Sacrifice and HP (non-SHIP, was Re: H/H/R Triangle)

[selah_1977]

No: HPFGUIDX 33107

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze <jdumas at k...> wrote:
> Hikaru wrote:
> I think this is why I'm against an H/H SHIP. I think that if there 
were to happen before Ron is able to control himself, then I think 
this would ultimately end up in the "betrayal" category, as Ron might 
be willing ot go extremes to get the upper hand over Harry. Then, 
after Ron has gone to the extreme, is brought back to reality and 
decides to redeem himself by sacrificing himself to save Harry or 
Hermione. I like Ron too much, and I don't want to see him this torn 
between what he wants and what is right. Though...I'm sure that if 
JKR went this route she'd make a satisfying redemption for Ron, but I 
want for him what I want for Harry and Hermione -- to have long happy 
life after V is taken out. In my mind this just can't happen if Ron 
goes to the dark side, but my gut says he won't. He might be tempted, 
but he won't go.
> 


I tend to agree.  I wouldn't be surprised if Ron did go "dark", but 
ultimately I'd be surprised if it happens.  It's just too obvious.

However, the more and more fantasy literature that I read, I am 
beginning to recognize a pattern:  one of the subgeneric conventions 
is that of sacrifice.  We have seen various sacrifices already in the 
Harry Potter series--Lily's being perhaps the most prominent example 
cited by fans (although I'm not in the 'Lily's Sacrifice Accounts For 
Everything That Harry Is' camp).  I am sure that as the stakes are 
raised later in the series, the sacrifices that are required will 
become either more frequent or more dire.

Anthropologist Rene Girard posits a theory that I think directly 
relates to this line of thinking about Ron's fate.  I'll handle this 
the same way I handled the Lacan-H/H post in December 2000--let me 
give the argument, then discuss how it might apply to Ron.

(The following is excerpted from course material prepared by Ken 
Jackson, a current instructor/colleague of mine.  He summarizes 
Girard much better than I could for the purposes of this debate)
---------

"Violence *happens*.  Always has, always will.  Contrary to popular 
belief, violence occurs not because of differences but because of 
similarities.  We strike out in order to establish difference, to 
carve out space, to affirm our uniqueness and identity.

"Indeed, violence is one means of creating a "self", a process that 
usually begins by creating an "other"--someone or something different 
that can be destroyed to identify the self.  (Eb's note--
*coughLacancough*)  Violent destruction, however, usually prompts 
someone to strike back in revenge.  Violence is thus reciprocal, 
endlessly so.

"If we gain some distance from the cyclical violence that encloses us 
all, we discover that there is no difference between 
the "perpetrator" and the "revenger".  The two are interchangeable 
because we always discover that the perpetrator is enacting vengeance 
and the revenger is becoming a perpetrator.

"In order to interrupt temporarily this reciprocal violence--and 
preserve the species--revenger and perpetrator will occasionally find 
a scapegoat to sacrifice, a more or less neutral party to kill, thus 
satisfying our violent natures without setting off another revenge 
cycle.  Only sacrifice--a form of violence--interrupts violence."

--------

I found this theory compelling--is anyone familiar with it?  Would 
you agree that sacrifice is often elemental to much of fantasy 
literature?  The Quest motif seems sacrificial in and of itself... 
and in many, many fantasy works prior to Harry Potter, it seems as if 
the ultimate sacrifice is demanded.  The wizarding world can be 
restored to normalcy, but only at great cost to someone IMO.

The final aspect of sacrifice--and this I am getting from my 
admittedly limited knowledge of comparative religion, coupled with my 
own religion--is that you cannot sacrifice just any old thing.  
Somehow, I doubt that this is exclusive to Christianity.  Many of the 
characters who are proposed as (I quote) "cannon fodder" do not have 
the same emotional value as others who we assume are protected.

"To whom much is given, much is also required."

Makes me wonder just who--or *what*--the Paschal lamb of the 
wizarding world will be. 

--Ebony AKA AngieJ