[HPforGrownups] Re: Voldermort's "death"

[Vivamus]

No: HPFGUIDX 119479

> 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"?  

Vivamus:
I think of it as a complete defeat, such that no rising again would be
possible.  If Harry doesn't kill LV outright, LV will nevertheless be
utterly destroyed, so that the WW can relax and know that THAT menace, at
least, is gone forever.  Anything less and the series isn't over.

> 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:
Perhaps this is the essence of the disagreement, in which case we will have
to agree to disagree.  I do not think ethics are either situational or in
the eye of the beholder.  If a sociopath believes it is ethical to kill
every third left-handed person, that does not make it ethical to do so.
Many people believe that the end justifies the means, and there are no
absolute rules of right and wrong, and it is perfectly acceptable to do
anything you please to anyone you want, as long as you get what you want.
My understanding of ethics is strongly deontological, and it truly shocks me
to see how conveniently some can arrange their "ethics" to their advantage.


I could be mistaken, of course, but my impression of JKR's writing is that
the ethics underlying her books are also deontological -- i.e., that there
are universal rules, and violating them has great and long-lasting
consequences.

As to Harry's choice to kill LV or not to kill -- yes, he can choose not to
kill.  Unless it was JKR's intent to show us that pacifism defeats evil,
however, that will mean that LV will win, Harry will die, and everything
we've come to love about the WW will be killed or destroyed.  From my
understanding of ethics, that would be a convenient choice for Harry to
make, but an unethical one.

 
> 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:
Actually, it is not about either vengeance or punishment.   It's about
consequences.  Tom Riddle's consequences for his choices, to be specific.
You make a decision, you face a consequence.   It might be good or bad, and
it might come from your parents when you are young, your coworkers, your
boss, or just the normal flow of life, but actions have consequences.
Granted, in real life, bad guys often do win, but JKR is writing a set of
children's fantasies, and I think she is going to stick with the ideas that
good triumphs over evil, and evil actions and decisions create evil
consequences.
 
> 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...

I agree that the analogy doesn't take you very far, as the worlds are quite
different.  In literary terms, however, there is a fair amount of
similarity. JKR is an incredibly gifted writer, but even she cannot willy
nilly make the books make no sense -- she would never have published book 2
if that were the case.   The point I was so poorly making was that in the
Star Wars *story*, a character that seemed purely evil was redeemed as he
died, but that was only possible in a literary sense because another
character was portrayed as the source of the evil.

In the Potterverse, LV is the source of all the evil that Harry & co. have
to face.  I'm sure there are other evil forces, many of them, but this story
is about Harry and LV.  In literary terms, I don't think the story will have
an ending satisfactory to anyone if LV lives.

I also think both that Harry is quite "killable", and that LV still has a
human soul, but we'll have to see what JKR does on that one.
 
> 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?

I'm afraid the last question is the only one to which I have an answer.
Western civilization thinks in those terms because Christian theology holds
that all sin is deserving of death -- which is the entire point of the
sacrifice on the cross.  As to the particular price that is appropriate for
anyone in particular to pay, I am not by any means qualified to judge that.
Even speaking of LV, I was talking in literary terms, rather than in the
real world -- although, to be honest, anyone behaving that way in the real
world is worthy of the death penalty, IMO.  What happens to LV's soul and
whether it is redeemable is not my primary concern; I would simply be a lot
more concerned about more Lilys and James and Longbottoms and all the rest,
and so I would want him off my planet before he destroys any more good
people.
 
> 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:
Actually, I can see Neville lopping off LV's head with a sword (or blasting
it off with a Reducto curse) and sleeping soundly at night.  He has had to
live with the living hell his parents have been in for a very long time, and
he has seen what the DEs are like first-hand.  He was taunted by Bellatrix,
who he knows did that to his parents, and very much wants to do it to him as
well.  Neville has steel in him, and it would not be a merciful act to avoid
killing Bellatrix, so she can choose to do that to another.  If he has the
chance, I believe Neville will do the right thing and blast her.

I don't know if Harry is there yet or not, but I think he may get there by
the 7th book.  There is a quote from one of the Tom Clancy books that comes
to mind: Killing people doesn't bring nightmares, if the people you kill are
evil.  That strikes me as overly simple, but war only requires one side to
fight, not two, and there can be no question that they are in a war.  If
they are squeamish about killing, they had best grow up quickly and get over
it, or they will lose.  If Harry kills LV, it would not be murder even if he
shot him in the back after careful planning (though he probably *would* be
tormented by nightmares if he did that.)

The problem with a "redeemed" Tom Riddle is three-fold.  In the first place,
you would never know if he actually had changed permanently, or if he would
someday (perhaps with DE help) throw it off and return to his old ways,
causing still more death and suffering.  In the second place, redemption
implies being bought back.  If someone is doing the paying to bring Tom
back, who is paying and what are they paying that would be powerful enough
to do that?  In the third place, those who have suffered do have a genuine
need for vengeance.   The lack of it can be as bad as the original hurt.
I'm not talking about obsession with revenge, but the normal, healthy human
instinct to see that those who attack you and those you love are brought
down.

Put yourself in Neville's shoes.  Imagine living your entire life with your
parents tormented into insanity.  Heros, both of them, but you have to be
raised by your grandmother because they do not even know who you are.  The
ones who tortured them are alive and free, laughing at you about them, and
you know they want to do the same to you, as well as to others who are
innocent.  Now they have been caught, and put through some kind of process
that supposedly makes them "redeemed".  They are now walking around freely,
and supposedly have nothing to do with the wrongs they did.  

Your parents, however, are still insane.  Your suffering (and that of your
parents) will never end in this life.  How can that be redeemed?  "Tell me
where all past years are," said Donne.   The redemption of which you speak
cannot be found, unless Neville's parents are restored to health, and James
and Lily brought back from the dead, and all their other victims restored.
So Neville's living hell continues, but is now compounded by the fact that
he must now give up all hope of taking out his normal, healthy rage on those
who created the suffering.

That is what I mean when I speak of some actions being beyond redemption.
Even if LV were to go through a personal redemption, the consequences would
remain, and cannot be undone.

 
> 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)

Vivamus:
Actually, I have no idea what you believe, other than what you put in the
post to which I was responding.  I wasn't implying anything about anyone but
myself.   Many people today seem to think that moral absolutes are
absolutely wrong (curious contradiction, isn't it?), and that we can have
freedom without responsibility, much like bouncing a ball without a floor --
but I was drawing a conclusion on the general worldview of society today.

As to unforgiveness, I think I'd better leave that topic for a different
discussion group, but the rest of the verse you quoted says it pretty well.