:30 UTC
Permalink
In message <lm2zb.2318$***@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>,
"steveK" <***@nospam.us> enriched us with:
<snip>
Post by steveK
In my opinion, the scene with Bellatrix was meant to set up the idea
that Harry isn't able to effectively use unforgivable curses. He later
states outright to Dumbledore that he can't kill anyone.
I agree entirely. It is being drummed into us that Harry's strength, the
"power the Dark Lord knows not ..." is love, and love, in my perception of
Rowling's intention, isn't destructive in that way. Harry is, IMO, not
going to deliberately kill Lord Voldemort, neither in cold blood or in the
heat of the battle - he is simply incapable of the kind of emotions that
are necessary for that.

The belief that killing solves anything at all runs, IMO, contrary to what
Rowling is setting the scene for.
Post by steveK
I don't think he's learned this lesson yet, and probably won't learn it
at all.
It is, I strongly believe, a lesson that, in Rowling's mind, is so wrong
that Harry is never going to want or need to learn it.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.
Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
(Thus speaks the quantum physicist)
Tim Behrendsen
2003-12-03 22:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by steveK
In my opinion, the scene with Bellatrix was meant to set up the idea
that Harry isn't able to effectively use unforgivable curses. He later
states outright to Dumbledore that he can't kill anyone.
I agree entirely. It is being drummed into us that Harry's strength, the
"power the Dark Lord knows not ..." is love, and love, in my perception of
Rowling's intention, isn't destructive in that way. Harry is, IMO, not
going to deliberately kill Lord Voldemort, neither in cold blood or in the
heat of the battle - he is simply incapable of the kind of emotions that
are necessary for that.
I'm not sure. First, I don't think his incapability of doing Crucio was proof of anything.
In fact, it might be considered proof of the opposite. That was the first time he did it,
with no training, and he still managed to make it work enough to make Bellatrix "scream".
I suspect that it's a bit like the Patronus charm. It's your mental state that counts. You
have to think of a happy thought to make Patrnous work, not actually /be/ happy. Harry
just has to "simulate" the mental state of hatred and wanting to cause pain. With
practice, I would imagine that he could do it.

Also, it's somewhat telling that Harry /did it/. He used an unforgivable curse, a torture
curse, that he had personal experience with. He knew how bad it was, and he still tried to
do it. In the heat of a moment, but he still did it.

If he did it once, he's capable of doing it again.

