Post by Tim BehrendsenPost by Troels ForchhammerThis 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 BehrendsenUnless 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 BehrendsenTo 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 BehrendsenI 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 BehrendsenI 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 BehrendsenHe 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