Malice and Ulterior Motives

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 138789

> > houyhnhnm:
> > <snip>
> > As for "killing tears the soul", we've been over this ground 
again 
> and 
> > again. People are just black and white on this issue.  I 
certainly 
> > would agree that, in the real world, killing damages the soul.  
> I've 
> > always stopped a little short of absolute pacifism.  I'm just 
not 
> > sure.  But we're discussing the Potterverse here, not the real 
> world.  
> > There is just *one line* (out of how many thousand pages?) that 
> > supports this view and it specifies *murder*.  I don't 
understand 
> why 
> > people are so fixated on this.
> 
 
Alla:
 
Because to me it is NOT just one line - it is whole Tom Riddle's 
story with horcruxes, to me it is one of  the fundamental themes in 
HBP and I am NOT talking about RL now, I am talking specifically 
about "Potterverse"

So , IMO only,  the argument that murder taints the soul is very 
firmly 
supported by HBP. I just don't see any signs pointing to the 
contrary.
 
Personally, I think that in the RL  killing sometimes can be excused 
in rare circumstances( soldier under the orders to kill enemy, self 
defense). 
But I see the "murder tainst the soul" in HBP as something which one 
should strive for - as if killing is the worst thing which person 
could ever do . You know, like there are excuses, but it does not 
mean that it should be justified to. More idealistic approach, more 
of a lesson - yes, I know, JKR said that these are not books about 
morality, but she also called them "moral books", so I can totally 
see this kind of message.
 
 

I don't see those books as books about spying activities, even 
though they do talk about spies. I think these books have at heart 
different idea than " ends justify the means" as many spy thrillers 
do, IMO.
 
I DO see Snape thinking that he is helping out the good guys by 
killing Dumbledore  ( as in he is dying anyway, whatever)
 
I don't see narrator letting him get away with it - as if devaluing 
human life so much that if Dumbledore is old and weakened he needs 
to be done away with.
 
Sorry, just don't see it, don't see it at all.
 
I can buy Redeemed!Snape who feels an awful lot of remorse in book 
7,  I cannot buy Redeemed!Snape who at the end would still feel 
justified for what he did.
 
 
 
> Houyhnhnm:
> > 
> > What will it do to Snape to have killed Dumbledore, if it is out 
> of 
> > necessity and without malice?  I guess we will find out in book 
> 7.  
> 
Alla:
 
I guess I just don't see killing out of necessity here.
 
 
> Houyhnhnm:
> > It's just my fantasy about the characters, with only tenuous 
> support 
> > from canon, but I wouldn't be surprised if Dumbledore didn't 
mind 
> > teaching Snape a lesson.  It may not tear Snapes soul to have 
> killed 
> > Dumbledore (if it was not murder), but it may well tear his 
> heart.  
> > Dumbledore may have been willing to break Snape's heart in order 
> to 
> > force him to acknowledge he has one.
> 
> 
Alla:
 
But for what price? As Dan argued earlier, Dumbledore himself only 
managed to destroy two horcruxes, TWO. Is he really that confident 
that Harry is ready to destroy other four that he is happy to leave 
him without guidance and help in order to go into next adventure to 
teach Snape a lesson?
 
It seems to me that Dumbledore left a lot of unfinished business, 
that is why I can perfectly see him pleading "please, help me".
 
 
Just my opinion,
 
 Alla.