DD: an appreciation (Was Re: Snape, A Murderer?)

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 95572

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
> 
> Neri again:
> I gather you don't like the word "moral", although I didn't mean it 
> here in the ethical sense, but as in "what is the message of the 
> story". In your scenario, Harry and his parents were complete puppets 
> dancing on DD's strings. You allow that Harry may rebel in the last 
> two books, but still in five out seven books he is manipulated 
> (according to your scenario) all the way. DD who had let James and 
> Lily die is not "a well-meaning old man that had good intentions but 
> perhaps went too far". He is, as you said before, ruthless and a 
> puppet master. If this turns out to be true, the message that must be 
> drawn by the reader is that teenagers like Harry, or even young 
> persons like James and Lily, should not be trusted with critical 
> choices. The ruthless well-meaning old men should make these choices 
> for them, and if necessary manipulate them to ensure they make the 
> right choices. Personally I would be very disappointed if this will 
> indeed turn out to be true, but don't believe it will.

Kneasy:
Morals - what a morass that can turn into.
Moral codes vary according to time and place, no matter how much 
people wish (or pretend) that they don't. The only morals that matter
are the ones personal to yourself, the ones that you (or I)  have to
live with. To decry someone who has injured you or yours by not 
complying with your own personal code, even when they've never 
claimed that they share it, is a pretty depressing and pointless exercise.
I  know -  I've been there.

HP provides 'moral' guidelines even based on my devious interpretation:

Good must always resist evil, even when the cost is enormous,

Easy choices are not usually the best option,

Injustice should be exposed and if possible punished,

Those are important, I think, and the first two cover DD's dilemma.
Does the idea that James and Lily died because they were betrayed by
a so-called  friend who succumbed to pressure seem more moral? 
If so, please explain how.

No, Harry should not be trusted with critical choices, not when he's
ignorant of their context and of the possible disasterous consequences.
Much more is at stake than what Harry thinks he wants, a whole society
is at hazard and Harry might be the key to saving it. Or perhaps your
view is that whatever Harry wants is fine; bugger everybody else?
Somebody has to organise the resistance, utilise whatever assets
are available, expose enemy weaknesses, plan and where necessary
accept casualties. DD is it. He's the only one who can do it.


> 
> Neri again:
> I think Kathy nailed it (and nailed Kneasy...) here. This story *is* 
> about Harry, not about DD's plan that happens to involve Harry. It's 
> says "Harry Potter" on the cover, and I (being the gullible that I 
> am) believe it. Harry is the hero of this story, not the puppet of 
> this story. His choices are real choices, or what is the point of all 
> this? The only case in which puppet-master!DD would have a point is 
> if the story was about Harry rebelling against DD. But I don't think 
> this is what the story is about. I think the story is about Harry 
> fighting Voldy.
>

Kneasy:
The Lord of the Rings is about Sauron, is it? Not by any means.
HP is the tale of the fight against Voldy as seen through the eyes of a
boy caught up in it through no fault of his own. He is the catalyst.
But Voldy and DD  existed before he was born, were fighting before
he was born. He is an episode in an on-going battle and we have
been told that DD has a plan and he's had it for a long time. Harry
is part of that plan. So  though Harry is the main character in the 
books he is also a only one melody in a greater symphony. 
Otherwise the whole story becomes meaningless.
 
 
> Neri again:
> This is the point you repeat all the time, and I agree that it is a 
> very good point. Why would DD let foolish boys and girls like James, 
> Lily and Harry decide the fate of the whole WW? He should take things 
> into his old wise hands, even if it means manipulating and 
> sacrificing the stroppy little buggers. I tried to answer this 
> troubling question myself, although my solution (for example #95109) 
> is opposed to yours. Your solution requires an enormous conspiracy 
> theory, which IMO tends to raise more questions and problems than it 
> solves. 


Kneasy:
IMO it's not a case of 'let them', it's more a case of having no option. 
I agree that it would be clearer if DD did the whole thing himself, but 
then there'd be no story to dissect. For reasons that we haven't yet been
able to fathom DD won't knock off Voldy even when he has the chance.
There are a few theories why that is, but none come with evidence. Yet
another facet of the story 'To Be Announced' near the end, I suppose.

Enormous conspiracy? That'd be nice, but not really - just one person
playing his cards close to his chest and having information we have
been denied so far. Plus a few helpers, witting and unwitting.