Potterverse Destiny (was Re: C. S. Lewis and Potterverse Destiny)

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 121232


Vivamus wrote:

IF predermination were the model JKR uses for
destiny, then time travel either would be impossible, or it would be
impossible to affect anything (such as killing your past or future
self) in a time loop. <snip> All the language throughout the books
about the importance of choice would, simply, be wrong in JKR's eyes,
which would make her writing that strange indeed.

OTOH, IF the model were purely that of free will, there could not be
such things as prophecy or destiny. One cannot know the future,
because one cannot know what choices still remain to be freely made
that will change destiny.

Neither of those views is consistent with Potterverse <snip>: There is
destiny, but there is also free will.

Laurasia replies:

Great post!

IMO, the theme of choices is made stronger by giving characters ways
of *not* choosing. That is: fate.

If *everything* in the Potterverse was a result of free will then
Dumbledore's comment 'it's our choices more than our abilities' would
be rendered entirely redundant. The ubiquity of choice would diminish
its value.

In order to give us total freedom of choice we also need to be given a
chance *not* to choose anything, ie to stick with fate. Not only are
we given alternates about which choice we will make, but we don't even
have to make a choice in the first place. 

To choose, or not to choose, that is the question.

If you had a forced choice between a number of options (and couldn't
relinquish  responsibility and let the universe decide for you) then
the emphasis would be on making the *right* choice. In the
Potterverse, however, the forces or fate are so strong that even being
able to make *any* choice is brave enough.

In order to see the importance of choice we also need to see fate. JKR
and DD's reprise 'choices more than ability' only works if we have
both. IMO, JKR has included instances of fate- prophecies, school
houses, similarities between parent and child, etc. because it
demonstrates how easy it is to give up choice. 

Without fate as its opposite, choice is just a part of life, not an
important test of character.

In CoS Harry says, 'So I should have been in Slytherin then,' and in
OotP he says, 'I have to do what the prophecy says.' These are both
examples of conceding to fate's will. I'd like to see him say 'I don't
have to do anything' in HBP so we can see how strong Harry's courage
actually is (not only does he defy Voldemort- he defies the
universe!). This way, when he chooses to confront Voldemort it
wouldn't be a case of following the prophecy's rules, but a momentous
decision.

IMO, it is just as important to see people not choosing as it is to
see those that do, like, for instance, people sticking with whatever
the Sorting Hat told them and suppressing their will to do otherwise.
If no Slytherin ever joins Harry it would only suggest that none of
them ever dared to question fate, not that ability is stronger in
determining character than choice. Maybe, for example, Theodore Nott,
instead of outright joining with Harry, expresses his discontent with
Slytherin but never finds the courage to reject it.

Perhaps this is the real reason why so many major characters are
Gryffindors. Without the quality of courage, could you ever stand up
to fate? JKR's theme 'choices more than abilities' requires real
bravery. Or else no one would dare to defy what the universe is
commanding you to surrender to. 

~<(Laurasia)>~