[HPforGrownups] Re: NECESSITY of killing/ What would DD want?

[Sherry Gomes]

No: HPFGUIDX 141900

SSSusan:
I know we're never going to convince each other, but I can't resist 
responding to this.

You do realize when you say that this "may support the 
interpretation that Flamels were going to choose their great 
adventure soon anyways and they just made their choice faster," that 
it CLOSELY MIRRORS the argument many DDM!Snape or Things Aren't What 
They Appear on the Tower fans say, don't you?  

That is, that DD was *dying* on the Tower and knew it, that he was 
fully prepared for the next great adventure, that he wanted to die 
in such a way as to prevent Draco from murder and to get the DEs out 
of Hogwarts, but that he needed HELP to accomplish this?  That his 
pleading to Snape was for Snape to provide that help?  IOW, that he 
was choosing the great adventure (knew it was imminent), and that he 
just made the choice to get their faster? 



Sherry now:

The difference i see--and I'm thinking in terms of the message children will
get from the books in the end--is that the Flammels had lived way beyond
their time, and I doubt Dumbledore took a wand and killed them to get it
over quickly.  The Flammels made the choice and they died of their own
volition by agreeing to have the stone destroyed.  On the other hand, on the
tower, Dumbledore doesn't jump off the tower or anything that would imply he
sacrificed himself.  The killing was done at the hand of a trusted friend.
Whether it was a genuine AK or any other spell, unless DD is not truly dead,
then it's a whole different ball game to me.  Even if others suggest that DD
had the plan in advance with Snape, the fact still remains that Snape did
the killing.  To me, it is completely different than the Flammels agreeing
to have the stone destroyed and dying in the natural course of events.  They
even had enough time to get their affairs together.  Dumbledore's death left
everything in chaos, and especially left and angry and out for revenge
Harry.  None of this seems like a good thing to tell children, that it could
ever be ok to kill.  i know I'm a broken record on that one, but i do feel
it strongly.  

Killing in war?  Even kids know that soldiers have to kill in war, but as
I've said before, soldiers do not kill their own generals.  If they do, they
have a court martial and it is considered a very serious crime.  i can't
imagine how the deliberate killing of Dumbledore by Snape can ever be
justifiable in terms of who the target audience of these books is.

Sherry