Lifedebts (WAS: Agency in the Shrieking Shack)

[Eileen]

No: HPFGUIDX 52213

Coming in late on this discussion, but I believe that
it's been brought up by Marina and Richard that
perhaps the life-debt is not so desirable, not
desirable enough anyway to engineer, as MD, PA/DL, and
now SU posits. 

The question here is whether the life-debt is a big
enough and certain enough factor to plan about. 

Shauna responds
>Despite the fact that Dumbledore has just learned 
>of the true, despicable nature of Peter Pettigrew, 
>he seems confident that the lifedebt will come in
>useful.  It doesn't sound as though he expects that 
>a lifedebt *can* be subverted, or overcome.  
> According to what he's saying, lifedebts don't 
>count on the moral character of the indebted, but
>rather something else, something magical...

I couldn't agree more. But is that really that
reassuring? Does the fact that Dumbledore thinks the
life-debt is a positive aspect of the situation mean
that the situation is positive? 

Because in canon we see another lifedebt situation
that really works out to no-one's advantage, as far I
can see. 

"When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it
creates a certain bond between them."

Well then, Barty Crouch Jr. was certainly in debt to
his father. And, he decided to flout that life-debt by
killing his father. 

Did Crouch Jr. get away with flouting the life-debt?
Well, I don't think so. I very much like Elkins' take
on this, that Crouch Jr's rapid descent into madness
and incompetency is an example of what happens when
one tries to flout the life-debt. It is magical, and
whatever powers there are will redress the balance.
Sort of like the Greek furies.

But it didn't help Crouch Sr. that much. 

Did it help anyone? Crouch Jr. doesn't seem to have
made any mistakes getting Harry to Voldemort. So,
however flawed the Graveyard ceremonies probably were,
I don't think this has any connection to any mistake
of Crouch's. Possibly, the fact that the portkey took
Harry back to Hogwarts was a mistake of Crouch Jr's,
stemming from the flouting of the life-debt, though
last time I checked most MD supporters think the
two-way portkey was intentional on Voldemort's part.
Anyway, the fact that Crouch did flout the life-debt
probably did save Harry in the very end from Crouch
himself. So, yes, the life-debt did help out in the
end. 

But not that much. Despite the life-debt, all sorts of
things could happen. 

Judging by this track record, life-debts might not be
a sure thing after all. They're a good thing to have,
but they don't outweigh the bad things. I certainly
wouldn't be staking my strategy on life-debts. 

Because judging by the Crouch case, the life-debt
between Harry and Pettigrew could yield very little.
It could end with Harry dead. It could end with
Voldemort gaining substantial ground. It would be very
little comfort that the positive outcome of the
life-debt be that someone else not to be killed and
Pettigrew put out of action. 

Not that I believe any of the above to be the future.
I'm quite sure - on account of metathinking - that the
life-debt is going to end up saving the day. But Albus
Dumbledore is a character in the story. He sees things
as they exist in the Potterverse. And in the
Potterverse, a life-debt isn't a sure bet.

Eileen

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca