Who is Harry Potter? (long)

[Kimberly]

No: HPFGUIDX 9358

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, "Amy " <aiz24 at h...> wrote:


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?
<snip>
>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.  
<snip>
> 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." *****

------------------------
     I don't know how it feels for everyone else, but to me, this is 
the major theme of the books.  I think JKR draws parallels between 
Harry and Voldemort and shows their great similarities specifically to 
point out that it's their different decisions that set them apart, and 
not their predetermined goodness or badness.  I think we're given the 
same sorts of parallels with Neville and Peter.  Harry himself draws 
this comparison, and McGonagal seems to react to the two of them 
similarly, as well. She mentions in the 3 Broomsticks her regret at 
having been particularly harsh with Pettigrew, and in the same book 
tears Neville apart over the Gryffindor passwords, imposing 
punishments that were to last throughout the rest of the term.  I 
think we're going to see Neville make vastly different decisions from 
those of Pettigrew.  To me this says that, great (Harry/Voldemort) or 
small (Peter/Neville), we all have to choose who and what we will 
become.

------------------
> 
> 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 don't think this changes the fact that Harry has free will.  He has 
made the choices that have made him who he is, and will continue to do 
so as he grows and evolves as a person.  But if we're talking about 
the wizarding world, where even Trelawny can make accurate predictions 
every once in awhile, perhaps it was still forseen that this child's 
desicions would make him the person who one day defeated Voldemort.  
Or maybe he *is* the descendant of Gryffindor.  I'm sure Gryffindor 
had other descendants - were they all like Harry?  Did they all choose 
to stand against evil, be a true and loyal friend, and have the 
nobility he showed in GoF when he brought Cedric's body back to his 
family?  These are the kinds of choices that make Harry special.

But another question that would have to be answered along with this 
is: 
Why, if Harry isn't inherently special, or different, or whatever, was 
Voldemort not only unable to kill him, but unable to survive trying 
without loosing everything?
 I honestly think it was nothing more than Lily's choice to die 
protecting Harry that saved him.  I don't think there was some special 
secret charm performed, some special power of Harry's, or any other 
big mystery.  I think a sacrificial love like that is, like Amy quoted 
Riddle as saying, a powerful countercurse, and much, much more, and I 
think that alone at least *should* have been enough to destroy 
Voldemort the way it did.  At least that's my theory.  

kimberly