Voldie's Redemption (was: Evil and Stuff)

[clicketykeys <clicketykeys@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 48329

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Melody <Malady579 at h...>" <
Malady579 at h...> wrote:
> I wrote:
> >>To dehumanized Voldemort would make killing him easier for all, but
> >>defeat the point of the lessons learned so far in the series.
> 
> CK wrote:
> >Oh, I don't agree. I think that making him not-human makes the
> >morality of killing him more questionable. Because if he IS human,
> >then the choice is simple: Harry may not kill him. Period. As a
> >'human being,' yeah, he has the choice. But as the archetypal
> >virtuous hero, he may not kill another human being.
> 
> 
> I don't know if 'making Voldemort human means that Harry cannot kill
> him' is portrayed in the books.  Yes, it is shown that Harry and
> Dumbledore have a lingering respect for life, and thank goodness for
> that.  They realize that people are human and thus can be redeemed.
> Harry is still a little fuzzy on that concept, but it is growing in
> him to see.  So I don't think Harry with ever see Voldemort as
> non-human. 

Okay, if Voldemort changes himself into ... oh, let's say a dragon 
.... and there is no way to give him human form again, do you think 
Harry will still see him as human? That's pretty dangerous, given that 
dragons can do some things that humans - even wizards - can't.

I think we're getting to a difference in semantics, here. I think we 
agree that no matter what happens, Harry will see something of value 
in Voldemort. You say that he will see him as human; I say he will see 
him as someone/something that USED to be human.

> Harry *knows* Voldemort still has that human soul no
> matter what his shell is.  Harry met Tom Riddle.  Harry knows that
> Voldemort is human.  Harry also knows that Voldemort has a mother and
> father.  Harry has been shown over and over that this guy is a human
> being, but this guy messed up...big time.  Does this mean Harry cannot
> kill him now?  Is this education providing Harry with grounds for
> believing in a Voldemort that could turn from his evil ways?

I'm talking from the perspective of literary criticism. Harry fits the 
pattern of the virtuous hero - someone who doesn't always make the 
right choices, but tries to do what will help the most people.

And one of the traits of the virtuous hero - one of the /primary/ 
traits - is mercy. We see this in Harry when he spares Pettigrew, and 
a similar case is when he goes back for whatsername under the water 
during the TriWizard Tournament.

The only way I can see Harry getting rid of Voldemort if Voldemort is 
not properly dehumanized is finding some way to banish him. Kind of 
like the Phantom Zone in the Superman movies.

> 
> I am not sure.  I would say, Harry knows all this to be true but feels
> Voldemort must pay for his crimes.  Whether by death or by kiss, Harry
> believes Voldemort does deserve the punishment.  Now if it came down
> to it and it was Harry or Voldemort...well, in fact, it has come down
> to it in the graveyard, and Harry did not aim to kill.  I don't think
> Harry thought he had it in him to perform such strong magic.  But did
> Harry not kill snake-face that night because he thought he was
> non-human?  No, he did not kill Voldemort that night because he knew
> the punishment to an unforgivable curse.  Even in the face of evil,
> Harry did not kill.  So really, non-human or human, Harry will still
> not aim his wand...well for right now.  ;)

*grin* Like I said before. Semantics. ;)

> 
> Oh, another point:
> If Voldemort is being portrayed as something no longer human, then he
> is becoming evil personified. 

What?! How do you get this? I mean, I could say that "if Voldemort is 
being portrayed as something no longer human, then gravity will stop 
working," but if I don't prove a connection between the "if" and the 
"then" it's an empty statement.


> If that is the case, then the hero is
> not defeating an evil person but evil itself. 

Same thing, although this is a bit more reasonable. If a hero defeats 
evil personified, he is defeating a /representation/ of evil itself. I 
mean, obviously you can't defeat evil because it's not contained like 
that. There will always be Bad People and Bad Things That Happen.


