Small choice in rotten apples

[houyhnhnm102]

No: HPFGUIDX 148479

Dungrollin:

> Can you really see Harry forgiving Voldemort and 
> *then* destroying him?

houyhnhnm:

I wasn't thinking of "forgiving" in the sense of embracing him, more
in the sense of suddenly seeing Riddle/Vodemort's complete life story
in a single gestalt and recognizing him as a pitiful wretch without
real power, and this realization having the effect of stripping
Voldemort of his power, thus destroying him.  The forgiveness and
destruction being simultaneous rather than one following the other.

I have to admit we haven't seen much forshadowing of that kind of love
saving the day in HP.  Rowling's example is the sacrificial love of a
mother for her child--something common to all mammalian mothers
including all but the most depraved human ones.

Dungrollin:

> My problem with turning the battle into some internal struggle of 
> Harry's is this: how could such a process manifest itself as a 
> satisfying climax to a series of action-packed children's 
> adventures? 

houyhnhnm:

But are they?  Time Warner has found it hugely profitable to market
the Potter saga as such, especially since they can make millions
drawing non-readers to the movie theaters, but Rowling said, at one
point, that she did not set out to write a children's story. (The
reading level is much too difficult for *children's* books
anyway--young adolescents, maybe)
  
I was Neville Longbottom in English Lit class (all my professors hated
me),so I can't construct arguments as to why the Potter series does or
does not fit into to this or that genre, and why it must or must not
have a certain kind of ending.

For me, the appeal of the books is their very unpredictability (along
with the sheer inventiveness of the world she has created--similar to
the appeal of Dickens).

I enjoyed the first book as a Cinderella story.  Emotionally abused
orphan discovers he's a wizard, gets the boot in on his oppressors,
and lives happily ever after.  By the end of GoF, and certainly in
OotP, I was rudely jerked out of that pleasant fantasy.  I was
disappointed at first, but on reflection, it was more interesting to
me that the story took the turn that it did.

> Dung:
> LV's body irrelevant? Hmm. I'm not so sure. It's only when Voldy's 
> main bit of soul is in a body that the scar connection seems to 
> work. Harry had scar-pain and visions to a certain degree when Voldy 
> was baby!mort, then much more strongly after the rebodification 
> until Voldy started employing Occlumency against him. Harry's scar 
> also reacted to Quirrell when he was being possessed, but it didn't 
> react to the Diary Horcrux at all. Now that could be because it 
> would have been a dead give-away that Voldy was behind the opening 
> of the Chamber, but it's also a fact that Diary!Tom didn't have a 
> body, so there may be a more interesting thematic interpretation.

houyhnhnm:

Yes, you're right.  That part wasn't well thought out.  Even after the
Harrycrux and the other horcruxes are gone, there will still be a soul
part remaining in Voldemort himself.  Maybe this is where Voldemort's
use of Harry's blood to rejuvenate himself--and Dumbledore's gleam--
will come into play.

Dung:
> So in effect, you reckon Dumbledore was wrong, at the end of OotP, 
> right? Harry is not limited to the choice between kill or be killed, 
> there's a way to worm out of having to choose? 

houyhnhnm:

No, but I don't see why it has to be taken literally.

Here's the passage.

"The end of the prophecy ... it was something about ... 'neither can
live ...'"
"' ... while the other survives,'" said Dumbledore.
"So," said Harry, dredging up the words from what felt like a deep
well of despair inside him, "so does that mean that ... that one of us
has got to kill the other one ... in the end?"
"Yes," said Dumbledore.

I just don't see why the "one" and the "other" have to be the two
persons, Harry and Voldemort.  Why can't they refer to the "Harry" and
"Voldemort" in Harry?  (and possibly in Voldemort, too, now that he
has Harry's blood)

And why does "kill" have to be taken in the sense of "commit
homocide"? As long as Harry has a little Dark Lord residing in his
forehead, he can't truly live. If he "kills" the Voldemort inside,
then he can.