Voldermort's "death"

[ginnysthe1]

No: HPFGUIDX 119453


> > whimsyflower (wildflower) wrote:
> > <snip> <snip> What if vanquishing does not 
> > mean killing, but somehow redeeming?  or emptying of evil?  I 
> > wonder if somehow Harry forgives LV or sees some good in him, 
> > and because Harry does so, LV is vanquished or looses his 
> > power or becomes impotent or is rendered no longer evil?

Kim responded:
> ><snip> By asking the question about vanquishing <snip> do you lean 
in the direction of a Lord Voldemort redemption?  If so, I'm with you 
on that.<

Kim now:
I still hope to hear Whimsyflower's opinion on this, since she's the 
one who asked the question...

Kim continued: 
> > I somehow doubt that Harry or anyone else will actually be 
> > able to "kill" Voldemort, because I don't think he's been 
> > killable for some time, not even after taking Harry's blood 
> > in GoF.

> Vivamus responded:
> You may be right, of course, but I'll toss my hat on the side that 
DD's "gleam of something like triumph" meant either that LV is now 
human enough to be killed, or in some way is now vulnerable to being 
destroyed by Harry, if by no one else.<

Kim now:
I think you may be right too, as to Harry being the only one who'll 
be able to "kill" Voldemort, if it turns out that LV is killable (but 
I insist that that remains to be seen).  The way I'd figured that 
Harry's blood might not have made LV mortal (or more "human") is that 
H.'s blood already contained its own "immortality" (that's why H. 
didn't die when LV AK'd him years ago or any time thereafter).  So is 
Harry as mortal as any other human wizard, or is he less mortal?  
Does his blood in LV's veins make LV more mortal or less mortal?  It 
kind of works like a mathematical equation.  I think these are 
reasonable questions that we don't know the answers to yet.

Kim continued: 
> > I also don't think Harry is actually killable either, not by LV's 
hand at any rate.  I think it would be quite a twist if LV survived 
the final battles, though it would be much less severe and final a 
fate for the evil one than some folks might wish for.  It even seems 
likely that Harry's forgiving nature might make him forgive even LV.  
But I'd still like Harry to "vanquish" LV's evil nature.  That's the 
main point, isn't it -- to stop the evil, not just to get even with 
LV?<

Vivamus responded:
> I fear I must disagree here most strongly.  The entire series has 
been about making ethical choices and facing consequences.   Always 
it has been choices that have been emphasized, not fate.  Harry & co. 
will win because they choose to do so, albeit at great cost.  Just as 
LV has remained alive because he has willed to do so, Harry will be 
able to vanquish him forever despite all odds because Harry's will is 
equally strong, and his heart is as good as LV's is bad.<

Kim now:
I don't disagree with your second sentence.  But I do disagree with 
the rest of the paragraph, in the sense that you still ought to try 
and answer Whimsyflower's original question -- how do you 
define "vanquish"?  Not only that, IMO it would be informative to 
define the meaning of "win."  Besides, wouldn't Harry's choosing 
*not* to kill Voldemort be a "choice"?  It just seems that in your 
opinion it would be wrong for Harry to make that particular choice. 
But it'll be Harry's choice to make, not yours or mine... ;-)  Ethics 
are often in the eye of the beholder.  I can't say for sure what 
choice Harry will make, but given his character so far, I'm still 
nudged in the direction of Harry choosing not to kill.   

Vivamus continued:
> The other side of this coin is that choices always result in 
consequences. LV has made choices all along the line which are purely 
evil.  Irrespective of how he got to where he is -- and there are 
probably some significant faults to be laid at others who had a hand 
in shaping him (Grindelwald, perhaps?) -- he nevertheless has chosen, 
as an adult, to be who and what he is.  If any choices in life have 
irredeemable consequences, and we are not just chips in a mill race, 
then LV must die.<

Kim responds:
I agree again with most of the paragraph, but disgree with the 
concluding sentence -- it reminds me of that "trick" question about 
the death penalty:  How does killing someone teach people that 
killing is wrong?  But if it's vengeance that's wanted, then sure, LV 
must die.

