Harry's protection

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 113172

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...> wrote:
> We've seen Harry bent on revenge twice - in the Shrieking Hut vs. Sirius, and in the MoM 
> vs. Bella. In the first instance, Harry was saved from killing an innocent man by his own 
> reluctance to kill and by Crookshank's loyalty (or sacrificial love? <g>). In the MoM, his 
> desire for revenge resulted in an Unforgivable curse. And when he waives revenge on 
> Pettigrew, JKR tells us (via DD) that it was right and noble. From all this, how can you 
> seriously speculate that the resolution will come through Harry seeking revenge? Aren't 
we 
> taught (it's almost hammered into our heads) that revenge is both dangerous and 
wrong?
> 

Kneasy:
Yet he derives such satisfaction from revenging himself for the
perceived insults of Draco et al at the end of every book. No?
Revenge on Umbridge was sweet - no?

He lack of retribution on Pettigrew is right and noble for
the very good reason that we strongly suspect Peter has a major
part to play in the story arc. Wouldn't do for a key character to
disappear too soon. Besides, we haven't yet got to the bottom of
what happened at Godric's Hollow. As longer-term readers will 
know, I don't accept Sirius' word unconditionally. In fact, I don't
really trust him. Harry *could* have been about to zap the wrong
party.

Despite the protests of the kinder-hearted, I have no trouble at
all with villains getting their just desserts. Crunch 'em! And IMO
just desserts = retribution = revenge. I'd  never feel  satisfied if
Tom/Voldy/Malfoy/Fudge/ just got a slap on  the wrist, some
counseling and rehabilitation back into society. Oh, no!
Flesh dripping off bones, eldritch screams, eyeballs shrivelling,
major organs flopping to the floor twitching - all that good stuff.
They deserve it, don't they? Right, let 'em have it.

> Naama:
> Is Gen. Patton here analogous to DD or to Harry? 

Kneasy:
To DD. Harry is the poor bloody infantry who faces death while DD
emotes back in his office.

> Naama:
> In any case, I of course totaly disagree with you. In fact, for me it seems almost obvious 
> that Harry will finaly have to face a choice between killing Voldemort and doing .. well, I 
> don't exactly know, but something else. And he will choose the something else, which 
will be 
> the thing that brings about Voldemort's downfall. I haven't got a cogent argument to 
support 
> this, unfortuantely (gut feeling doesn't cut it, I know). 
> Although, there is a kind of negative hint, which is that Harry interprets the prophecy as 
> him having to murder Voldemort (or be murdered by him). BUT, I think in all the books, 
when 
> Harry thinks he has the solution, he actually doesn't. So, maybe this is evidence 
supporting 
> my thesis.
> 

Kneasy:
Maybe.
But remember it's DD who tells him he has to kill Voldy or vice versa.
You've assumed DD was right over Harry being right and noble for
not killing Peter, are you saying he's wrong now? Perhaps DD got it
the wrong way round - he should have killed Peter (in which case Voldy
would have taken about 50 years to  get back from Albania) and that
he doesn't have to kill Voldy now, Sybill got it all wrong.
Harry's not exactly enamoured of the idea - but let's face it, what does
Harry know? Not a lot. DD's been leading him around by the nose for 
years. 

Harry thinks he has the solution but doesn't.
Yes, quite possible.
He thinks he knows how to beat Voldy, is wrong, and dies. 
Sad, that.
No wonder JKR won't confirm that Harry lives.