Life Debt

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 138144


> 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.

I have a hunch that your second guess is closer to the truth. On the 
other hand, I have a strong feeling that taking some of Dumbledore's 
(and, incidentally, JKR's) pronouncements at their face value is not 
probably a very good idea. I am not saying that either of them has 
lied of course, but both seem to be great believers in "treating the 
truth with great caution". And really, what we have been told on the 
subject of "debts"?

In the first book Dumbledore simply stated that Snape "couldn't bear 
being in your father's debt....".  So far so good, but there isn't 
anything particularly magical about it.  In PoA Dumbledore 
elaborates: "When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates 
a certain bond between them... and I'm much mistaken if Voldemort 
wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter." 

Now this is JKR at her best, because with this perfectly ambiguous 
phrase she managed to get several different layers of meaning 
working. There is not a single word in this Dumbledore's statement 
to suggest that the "bond" in question is indeed magical. Say "man" 
instead of "wizard" and it would still make perfect sense in our 
profane muggle world. On the other hand it's wizards we are talking 
about, so maybe it *is* magical after all. Yet `magic' is also a 
very multi-layered word. When Dumbledore says for instance "Ah, 
music
 a magic beyond all we do here! And now, bedtime. Off you 
trot!", I presume he didn't mean it in the same sense that, 
say, `underage magic' . 

So, the question is what the nature of this "bond" is. Dumbledore is 
being characteristically vague on the subject. Yet to suggest that 
it is something that can be "invoked", as you put it, is to 
undermine its value, I believe. Because in the Potterverse when it 
comes to really important stuff it's choices that matters. That's 
why the idea that the mere technicality (Harry's not staying in the 
way of the curse that was cast on Ginny) would be of more importance 
that his conscious risking his life, doesn't' sit well with me. 

(Incidentally, you are quite wrong there, because the "curse" that 
Riddle "cast" on Ginny was, in effect, himself, well, his dark soul, 
so to speak. And Harry certainly did step between him and Ginny and 
stop that curse together with Riddle. As for his father's stepping 
between Snape and furry Lupin, again, you are wrong: what Lupin 
actually said was that James had "pulled Snape back". Must have been 
from behind, I'd say. And Lupin's eulogy notwithstanding I still 
maintain that risk was reasonably low. For James, that is). 

And back to the "bond". Suppose you asked Ginny whether she think 
herself indebted to Harry, what do you think she would answer? I'll 
bet she would say yes she owes him a life's debt. Any other answer 
would be monstrously ungrateful. And after HBP we know that there is 
a "certain bond" between them. So what we are to make of JKR's 
assurance that Ginny is debt-free? I believe what she actually meant 
was that Ginny-Harry "bond" does not owe its existence to debts and 
obligations, but something altogether more pleasant. Whereas Snape-
James or Harry-Wormtail "bond" is nothing but acknowledged but 
perfectly abhorrent obligation. Moral obligation I'd say. On the 
other hand if music and love turn out to be brands of magic when it 
comes to wizards, acknowledged debts must also have more power than 
simple IOU. 

a_svirn