Bang! You're Dead./Greek Tragedy

[augustinapeach]

No: HPFGUIDX 86071

Forgive me if this rambles a bit . . . this is the sort of 
conversation I generally steer away from, but as it deals with a 
fantasy world. . . .( :-)) 

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "artcase" <artcase at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Shaw" <Robert at s...> 
> wrote: Harry will feel guilty either way, but killing Voldemort 
will benefit more people.
> > 
> Art here: Guilt used to be explained as a punishment from the gods.
> 
Robert again:  More generally, sometimes there are no good choices, 
only lesser evils, and failing to choose is itself a choice. Moral 
codes that can't cope with such dilemmas might work in a community 
of saints but are not robust enough for real life.

Now AP:  I agree with Robert.  It's easy enough to make 
ethical/moral choices in hypothetical situations, but life is 
messy.  Sometimes we find ourselves in situations where there IS no 
solution that doesn't require us to bend our nice, theoretical 
principles -- the proverbial "being between a rock and a hard 
place."  Obviously, Harry is up against one of those situations -- 
no matter what route he chooses, there will be negative 
consequences.  I think it is interesting that we had a preview of 
this situation in PoA, when Lupin and Sirius were ready to kill 
Peter and Harry stopped them.  He didn't want Lupin and Sirius to 
become murderers (p. 376), yet because of that decision, five people 
(Bertha Jorkins, the old man Frank, Cedric, Crouch Sr., and Sirius --
 am I missing anyone?) have since died.  As Dumbledore tells Harry 
in PoA (p. 426), "The consequences of our actions are always so 
complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very 
difficult business indeed. . . ."  I guess my point is, Harry 
doesn't get the benefit of a happy ending in this situation.  Now he 
has to decide what consequences he is able to live with -- and no 
matter what he chooses (IMO), guilt is going to be one of those 
consequences.

> (snip)> 
> > 
> Art again: Relating this to Harry's position, even to defend his 
life (according to Greek tragedy) he cannot kill Voldemort without 
suffering the wrath the Furies. Dumbledore ideally would be in a 
position to defeat Voldemort and choses not to. Interesting. IF 
Harry is being set up as an agent of the Furies, he is still walking 
on the edge of a slippery sword.  (snip)

AP again:  The prophecy tells us Dumbledore can't defeat Voldemort --
 only Harry has the power to do that.  Indeed, he is walking on the 
edge of a slippery sword, which I suppose is one reason Dumbledore 
kept this information from him for so long -- what a burden for a 
young boy to bear.  Put off the guilt as long as you can.

(BTW, why didn't Dumbledore tell Harry about the prophecy during the 
conversation I cited earlier from PoA?  Seems like it would have 
been a great time.  Oh, well, plot reasons, I suppose.)
> 
Art again:  Historical reference and western law aside, I am 
inclined to wonder how in a children's story you can accurately 
build this complex of an issue to fruition without alienating 
readers. I sincerely hope the model of a tragedy continues with 
questionable outcomes. But, I fear the rather new notion of "Love 
conquers all" may prevail. This is just conjecture on my part. 
 

AP again:  Let's don't confuse a realistic "love conquers all" 
ending with a media model of a "love conquers all" ending in which 
everybody is happy and the whole Great Hall at Hogwarts erupts in 
applause for that plucky little Harry, who has suffered so much and 
now is free from trouble with the woman he loves at his side, ready 
to ride off into the sunset.  I believe love can "conquer all" and 
still leave Harry with issues to work out.  

Augustina Peach