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

[Berit Jakobsen]

No: HPFGUIDX 85776

Kneasy wrote:

> 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.


Me:

And I have to disagree with you Kneazy (and agree qith Carol). You 
seem to believe that only a character that gets violent is a proper 
hero... I guess that means you don't consider real life characters 
like Gandhi and Mandela proper heroes... Or maybe you've seen too 
many action movies :-)) -Where the difference between the hero and 
the villain seems to be just one thing: The bad guy is the one who 
kicks first. The good guy is the one who kicks back. And they both 
live by the rule "an eye for an eye", retaliates and repays evil with 
the same amount of violence, ending with the "good" guy beating the 
bad guy to a bloody pulp at the end of the movie. And serves him 
right of course :-).

But what does that DO to the presumably "good guy"? How can someone 
stay intrinsically "good" when the actions he's forced to perform are 
in essence "evil"? What's so heroic about avenging evil actions with 
the same evil medicine? How does it make him different other than the 
fact that he was not the first to maime or kick or kill? In my 
opinion; what makes a good guy different from a bad guy is that he 
chooses not to use the same evil means to reach his goal. He has a 
different "work ethics" so to speak. If he didn't, there wouldn't be 
any bad guys and good guys, just equally bad guys destroying each 
other over disagreements.

And I believe Rowling hints at this in her books. It's subtle, but 
easy to see. Remember; Dumbledore (and Hermione) are often 
Rowling's "voice" in the books. I don't have direct quotes, but his 
viewpoint is always that it's wrong to act like the evil side would 
act. Example: Dumbledore does not approve of Dementors as allies. 
NcGonagall has said about him that there's lot of things he has the 
power to do, but he doesn't. Because it would not be right. 
Dumbledore has integrity. He has a high moral standard. And I think 
it's significant that Harry's strength (according to DD) is love in 
some form rather than Avada Kedavra skills... So I totally agree with 
Carol; I don't think Harry will defeat Voldemort by "becoming like 
him". I don't know how he will do it, but I'm sure there'll be a way 
that's acceptable to Dumbledore's (and therefore Rowling's) ethics 
and high standards of conduct :-))

I think there is a significant moral difference between, in your 
words, "tricking someone into self-destruction and seeking their 
elimination by direct means". After all, having Voldemort being 
destroyed by his own actions is self-inflicted and something he 
brings upon himself and thus Harry would not be (directly) 
responsible for his death. Of course, either way the end result is a 
dead Voldemort. BUT, the most important thing is that in the process, 
Harry has not been forced to "become" evil to fight evil. Inflicting 
damage and death on others will do something to the person doing it 
whether he wants it or not, whether the intention is "noble" or not. 
It's no good. 

Berit