War

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 142524

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IreneMikhlin
<irene_mikhlin at b...> wrote:
>
> kaitoujuliet wrote:
> 
> >>"Ralph Miller" <papa at m...> wrote
> >>Sometimes war is not optional and it requires violent and ugly
> >>acts from moral people.
> > 
> > Wellllll...that may be true in Real Life.  But in a fictional
> > universe, war can be anything the author wants it to be.  It can 
> > be optional or not optional, just or unjust or questionable.  A  
> > fictional character *may* be able to engage in war without  
> > becoming ugly.  It's all in thespin the author gives it.
> > 
> > I humbly suggest that it would be more fruitful to ask what war 
> > means within J.K. Rowling's fictional universe, what Harry's  
> > decision means,and what the book is saying about the issues 
> > involved.
> 
> Well, in the terms of war movies it was fairly obvious to me that 
> JKR thinks more in terms of "Alexander Nevsky" than "Apocalypse Now"  
> if you see what I mean.
> 
> To go back to the original idea that the talk between Harry and 
> Dumbledore was somehow scary and immoral, that's really depends if she 
> sees the Order vs. Voldemort war as a just one, more similar to WW2 
> than to Vietnam. If she does, then I don't see how it's immoral even  
> within Christian morality.
> 

The current situation seems to consist of terrorist activities, and
not full-out, battlefield-type fighting.  On the one side, we have
murders, destruction of property, kidnapping, coercion, and the Dark
Mark left to frighten.  We have intelligence and infiltration on both
sides.  We have the Ministry arming itself, unusually and temporarily,
with the ability to use Unforgivables, or fighting bravely to bring
Death Eaters to justice.  The one battle we had was in the Ministry of
Magic and involved adult Death Eaters and children, later joined by
adult Order members.

There may be a repeat skirmish in book 7.  But the objective for
Voldemort in book 7 may simply be to "get Harry," and the situation
may otherwise remain status-quo, because how can the Ministry attack
an enemy it can't find (unless it gets helpful information from the
inside), and how can Voldemort, with relatively small numbers, launch
an attack on a prepared Ministry or Hogwarts?  Killing Harry would
send a demoralizing message to the wizarding world and would put
Voldemort in the clear.

Meanwhile, Harry will be searching for Horcruxes with the ultimate
goal of eliminating Voldemort.

In the books, we have seen families destroyed by Voldemort's
terrorism, and we have seen sacrifice in the attempt to overcome it. 
We have seen Death Eaters killed by Aurors empowered to use
Unforgivables.  But Snape's parting words included, "No Unforgivables
for you
"  Was that a taunt or a warning?

In the context of resisting a terrorist campaign, what is the moral
thing for Harry to do?  Part of it is staying on task and destroying
Horcruxes.   It is moral for him to "hunt down and punish those
responsible for these cowardly acts"  (using the U.S. president's
language after 9-11)?  How is that different from Sirius Black wanting
to kill Peter Pettigrew, which Harry prevented?  Did Dumbledore call
Voldemort "Tom" in the Ministry of Magic for no good reason?  Did he
refrain from using deadly force on Voldemort because he knew it would
be useless, or for some other reason?

What can the Ministry do in the face of terrorism?  Adopt
Umbridge-like methods?  Put people like Stan Shunpike in jail?

Looking at the context of the books, I would say that war means
terrorism in the fictional HP world, Harry's decision actually means
he is willing to sacrifice himself as others have sacrificed
themselves, and the books say the ends do not justify the means and
compassion is greater than revenge.

Whether this will hold true for book 7, who can say?  Obviously,
Voldemort's threat will have to be eliminated.  I am not sure Harry
will be the one to directly do it, however.  We already have one
candidate with a supposedly tainted soul


lealess