Killing Harry for Fun and Profit

[mz_annethrope]

No: HPFGUIDX 128013


> SSSusan:
> You know, that part ["either MUST die at the hand of the other"] 
> just leaves me confounded.  Here's why I have trouble with it.  If 
> ONLY Voldy can kill Harry, then why is DD worried about Harry in 
> Quidditch, in the TWT, etc.?  
> 
> More importantly for me, and bearing on the series' end... if ONLY 
> Harry can kill Voldy **and** ONLY Voldy can kill Harry, then does 
> that lock us in to a scenario at the end where both have to die?  
> I know I certainly prefer to have Harry defeat/kill Voldy but to 
> live himself.  But if that were to happen, then how would Harry 
> *ever* die, if his death MUST come at the hand of Voldy?
> 
> Or is that where the distinction of "to die" and "to be killed" 
> comes in?  Only Voldy can KILL Harry, but he can DIE in any number 
> of ways -- an accident, of old age, of illness, etc.?


mz_annethrope:

"Must" means having an obligation to do something because of custom, 
law, contract, whatever. An example of "must" is when fake Moody 
enters Harry's name into the goblet of fire. Even though he didn't 
volunteer himself, Harry must compete because wizarding custom 
requires him to do so. Likewise Harry is obliged to kill Voldemort 
and Voldemort is obliged to kill Harry if one or the other is to 
live. That doesn't mean it will actually happen, though it had 
better! I'll be sorely vexed if JKR provides us with a tame ending.

Anyway, what I'm meaning to say is that the thrust is obligation, 
not certainty.

mz_annethrope (who is up way too late to be thinking clearly)