I think the point of that scene wasn't to show that Harry couldn't do it, but that Harry
/was/ capable of /wanting/ to do it. Moral ambiguity.
gjw
2003-12-04 04:43:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:44:07 -0800, "Tim Behrendsen"
Post by Tim Behrendsen
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by steveK
In my opinion, the scene with Bellatrix was meant to set up the idea
that Harry isn't able to effectively use unforgivable curses. He later
states outright to Dumbledore that he can't kill anyone.
I agree entirely. It is being drummed into us that Harry's strength, the
"power the Dark Lord knows not ..." is love, and love, in my perception of
Rowling's intention, isn't destructive in that way. Harry is, IMO, not
going to deliberately kill Lord Voldemort, neither in cold blood or in the
heat of the battle - he is simply incapable of the kind of emotions that
are necessary for that.
I'm not sure. First, I don't think his incapability of doing Crucio was proof of anything.
In fact, it might be considered proof of the opposite. That was the first time he did it,
with no training, and he still managed to make it work enough to make Bellatrix "scream".
I suspect that it's a bit like the Patronus charm. It's your mental state that counts. You
have to think of a happy thought to make Patrnous work, not actually /be/ happy. Harry
just has to "simulate" the mental state of hatred and wanting to cause pain. With
practice, I would imagine that he could do it.
You missed Troel's point. Harry won't practice hatred or wanting to
cause pain, because those are not values that the author (JKR) wants
to promote.
Post by Tim Behrendsen
I think the point of that scene wasn't to show that Harry couldn't do it, but that Harry
/was/ capable of /wanting/ to do it. Moral ambiguity.
It was both. She wanted to show that Harry was angry enough to try
something evil, but didn't have the (lack of) heart for it.
Tim Behrendsen
2003-12-04 05:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by gjw
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:44:07 -0800, "Tim Behrendsen"
Post by Tim Behrendsen
Post by Troels Forchhammer
I agree entirely. It is being drummed into us that Harry's strength, the
"power the Dark Lord knows not ..." is love, and love, in my perception of
Rowling's intention, isn't destructive in that way. Harry is, IMO, not
going to deliberately kill Lord Voldemort, neither in cold blood or in the
heat of the battle - he is simply incapable of the kind of emotions that
are necessary for that.
I'm not sure. First, I don't think his incapability of doing Crucio was proof of anything.
In fact, it might be considered proof of the opposite. That was the first time he did it,
with no training, and he still managed to make it work enough to make Bellatrix "scream".
I suspect that it's a bit like the Patronus charm. It's your mental state that counts. You
have to think of a happy thought to make Patrnous work, not actually /be/ happy. Harry
just has to "simulate" the mental state of hatred and wanting to cause pain. With
practice, I would imagine that he could do it.
You missed Troel's point. Harry won't practice hatred or wanting to
cause pain, because those are not values that the author (JKR) wants
to promote.
I agree that he won't practice it or go out of his way to learn it, but Troel seemed to be
implying that Harry would be incapable of doing it under any circumstances, and I disagree
with that.
Post by gjw
Post by Tim Behrendsen
I think the point of that scene wasn't to show that Harry couldn't do it, but that Harry
/was/ capable of /wanting/ to do it. Moral ambiguity.
It was both. She wanted to show that Harry was angry enough to try
something evil, but didn't have the (lack of) heart for it.
It wasn't just anger that Harry felt (as Bellatrix thought, i.e., 'righteous anger'), he
felt "hatred such as he had never known before". And he /was/ able to make the spell work.
Sirius Kase
2003-12-04 18:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Behrendsen
Post by gjw
You missed Troel's point. Harry won't practice hatred or wanting to
cause pain, because those are not values that the author (JKR) wants
to promote.
I agree that he won't practice it or go out of his way to learn it,
but Troel seemed to be implying that Harry would be incapable of
doing it under any circumstances, and I disagree with that.
This ties in with the idea in the first chapter of the first book -
who's the more powerful wizard? Dumbledore who can't or won't do evil
or Voldy who can (but has a weakness in that he doesn't understand the
magic of love).
Post by Tim Behrendsen
Post by gjw
Post by Tim Behrendsen
I think the point of that scene wasn't to show that Harry couldn't
do it, but that Harry /was/ capable of /wanting/ to do it. Moral
ambiguity.
It was both. She wanted to show that Harry was angry enough to try
something evil, but didn't have the (lack of) heart for it.
It wasn't just anger that Harry felt (as Bellatrix thought, i.e.,
'righteous anger'), he felt "hatred such as he had never known
before". And he /was/ able to make the spell work.
The baddies view the inability to enjoy doing evil as a weakness, since,
as Bellatrix explains, the enjoyment is necessary to make the spell work
properly.

Harry appears to have everything it takes except for the ability to
enjoy causing pain. Even his youthful lack of experience isn't a
problem. If Harry had not just wanted to hurt her, but actually enjoyed
it, he would have been successful on his first attempt.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
Richard Eney
2003-12-05 02:58:47 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Tim Behrendsen
It wasn't just anger that Harry felt (as Bellatrix thought, i.e.,
'righteous anger'), he felt "hatred such as he had never known
before". And he /was/ able to make the spell work.
The baddies view the inability to enjoy doing evil as a weakness, since,
as Bellatrix explains, the enjoyment is necessary to make the spell work
properly.
Harry appears to have everything it takes except for the ability to
enjoy causing pain. Even his youthful lack of experience isn't a
problem. If Harry had not just wanted to hurt her, but actually enjoyed
it, he would have been successful on his first attempt.
OTOH Harry was capable of enjoying some unhappiness that he did not cause:
Dudley's diet. Harry enjoyed the fact that he had cake _and Dudley
didn't_.

All he has to do is put the two together: pleasure at someone else's
unhappiness, and the desire to cause someone else's unhappiness.

