Life Debt

antoshachekhonte antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 19 23:25:53 UTC 2005


No: HPFGUIDX 138135

> a_svirn:
> Even if you are right in your premise (personally I don't think so, 
> but let's say you are) I still can't agree with your conclusions. 
> 
> Because Harry did indeed willingly risked his life to save Ginny. 
> Almost lost it, in point of fact. Whereas James Potter risked his in 
> the Shack no more than he had risked it running wild with his 
> werewolf friend on numerous occasions. 
<snip>

Antosha--

True, both acts involved a person risking his own life and saving someone else. What I'm 
trying to say is that while Harry saved Ginny's life, and risked his own, he never stepped in 
the way of a curse that Tom Riddle had cast at her, he simply destroyed the threat to her 
life, while his father--who had, indeed done ridiculously risky things with his friends in 
the name of comradeship and fun--DID step directly between Snape and an werewolf in 
full fury. The risk is the same, the life saved has the same value, but the act is 
fundamentally different. It is the only way that I can find a logical reason that Harry saving 
the Weasleys lives did not invoke a life debt, while his stepping in front of Peter Pettigrew 
did.

The only other distinction that occurs to me is that the wizards perhaps must be enemies. 
I guess I could see that. Severus Snape was James's enemy. Peter Pettigrew had shown 
himself to be Harry's enemy, yet James saved Snape and Harry saved Pettigrew. I'm not 
sure that quite covers it, however.






More information about the HPforGrownups archive