Voldemort's animus toward the Potters/the prophecy (was Replay)

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 85770

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
> 
> I find this idea very disturbing. Yes, Harry needs time, but not to
> learn to become a murderer. Not to become Tom Riddle III. Not to yield
> the high moral ground that separates him from Tom Riddle, not to learn
> to hate when what (presumably) makes him superior to Voldemort is his
> capacity for love.
> Other wizards, Snape for example, could hit Voldemort with an Avada
> Kedavra, but that clearly isn't going to work. Harry has to be able to
> do something only he has the ability to do, something related to the
> spiritual kinship between him and Voldemort that is reflected in their
> wands. Somehow he must figure out a way to make Voldemort destroy himself.
>

Kneasy:
Sorry, Carol. Can't agree. 
Obviously we are talking about a fictional character here, so your 
wistful wishes are a distinct possibility; but I hope not. I for one would
be depressed if Harry spends 6.9 books as a moving target, subject  to
innumerable dangers, trauma (emotional and physical) honing his
wizarding skills and never reaching the cathartic "Yes!" as Voldy finally
bites the dust at his hand.

I want Harry to be a proper hero.

It seems to me that a scan of the history books shows that those who take
the moral high ground are either those fastidiously reluctant about getting
their hands dirty in a life or death crisis or inhabit that strange world whose
mantra seems to be 'force never solved anything'  when it patently has and 
does. They then use perfect hindsight to castigate those who do what is 
necessary and/or inevitable, claiming in their rectitude that having their  
necks saved by courage and fortitude is somehow distasteful. 
There is little moral difference between tricking someone into self-
destruction and openly seeking their elimination by direct  means. In fact,
the latter option is the path to heroism, an attachment to the former an 
indication of weakness of will, strength or logic.

Carol's arguments would make St George as  bad as  the dragon, Beowulf 
as reprehensible as Grendel and Arthur as evil  as Mordred. Not so.
"Men die, cattle die, only the glory of heroes  lives forever."
or,
"Better to have lived one day as a tiger than a thousand years as a sheep."


Carol: 
> What no one seems to have noticed about the prophecy is the line,
> "Neither can live while the other survives." The meaning in that line
> is clear enough when it comes to Voldemort: He isn't really living and
> hasn't been since he was vaporized. 

Kneasy:
Well, I  for one have previously offered an alternative reading; not 
guaranteed, of course, but there again which interpretation is?

I  think there's a possibility that the 'neither' you quote could refer to
James and Lily, the 'other' being Harry. (They are referred to obliquely
at the beginning of the Prophesy - 'born to those'; why not again?)
This would explain why DD didn't wrap them in impenetrable security;
their deaths were *required* for the prophecy to be fulfilled and for
Voldys!Bane to be formed and be recognised.

To depress you even more, I don't think Harry will survive.
Ex-heroes tend to become an embarassment fairly quickly. While they're
around politicians can't claim the credit.