=Tamar
Sirius Kase
2003-12-07 02:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by steveK
<snip>
Post by Sirius Kase
Post by Tim Behrendsen
It wasn't just anger that Harry felt (as Bellatrix thought, i.e.,
'righteous anger'), he felt "hatred such as he had never known
before". And he /was/ able to make the spell work.
The baddies view the inability to enjoy doing evil as a weakness, since,
as Bellatrix explains, the enjoyment is necessary to make the spell work
properly.
Harry appears to have everything it takes except for the ability to
enjoy causing pain. Even his youthful lack of experience isn't a
problem. If Harry had not just wanted to hurt her, but actually enjoyed
it, he would have been successful on his first attempt.
Dudley's diet. Harry enjoyed the fact that he had cake _and Dudley
didn't_.
All he has to do is put the two together: pleasure at someone else's
unhappiness, and the desire to cause someone else's unhappiness.
=Tamar
Maybe it was mild, but he did enjoy teasing Dudley on his horrible book
2 birthday. And I think he knew Dudley was truly frightened of him.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
Troels Forchhammer
2003-12-04 22:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Tim Behrendsen wrote:
<snip>
Post by Tim Behrendsen
I agree that he won't practice it or go out of his way to learn it, but
Troels seemed to be implying that Harry would be incapable of doing it
under any circumstances, and I disagree with that.
My point didn't really relate to Harry as a person, but to his role as a
character in Rowling's novels. Based on how I perceive the moral themes
that Rowling is setting up, and what she has said in various interviews,
I don't believe that a situation will appear in the books that will make
Harry deliberately kill anyone. That is not the same as claiming that
Harry as a person wouldn't be able to kill under any circumstances - I
think that all of us are capable of doing just that under the wrong
circumstances - Rowling will just, IMO, ensure that Harry doesn't end up
in circumstances where he would have to make that choice.
Post by Tim Behrendsen
Post by gjw
It was both. She wanted to show that Harry was angry enough to try
something evil, but didn't have the (lack of) heart for it.
It wasn't just anger that Harry felt (as Bellatrix thought, i.e.,
'righteous anger'), he felt "hatred such as he had never known before".
And he /was/ able to make the spell work.
Not really - not as the spell is supposed to work, and not as he thought
he wanted it to work.

He was incapable of /enjoying/ to cause pain - and that is, IMO, very
significant. All he was capable of was the magical equivalent of a
slap.

I think that it was meant to show that Rowling intends for Harry not to
be able to summon the emotions necessary for the unforgivable curses -
even if we think that is unrealistic (in which case we might say that
the circumstances that would make him able to do it just won't come up).

A little later, OotP-36 'The Only One He Ever Feared', Dumbledore says
to Voldemort,

" 'We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man,
Tom,' Dumbledore said calmly, continuing to walk towards
Voldemort as though he had not a fear in the world, as though
nothing had happened to interrupt his stroll up the hall.
'Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit' "

I think that is extremely important. Dumbledore has always been Rowling's
most important mouth piece in the books - not only when explaining the
plot and the background, but also, and in particular, when explaining the
ethics. It was he who gave the little speech about one's choices showing
who we are which Rowling "/do/ truly believe".

This leads me to conclude that whatever happens in the final confrontation
between Harry and the Dark Lord, Harry will not deliberately kill him.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk

"If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold,
it would be a merrier world."
- Thorin Oakenshield, 'The Hobbit' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Tim Behrendsen
2003-12-05 00:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
" 'We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man,
Tom,' Dumbledore said calmly, continuing to walk towards
Voldemort as though he had not a fear in the world, as though
nothing had happened to interrupt his stroll up the hall.
'Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit' "
I think that is extremely important. Dumbledore has always been Rowling's
most important mouth piece in the books - not only when explaining the
plot and the background, but also, and in particular, when explaining the
ethics. It was he who gave the little speech about one's choices showing
who we are which Rowling "/do/ truly believe".
This leads me to conclude that whatever happens in the final confrontation
between Harry and the Dark Lord, Harry will not deliberately kill him.
Well, I agree the quote is significant (that's about as explicit as it gets for JKR). But
given the prophecy, I don't see how Harry can avoid killing Voldemort. First, Harry is the
"the one" with the power to vanquish him. Second, one /must/ die at the hand of the other.
Unless JKR pulls some word games out of the hat (which I hope she doesn't), this seems to
imply that Harry has to cause him to "die" by his own hand, otherwise Harry dies and
Voldemort wins.

To be honest, other than the fact that JKR has not had any good character kill any bad
character so far, I haven't seen evidence that she's not going to make Harry a killer, or
that it's going to be a central theme that Harry is incapable of killing. I predict that
Harry /will/ kill someone in the next book, and will have to deal with the guilt.