Vivamus continued:
> A good example for comparison is the Star Wars saga.  Darth Vader 
represents a figure who seems purely evil, and acts that way, yet 
Luke is able to redeem him.  This may be what some are bringing to 
mind, if they are thinking about redeeming LV.   But standing behind 
Darth Vader is the Emperor -- who not only merits death but receives 
it.   In story terms, Luke was able to redeem his father only because 
there was a still darker figure behind him to take the fall.  Even 
then, Anakin Skywalker could only be redeemed in death.  LV does not 
have any such figure.  In allegorical terms, he IS the Emperor; he IS 
the evil Galactic Overlord; he is the source of the evil that must be 
vanquished, not a victim of it.

Kim now:
I think the comparison between Harry Potter and Star Wars only goes 
so far (and that comparison hadn't occurred to me at any rate).  As 
far as I can tell though, JKR has a somewhat different world view 
from George Lucas (or maybe it's your interpretation of George 
Lucas's world view that I would disagree with...).  I for one don't 
see LV as being on the same level as an evil galactic overlord or the 
source of evil in the Potterverse.  Besides, IMO, even if he were, in 
the real universe as well as the Potterverse, the source of all evil 
can't be "vanquished" for good and all, unless of course, all or most 
of humankind is one day returned to the state of promordial goo, as I 
suggested in a different post.  OTOH, you may be right if it turns 
out that LV no longer *has* a soul to be redeemed...

Vivamus continued:
>While there probably was some good in young Tom Riddle before he 
went the way he did, and there almost certainly were others who 
contributed to Tom's choices, it is Tom, ultimately, who must pay the 
price for his own choices.<

Kim asks:
That's true, but then that's also true for everyone.  So then what 
price must those who contributed to Tom's choices pay?  Which again 
begs the question, what *particular* price must be paid by Tom/LV or 
anyone else?  Why in some people's opinions does *death* seem to be 
the only price?

Kim wrote:
> <snip> Redemption would be a much more effective way of rendering 
LV powerless for good, and besides, as repayment for his crimes, he 
might then be made to do some really helpful community service, such 
as volunteer work in a Muggle orphanage... ;-)  ... As to how to 
render LV powerless and possibly even good, <snip> LV could somehow 
be lured into that mysterious locked room in the Dept. of Mysteries 
and "neutralized" (that is, if being in there didn't just vaporize 
him instead...)<

Vivamus:
> I think a "redeemed" Tom Riddle walking around doing good would be 
a source of suffering to Neville Longbottom (and hundreds of others 
who have suffered similarly at the hands of LV or his followers) 
*almost* as terrible as the loss of his parents in the first place.

Kim responds:
You may be right -- not leaving out Harry of course, if Harry 
survives (and I'm with those who think he will survive) and I do see 
your point that TR/LV still walking around could be a problem for 
some who suffered at his hands.  But can you see the character of 
Neville or Harry killing anyone, even LV?  Delivering LV over to some 
higher authority to decide on his fate, yes, but Harry and Neville 
directly killing LV themselves?  Which suggests this question:  Who 
or what would that higher authority be?  Then again, why do you 
assume that a "redeemed" Tom Riddle would cause suffering to Neville, 
et al.?  An "unredeemed" Tom Riddle, yes, but a "redeemed" Tom 
Riddle?  Please explain. 

Vivamus signed off:
>Vivamus, who is old-fashioned enough to believe that freedom implies 
responsibility, and some choices have eternal consequences<

Kim:
I'm not sure what "old-fashioned" means in this context.  I also hope 
you're not suggesting that I don't believe that freedom implies 
responsibility or that some choices don't have "eternal" 
consequences.  For the record, I believe those things too.  But I see 
the situation differently apparently.  Here's a question:  What would 
be the eternal consequences for those who make the choice *not* 
to "forgive the trespasses of those who have trespassed against 
them..."?  

Kim (who clearly likes to ask questions even though she doesn't know 
the answers either)