Who is Harry Potter? (long)

[Amy]

No: HPFGUIDX 9346

(Fellow fanfic fans, none of this is to criticize a certain prominent 
fanfiction that I won't name [so as not to ruin it for those who 
haven't read it yet] in which Harry is in fact a new kind of wizard 
entirely.  The idea is fine, and maybe it's where JKR is leading us 
too.  But I have another view/hope, as you'll see.)

                                 * * * 

I have been thinking a lot about the question of who or what Harry 
really is.  Why is he so important that Voldemort wanted to kill him 
when he was only 15 months old?

This topic isn't new to the list, and there have been all sorts of 
interesting speculations about HP's being a descendent of Godric 
Gryffindor, etc.  I am interested in taking it in a philosophical 
direction.  What does it *mean,* *thematically,* if Harry is somehow, 
from birth, the fated, anointed Conqueror of Voldemort (or even Evil 
Itself)?  What does it mean, thematically, if his importance stems 
from something different than that, something not so much inherent in 
his genes or background but emerging in the kind of person he is 
becoming?

I have a strong bias toward the latter.  You're even seeing my 
theology, heck, my Christology, here; I have always preferred a Jesus 
who is fully human, not God in disguise, because it holds out the 
promise that any of us can (and should) live as he lived.  A 
too-exalted hero is beyond emulation.  So I don't want Harry to turn 
out be a Christ figure, in the sense of being a superhuman who arrives 
on the scene to save us all from evil.  I prefer whatever is 
extraordinary about him to emerge from his character, which we know is 
imperfect and evolving, just like everyone's.  Yes, he's 
extraordinarily brave, etc., but not supernaturally so--his qualities 
aren't beyond the reach of any of the rest of us.  JKR makes sure to 
show us that Hermione's smarter than Harry and Ron is just as brave as 
he is (at least where there are no spiders concerned <g>.  Ron'd lay 
his life down for his friends, and the side of right, in a second--the 
chess game in PS/SS, his standing up to Black in the Shrieking Shack 
in PoA).

I think I'm backed up by Dumbledore here.  His pet peeve is "purity of 
blood" and, by extension (and explicitly at the end of CoS), the idea 
that we are fated by our birth to be one thing or another.  "It is our 
choices, rather than our abilities, that make us who we are." (quotes 
are approximate).  Someone suggested once that "only a true Gryffindor 
could have taken GG's sword from the hat" might mean that Harry is a 
descendant of GG.  Maybe, but I'm hoping not.  Dumbledore has just 
gotten through telling him that the reason the Hat didn't put him in 
Slytherin was that he chose not to be in Slytherin.  AD repeats this 
theme to Fudge in GoF, "The Parting of the Ways," when he points out 
that Crouch was as pureblooded as a wizard could be, and look what he 
chose to make of his life.  No one is born to be good or evil.

The very connections that Harry himself has to Voldemort and Slytherin 
underscore Dumbledore's point.  The similarities between him and 
Riddle are there, I think, precisely to show us the importance of 
choices over inborn nature.  For just one example, H and V took their 
halfblood status in completely different ways: V of course is ashamed 
of it, purges it by killing his father, and appears to be devoting his 
life to wiping out Muggles and their mixed-blood descendents.  Harry 
particularly emphasizes that his mother was Muggle-born when he's 
challenging Riddle:  that her birth did nothing to lessen her 
nobility, goodness or power to save him from Voldemort.  He and Riddle 
have similar backgrounds and childhood experiences, they look alike, 
Jim Dale even makes them sound alike (well done Jim), but their 
choices are radically different, and that's what matters, just as 
Lily's choices (her love and sacrifice) were what saved Harry more 
than her talents as a witch.  (Riddle calls Lily's love for Harry a 
powerful countercurse, but the term seems ironic to me.  Love is a 
countercurse?  What Lily did is beyond mere magical talent.  It was a 
soul-choice and that is something more powerful than wizard blood or a 
talent for charms.)

Dumbledore also asserts a humbler view of Harry than the Superman, 
new-species theory at the end of PS/SS.  Harry is disappointed that 
his defeat of V 11 years before wasn't for all time (though not 
because of the blow to his own ego, which he doesn't seem to care 
about at all--what a wonderful person he is, isn't he?).  Dumbledore 
says it's okay; as long as brave people keep fighting him when he 
tries to rise to power, perhaps they will continue to prevail.  He 
isn't waiting for, or trying to turn Harry into, a single invincible 
savior.

I realize that anyone who takes my view has to deal with the fact that 
Voldemort DID try to kill Harry when he was a mere toddler, which 
suggests some kind of prophecy or some other reason to think Harry was 
inherently special.  I have a couple of theories, but I don't want to 
go into them right here because I'm less interested in the plot or 
evidence for JKR's opinion, more interested in what you all think 
about the themes raised by whichever option she's suggesting.

What do you think?

Amy Z