I see that we disagree on the meaning of the Bellatrix scene. You seem to see it as proof
of Harry's lack of ability to torture/kill, and I see it as the opposite. I think the
question of whether it actually worked or not is irrelevent; the point is that Harry
/wanted/ it to work. He may or may not have what it takes to make it work, but the fact
that he did it in the first place is significant. It's like my pulling out a gun, wanting
to use it, aiming it at someone, but not knowing how to operate the trigger. The fact that
I'm ready and willing to trigger the gun makes me capable of murder, not the knowledge of
how to operate the gun.
Troels Forchhammer
2003-12-07 01:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Behrendsen
Post by Troels Forchhammer
This leads me to conclude that whatever happens in the final confrontation
between Harry and the Dark Lord, Harry will not deliberately kill him.
Well, I agree the quote is significant (that's about as explicit as it
gets for JKR). But given the prophecy, I don't see how Harry can avoid
killing Voldemort. First, Harry is the "the one" with the power to
vanquish him. Second, one /must/ die at the hand of the other.
I think it is likely that Harry will find some way to vanquish and, in a
metaphorical sense, kill the Dark Lord without killing Tom Riddle. How
this is to be done I can't guess, but I believe it highly probable that
Dumbledore's comment in some way presages Tom Riddle's destiny - it will
be "much worse than death," but not death. Whether it will be a destiny
which I will feel is worse than death, and perhaps even more morally
problematic than 'merely taking his life.'
Post by Tim Behrendsen
Unless JKR pulls some word games out of the hat (which I hope she
doesn't), this seems to imply that Harry has to cause him to "die" by
his own hand, otherwise Harry dies and Voldemort wins.
The prophecy literally says that Harry or the "Dark Lord" must die at
the hand of the other. "The Dark Lord," however, is a title rather than
a person as such - it is, IMO, quite possible to kill the Dark Lord
without killing Tom Riddle as well.
Post by Tim Behrendsen
To be honest, other than the fact that JKR has not had any good
character kill any bad character so far, I haven't seen evidence that
she's not going to make Harry a killer, or that it's going to be a
central theme that Harry is incapable of killing. I predict that Harry
/will/ kill someone in the next book, and will have to deal with the
guilt.
I did specify "/deliberately/ kill somebody" - I wouldn't be surprised if
your scenario comes true with the stipulation that it is accidental on
Harry's part.

As far as evidence is concerned that would be very hard to provide,
wouldn't it? I see some themes in both the books and in various interviews
- this leads to my belief that Rowling's moral standpoint is such that she
would not let Harry deliberately kill anyone - not even Tom Riddle.

Whether you or I or anyone else agrees with her views is entirely
irrelevant - what matters is only her view, as that will decide the story.
We've seen Harry commit some minor offences out of childish selfishness
and thoughtlessness, but apart from his attempt at the Cruciatus Curse
(the interpretation of which we seem not to agree on), Harry has not done
anything seriously bad, and I doubt that he ever will - and I believe that
Rowling sees deliberate killing as seriously bad whatever the reason.
Post by Tim Behrendsen
I see that we disagree on the meaning of the Bellatrix scene. You seem
to see it as proof of Harry's lack of ability to torture/kill, and I see
it as the opposite.
What Bellatrix says is this (OotP-36 'The Only One He Ever Feared'),
" 'Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?'
she yelled. She had abandoned her baby voice now. 'You need to
mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - to
enjoy it - righteous anger won't hurt me for long - I'll show
you how it is done, shall I? I'll give you a lesson -'"

She tells Harry that the key to the Unforgivable Curses is to /mean/ them.
That is where I feel certain that Harry failed and will continue to fail
if he tries an Unforgivable Curse again - he can't /mean/ it. And if he
can't mean to use a killing curse, then he would also be unable to
deliberately kill a person in other ways.
Post by Tim Behrendsen
I think the question of whether it actually worked or not is irrelevent;
the point is that Harry /wanted/ it to work.
This is exactly where we disagree. The reason why it didn't work is, IMO
(and according to Bellatrix), exactly that he did not /want/ - he didn't
/mean/ it strongly enough. If there is any purpose to that situation it is
to show that Harry's strength is something different - it doesn't lie in
the use of Dark Magic, in killing, torturing or controlling others.
Post by Tim Behrendsen
He may or may not have what it takes to make it work, but the fact that
he did it in the first place is significant. It's like my pulling out a
gun, wanting to use it, aiming it at someone, but not knowing how to
operate the trigger.
I don't really agree that this allegory is suitable. To me it would be
like never being /emotionally/ capable of loading the gun with live
ammunition and using blanks instead - lots of noise and little effect.

What happens, IMO, is that Harry fails exactly because he isn't a 'murderer'
(not that it's murder we're talking about in this case, but I hope you get
the idea ;)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk

People demand freedom of speech to make up for
the freedom of thought which they avoid.
Soren Kierkegaard
Sirius Kase
2003-12-07 02:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
If there is any purpose to that situation it is
to show that Harry's strength is something different - it doesn't lie in
the use of Dark Magic, in killing, torturing or controlling others.
ah yes, that old Love magic, he will kill him with love, love him to
death...
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
Richard Eney
2003-12-07 02:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sirius Kase
If there is any purpose to that situation it is to show
that Harry's strength is something different - it doesn't lie in
the use of Dark Magic, in killing, torturing or controlling others.
ah yes, that old Love magic, he will kill him with love, love him to
death...
Or compassion. What if: through some weird situation, Voldemort gets
soul-sucked by a Dementor? Then his body would still be alive ('fate
worse than death'); would it be kinder to destroy the body than to let
it live on mindlessly in Azkaban (as, I assume, Crouch Jr is)?