> I find this a very
> dangerous situation to portray with any morality involved.  Frankly if
> Voldemort is killed because he is seen as evil personified and not a
> human being, then the whole reason they killed him is convoluted.  The
> good guys, in their perception, thought they were killing evil and
> thus it will go away for good. 

Again - where are you getting this? Deductions from canon? Literary 
comparison/criticism?


> 
> CK wrote:
> >However, if Voldemort isn't human, it removes that assurance. Maybe
> >he's past redemption. Maybe there is no longer anything worth saving.
> 
> I cannot believe *anyone* is beyond redemption.  That is the whole
> point of the road to Damascus in The Bible.  A human being is and
> always will have a human soul that can always be saved, and I don't
> just believe this because it is my faith but because it is alluded to
> in the text.

Right. I would agree that a human being can be redeemed - but I think 
that's why Rowling is making Voldemort non-human, because it removes 
that assurance. If he's not human anymore, can he be redeemed?

> 
> Crouch Sr., even though it has been debated recently as to whether it
> is a proper redemption, was at the end of life when he repented.  He
> saw the error of his ways and went to try and fix them.  That is why
> Voldemort wanted him dead.  He was a threat like he never was before,
> so I say that Crouch Sr. was on the road to recovery.  We also have
> the ever-famous Snape redemption.  Once a DE but now a freedom fighter.

Right again. A human can be redeemed, we know this, we have examples. 

> 
> I don't think these are isolated incidences.  They are there to say
> people *can* change.  *People* can.  Even when they make horrible
> decisions and turn down extremely dark roads, the fact that they can
> change is important.  Now Harry is shown Voldemort is in fact human,
> so I do believe Harry won't forget that.
> 
> Now, I don't believe Harry would not shoot to kill because he believes
> Voldemort can still change his ways.  That would be foolish, but I do
> believe Harry and Dumbledore would accept a Redeemed!Voldemort instead
> of a Dead!Voldemort.  They would rejoice in his turning from his evil
> and embracing the good.  Though Voldemort still might have to pay for
> his crimes, he would not be killed then because the WW does not have
> the death penalty.  He might not even be kissed.

A good thing, because GIRLS HAVE COOTIES! *giggle* I'm sorry, I 
haven't had enough sleep. ;)
> 
> I do not find that we are to believe that Voldemort is past the point
> of no return.  He can be redeemed still.  We might be past the
> literary development of a character to be changed from evil to good,
> but we might not.  After all, if JKR keeps writing these books as long
> as she has, then we might have enough pages to make Voldemort's
> redemption a possibility.

At this point, however, we are seeing movement in the opposite 
direction - Voldemort's choices and actions have led more and more to 
him losing physical aspects of humanity. Nor does he appear to have 
any desire whatsoever to turn from his eeeeevil ways.

> 
> So do I believe he *will* turn from his evil ways?  Ha - what fun is
> that?  I want evil destroyed.  I want dancing in the streets and good
> people to not be afraid.  I want evil to be driven far from the earth
> and the time of singing to commence.  I want Harry to live a life away
> from the constant threat of being abducted and killed.  I want this to
> be a fairytale with good defeating evil in triumph and valour.
> 
> But redemption of Voldemort does all that too.  It is a major blow to
> the forces of evil if their poster child is not longer wears blood
> stain robes.  His robes are washed white.  There could be a bigger
> lesson in all this.  Not that by killing a person, evil can go away,
> but that by believing in mankind's innate goodness, we can drive evil
> away *without* resorting to their own devices.  Killing is only shown
> as good in defense.  Not in justice.

Well... because killing /isn't/ justice. It's retribution. True 
justice - a fair and equitable settling of wrongs - involves 
restitution, but how do you make restitution for murder, for example? 
You can't. 

> 
> Man, I have rattled on for too long.  Sorry about that.  I still don't
> know is Voldemort can or would be redeemed in the text given that we
> have *no* foreshadowing or hint that he could.  He has to have a
> catalyst to do it, and we see no possible venue right know unless
> Jesus "magically" <g> appears to him on a road out of Albania.

*grin* Somehow I /don't/ see that happening...

CK