Too damaged to live (was Re: I love tragic endings)

[Doriane]

No: HPFGUIDX 85420

"Helen R. Granberry" <helen at o...> wrote:
 
> I think this notion of `too damaged to live' is... well, horrible. 

Horrible maybe, but quite real.

> Not because these are kids books, I think these are everyone books. 
> I just think that this is horrible from a philosophical 
> perspective. Where there is life, there is hope (unless you are 
> irredeemably evil, but that isn't Harry).

"Where there is life, there is hope" ? Nope, not true. I lived for 15 
years in complete hopelessness. I would have committed suicide a 
long, long time ago if I hadn't been convinced that the after-life 
would be even worse.

> Having a tragic, messed up past may make things more
> difficult, but as JKR has gone to great pains to point out – it is 
> our choices that make us who we are.

ARGH ! This one is *really* starting to grate on my nerves !
So let's see : the fact that I didn't have a father shouldn't 
influence who I am ? The fact that I was sexually abused as a kid 
shouldn't influence who I am ? The religion I was taught as a kid 
shouldn't influence who I am ?
I agree that *someday* we all have to come to grips with our 
problems, and decide what to do with them. But I'm sick of hearing 
that we shouldn't let them bother us in the first place ! And I 
personally would NOT expect a teenager NOT to be partially defined by 
things that are not at all HIS choices.
I also agree that kids MUST be taught that they are responsible for 
their choices, that they can't just avoid taking responsibility for 
their actions by saying "that's the way I am, I can't help it". But 
the truth is : sometimes, it IS the way they are, and FOR NOW they 
REALLY can't help it. They have to learn how to modify their 
behaviour and this is usually a long and painful process.
So let's face it : it is NOT ONLY our choices who make us who we are.
So why did DD say that to Harry ? Seems obvious to me : he didn't 
want him to wallow in self-pity, he didn't want him to expect 
everything from others just because he's a tragic hero. He wanted to 
make him equal to other kids, by convincing him that his past had no 
influence on his future. But it is painfully obvious to me that DD 
knew very well he was partially lying when he said that : he *knew* 
Harry's future *was* already partially defined by his past. For 
example, no matter what he did now, he was and would always be the 
Prophecy Boy. That was NOT a matter of choice for Harry. He can now 
decide whether he wants to fulfill that role or not, but he can't 
decide whether he is the Prophecy Boy or not. Big difference.

> If Harry survives this thing, he will be damaged, no question. He 
> will bear scars that cut deep. However, if it is not possible for 
> Harry to ever find happiness in his life, then Voldemort has won 
> because Harry has LET HIM WIN. He has let him control his life 
> beyond death. Even if I lost everything in my life I cared
> about, I would want to live. I would be damaged, but I would be
> determined not to let it ruin my life. You only get one chance. 

It would all depend on what kind of scar you would have collected. 
I've suffered from depression for more than 15 years. It was NOT a 
choice of mine. But it sure killed all hope and will to live. I'm 
going to be 30 in a few days, and I feel like I am finally starting 
to live again. I'm starting to have hope, to make plans, to see the 
point of living. And I'm finally able to truly make decisions based 
on what I want from life, not just on pure survival instincts or 
outside pressure.
Yes, you only get one chance, but if life manages to convince you 
that you've let that one chance pass by, then you can't see the point 
of living any longer.

> Harry's life has been very hard and mostly loveless. He deserves 
> some happiness.

I don't get this matter of "deserving happiness". Who said so ? How 
does that work ? If you go through enough torment, that means you 
deserve to be happy ? Then what does it mean for those who have a 
pleasant life ? And there are people who live hellish lives all their 
lives. So ?

> I also think (and this is a moral judgment of Harry's character) 
> that he has the will and courage to not let Voldemort defeat him 
> after he is gone. Even if he loses even more people he cares about 
> (and I am wagering that Dumbledore, Hagrid and either Ron or 
> Hermione are goners for sure), he still has the ability because of 
> his moral character to move on and live a happy life. 

Unless he gets depressed. I know. I was strong until I was about 12 
or 13. I mean really strong. I wouldn't let anything negative affect 
me. I refused to give in to my bad circumstances. I was like you : I 
believed I could mold my life, no matter what. And then I broke.

> As for Pip and Estella, I think that was a completely different 
> kind of story. Great Expectations seemed to have an entirely 
> different message than Harry Potter. These were not heroic 
> characters. They were messed up, but they never really made an 
> effort to rise beyond what fate handed them. Harry has. The fact 
> that he was able to come out of the horrible, abusive, neglectful 
> Dursley household as well grounded as he did says a lot about 
> Harry. He does not let random twists of fate determine the
> person he is. He is not a victim. Horrible things happen to him, 
> but he fights it. He doesn't give up or use it as an excuse. 

As I said above, I was just like Harry until I got about 12-13. But 
nobody came to whisk me away from my life. Granted, Harry's life in 
Hogwarts is *not* a dream life. But it is different from the one at 
the Dursleys, so that he can understand that his future life can be 
different from his previous life. This move gives him *perspective*. 
Nobody did that for me. I couldn't figure out a way to change my 
life. I couldn't put my past traumas into perspective. Now that I am 
older and that I grew up into a different person than I was at age 
12, I can do that. But I couldn't at the time.
And by the way, nobody chooses to be a victim. And even victims 
fight. It would sometimes take all my strength just to live through 
one more day, so that to other people it looked like I wasn't 
fighting at all. Sure I wasn't doing things, I wasn't undertaking new 
projects, I wasn't seeing people. Because I couldn't, I had no 
strength left for that. And I couldn't see the point.

> In OotP, Dumbledore talks about this pain that is worse than death. 
> I don't think that pain is losing what you love; I think what is 
> worse than death is never knowing love at all -- or perhaps getting 
> a glimpse, and knowing it is too late for you, knowing it is 
> something you can never have because you made the wrong choices. 
> Voldemort has chosen mere existence over truly living. He has 
> forsaken all values in pursuit of this non-value – living a life 
> that is really not a life at all. Voldemort can never know 
> happiness because he holds no values other than merely continuing 
> to exist. He can never know love. This is worse than death – it is 
> a living death. 

It's funny, because the way you describe LV's life is exactly what 
the life of a depressed person feels like : existence, not life. But 
LV isn't depressed, for sure :-) Though I guess one could argue that 
he does suffer from some deep psychological issues.
As for not knowing love, I don't know. I have known love, and it 
often put even more stress on me, because when people love you, you 
have some kind of responsibility towards them.
For me, the worst thing there is, is the loss of *hope*. When you see 
no reason to live anymore, then life truly becomes a pain worse than 
death.

> Now, I will admit I want Harry to live. I am all for JKR taking 
> risks and I don't think she should do X or not do Y for the sake of 
> the children. I do, however, admit to finding certain conclusions 
> morally or philosophically disagreeable. It isn't so much about 
> wanting a happy ending with butterflies and sunshine, but what is 
> the moral and philosophical conclusion of the series. Has JKR set 
> up a world where love and happiness are impossible and life is 
> futile? I don't think she has.

Okay, I'm with you on that one. I don't think her intent is to make 
Harry horribly depressed and suicidal, and to teach kids about 
depression. What would be the point of it ?

> If she kills Harry, I'll be upset. I'll probably never read the
> books again knowing how it all ends. However, depending on how she 
> goes about it, I think this can be a perfectly acceptable `good' 
> ending.

I agree : it all depends on *how* she does it.

> I think killing Harry because life's not worth living anyway is 
> probably the WORST possible conclusion. 

The most depressing for sure ;-)

Del