Maybe Neville vanquishes Voldy by somehow causing that to happen, and
then Harry kills Voldy's empty shell?

=Tamar
Tim Behrendsen
2003-12-07 03:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Whether you or I or anyone else agrees with her views is entirely
irrelevant - what matters is only her view, as that will decide the story.
We've seen Harry commit some minor offences out of childish selfishness
and thoughtlessness, but apart from his attempt at the Cruciatus Curse
(the interpretation of which we seem not to agree on), Harry has not done
anything seriously bad, and I doubt that he ever will - and I believe that
Rowling sees deliberate killing as seriously bad whatever the reason.
Let's remember that if someone had caught him using it, he'd be going to Azkaban for life.
By wizarding standards, what he did was "seriously bad", and he did it with full knowledge
of what Cruciatus feels like.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Post by Tim Behrendsen
I think the question of whether it actually worked or not is irrelevent;
the point is that Harry /wanted/ it to work.
This is exactly where we disagree. The reason why it didn't work is, IMO
(and according to Bellatrix), exactly that he did not /want/ - he didn't
/mean/ it strongly enough. If there is any purpose to that situation it is
to show that Harry's strength is something different - it doesn't lie in
the use of Dark Magic, in killing, torturing or controlling others.
But this seems more like a procedural issue to me. Harry had no training on Cruciatus. He
knew what it felt like, and he launched it with full knowledge of how he wanted Bellatrix
to feel.

Or let me put it another way. We only found out after the fact that Cruciatus requires a
strong will to cause pain. But what if it didn't? What if it was a spell that just
required powerful magic, and no particular mental state? And it worked perfectly for
Harry? Would you still argue that he didn't really mean it?
Sirius Kase
2003-12-07 02:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
He was incapable of /enjoying/ to cause pain - and that is, IMO, very
significant. All he was capable of was the magical equivalent of a
slap.
I think that it was meant to show that Rowling intends for Harry not to
be able to summon the emotions necessary for the unforgivable curses -
And now you've touched on another reason certain curses might be
considered unforgivable, only wizards too evil to deserve forgiveness
are capable of performing them properly.
--
Sirius Kase

"The scenes in this film are some of the most passionate and emotional
I have ever worked on " Dan Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
eggplant107
2003-12-05 05:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Troels Forchhammer
Post by Troels Forchhammer
I don't believe that a situation will
appear in the books that will make
Harry deliberately kill anyone.
I do not think you are right about that and will be enormously
disappointed if it turns out you are. In wars millions of decent
people are put in situations where they must kill people, and not to
put a good person like Harry in a similar extremely horrible situation
would be the act of a coward, and I do not believe Rowling is a
coward. In literature you can not examine what is perhaps the deepest
moral problem of all by simply ducking it.

Eggplant
Troels Forchhammer
2003-12-07 01:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Troels Forchhammer
Post by Troels Forchhammer
I don't believe that a situation will appear in the books that will make
Harry deliberately kill anyone.
I do not think you are right about that and will be enormously
disappointed if it turns out you are.
I'm afraid that Rowling doesn't care much about what you or I might be
disappointed about - she has her own agenda, and it is that that matters.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
In wars millions of decent people are put in situations where they must
kill people, and not to put a good person like Harry in a similar
extremely horrible situation would be the act of a coward,
Putting Harry in a position where you or I would choose to kill, certainly
- I'm sure he'll land there, but I am certain that he will /choose/ not to
kill in that situation.

Remember the description of Crouch - he was in effect denounced for
sinking to the level of the opponents; allowing the Aurors the use of the
Unforgivable Curses.

Looking at the ethical themes that have been expounded throughout the
books and the interviews, I can't help but reach the conclusion that
Rowling feel that even in war, killing is wrong.

You and I may disagree with that position, but as I said, our opinion
won't change a comma in the Harry Potter books.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
and I do not believe Rowling is a coward. In literature you can not
examine what is perhaps the deepest moral problem of all by simply
ducking it.
I don't know how you got the impression that I thought that Harry
wouldn't be put in the dilemma - what I stated was my prediction of the
/outcome/ of that dilemma.
What I meant was that Harry /would/ face that dilemma, but that I am
confident that he will choose not to kill - that his choice will be other
than what I would probably choose, but that it will, in Rowling's version,
be the more courageous choice. I obviously do not know, and I can't
foresee either, how she is going to make that work, but I am sure that
this is how the situation will end.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk

Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.
Niels Bohr, to a young physicist
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...