Harry the martyr/Harry the killer

[Amy Z]

No: HPFGUIDX 14010

Kimberly wrote:

> In the first, Voldemort is killed by Harry.

<snip>
> 
> Both of these scenarios make me a bit queasy.  I know Voldemort is 
> evil, and has to be defeated, but I'd hate for Harry to actually 
have 
> to kill him.  I keep remembering his decision in PoA to stop Sirius 
> and Remus from killing Pettigrew, and it makes me sad, because I 
> thought he was so wise to make the decision he did.  I know it's 
> different - I know that at the time Pettigrew was helpless, and not 
a 
> threat to anyone, which means that killing him was simply revenge, 
> and not self(or world)-defense, as it would be with Harry and 
> Voldemort, but it still makes me terribly sad to think that Harry 
> would have to kill someone, even if that someone is Voldy.

Really interesting question, Kimberly!  

I also get a little queasy at the thought of Harry killing 
Voldemort--but I'm also intrigued at the possibility of seeing Harry 
deal with being a killer.  I think his refusal to kill Pettigrew (and 
Sirius, for that matter) shows that he wouldn't kill anyone except 
with extreme reluctance and if given no alternative that he could see. 
 He would suffer a lot if he killed even Voldemort, I think, and in my 
perverse way, I'd like to see that suffering.

I get queasy in a different way at the thought of JKR killing 
Voldemort in a way that releases everyone from guilt.  I recently read 
three books by P. D. James (excellent British mystery novelist) and 
noticed a trend that really bothered me:  in every one, the killer 
died at the end, either by an accident or suicide.  In one book it 
wouldn't be so noticeable, but in three novels, in a single volume, no 
less, it really stood out.  I felt as if James was trying to have her 
cake and eat it too.  She wanted to satisfy the blood-lust of readers 
and/or the readers' sense that justice isn't done unless the killer 
dies; without capital punishment, she couldn't just wrap it up with a 
"and he was found guilty and hanged"; and she didn't want our hero to 
have blood on his hands.  So she found easy-to-swallow ways to kill 
the guilty.  (In contrast, Dorothy L. Sayers has a killer get executed 
and shows the agony of the detective, who goes about getting people 
convicted but can't bear the guilt of their then being executed.  
Much, much better!  but I take it the death penalty has been repealed 
in England since her day.)

All of which is to say that if it is unpleasant to think of Voldemort 
getting his just desserts, which I think it is, then I want JKR to 
make us deal with it, and not sugar-coat it by having him die in some 
more palatable way.  I would be disappointed by a scenario in which 
he's standing on the Astronomy tower when it crumbles to dust from 
his own curses, carrying his screaming form with it, yada yada-- a way 
to give us all the thrill of seeing him die without anyone we care 
about having to soil his/her hands.  To me this poses real moral 
implications for the readership: as if we really have executed someone 
without acknowledging the weight of that responsibility.

Amy Z

--------------------------------------------------------------
   "See, there was this wizard who went . . . bad.  As bad as 
you could go.  Worse.  Worse than worse.   His name was . . ."
   Hagrid gulped, but no words came out.
   "Could you write it down?" Harry suggested.
   "Nah--can't spell it."
                              -HP and the Philosopher's Stone 
--------------------------------------------------------------