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

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 85797

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Berit Jakobsen" <belijako at o...> wrote:
> 
> 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...


Kneasy:
Admired, yes. Heroes?  
There are many who consider that Ghandi, though adulated
as the proximate cause of Indian freedom, was more than a bit  of a 
fraud in his personal life. Nehru ruefully pointed out that it took 
three very rich men to keep Ghandi in poverty. The lifestyle he lived
(and recommended as a model for others) was totally inappropriate 
and unrealistic for any normal Indian citizen. Remember, he didn't even 
visit India until he was an adult. He was a lawyer in South Africa. 
The Babu image, with a blanket round his shoulders was a later 
affectation. 
His insistence on freedom now, without bothering about practical 
problems was also one of the causes that lead to the deaths of millions 
when post-independence partition between India and Pakistan was 
enforced.  

And wasn't Nelson Mandela a self-confessed (though he later 
explained it as the need to do *something*) active member of a 
terrorist group? Or would you define him as a freedom fighter? 
Many do when it is for a cause they support. 
(In his position I would have done exactly the same thing.)
You call him a hero even though he sought a violent solution but you
would consider Harry to be evil for doing the same thing.

History  often glosses over inconvenient episodes if they detract
from the preferred image.


No, IMO they became statesmen in the finest meaning of the word.
But to  be defined as a hero, you need to perform an heroic act.

My  dictionary defines 'hero'  as follows:-

1. (Gk Hist) A man of superhuman strength, courage and ability, favoured 
by the gods; a demigod.

2. A man, now also a woman, distinguished by the performance of
extraordinarily brave or noble deeds;  an illustrious warrior

3. The chief male character in a song or story

Since Harry  isn't in a Greek tragedy , 1. is out.
He already  fits 3.
But it's 2. that I want him to be.

 Berit:
> 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.
>

Kneasy:
I can see we'll never agree.
Was Horatio on the bridge evil? Of course not.
Were the Spartans at Thermopylae evil? Nope.
Nor, as  I pointed out in my previous post were St George, Beowulf or 
King Arthur. 
TV and Hollywood may have degraded the meaning of the word, but
true heroes are those that put their lives on the line to protect the
vulnerable. It can be a person, a society or an ideal that is beleaguered,
but it is much, much more than just personal revenge or self defence.

There  seems to be a view that the use of any kind of force is evil, 
whatever the circumstances. So tell me, how else would scouges
such  as Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, Hitler, the Thugees or Bader-Meinhof
be resisted and defeated? Talk won't do it. Compromise is just
letting the camel's nose into the tent. They are (were) commited to the 
final and total destruction of everything not of them. Not every
opponent is rational. Force is sometimes necessary and justified.
And using it does not mean you become as they are, any more than
putting down a rabid dog makes you a murderer.

Now I would categorise Voldy as on a par with Bader-Meinhof.
Harry is responsible for  the protection of his world against those
that wish to destroy it. Voldy was winning at one time. He was not
driven back  by words or compromises but by a fortunate
circumstance. Now he's back and he's going to start killing the
innocent again. He  won't be stopped  by throwing  gentle thoughts 
at him (or if he is JKR is not the quality of writer I think she is).
This doesn't  call for his repentence, what we want is retribution,
catharsis, a balancing of the books.
 

Berit:
> 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... 


Kneasy:
DD doesn't want the Dementors as allies because he can't *trust*
them. ("Voldemort can offer them so much more" is the phrase he
uses.) He tells Voldy that there are things worse than death and this
is what he threatens Voldy with. Doesn't sound compassionate to me.
Yes, there are  things he won't do. But, to coin a phrase, just  because
you won't  stab someone in the back, it doesn't mean you won't kill 
them face to face in a fair fight. DD may be moral, but he wants 
Voldy destroyed. Voldy kills for no good reason, he enjoys inflicting
pain and suffering. To say that the person who kills him is sinking to
his level is to  equate surgery with sadism.