Small choice in rotten apples

[dungrollin]

No: HPFGUIDX 148570

Sorry for the delay in replying.

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.  

Dung:
You're right, we haven't. But it would still feel like a bit of a 
cop-out to me. 

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)

Dungrollin:
I didn't mean that I don't think your scenario is suitable for 
children, nor do I think that it's too complicated for their little 
brains to cope with. What I meant was that she's under some 
obligation to maintain the style in which she's begun. The books so 
far are adventure stories, aren't they? Do you not think that 
putting Harry in a monastery for three months of book 7 so that he 
can learn to forgive would be... a little discordant with what has 
gone before?

Okay okay, I take that back, that was a straw man – I know that's 
not what you're suggesting. But I think that even a watered-down 
version would jar with the kind of stories and plots we've had 
before. I'd be more receptive to the idea of destroying Voldy with 
forgiveness if we had some clue of how such magic could physically 
manifest itself, preferably with a nice symbolic set of actions and 
choices which underly the forgiveness. 

A split-second "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 ... stripping Voldemort of his 
power, thus destroying him" wham-bam Voldy's gone and it's all all 
right ending would... well, it would really disappoint me. My first 
post after book 7 would almost certainly include the phrase "we wuz 
robbed!" I want an exciting, dramatic climax with plenty of tension, 
(and preferably curses flying everywhere) and I want Harry to win 
because he's loyal and brave and clever and cunning, not just 
because he's the chosen one.

houyhnhnm:
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.

Dungrollin: I'm a scientist, so I'm making it up as I go along too. 
I'm not trying to argue that she *must* use a certain kind of 
ending, I've just proposed one that I would find interesting. There 
doesn't seem to be much in the way of argument against it except 
that you don't want Harry to have to kill. I'm just trying to show 
why it wouldn't disappoint me if JKR went down this road, and why I 
think its consistent with the six books already on the table. (I'm 
really trying hard to avoid arguing from the premise that I'm right, 
because I'm almost certainly not.)

houyhnhnm:
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:
Heh. So if it goes my way, you might like it in the end anyway? 

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.

Dungrollin:
That quote is why I asked if you thought DD was wrong, because he 
does seem to take it literally, which is why he replies to Harry's 
question with a 'yes'.

houyhnhnm:
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.

Dungrollin:
And the Voldemort *outside* takes early retirement and moves to the 
Seychelles? Or does someone else get the pleasure of killing him? 

Look, I completely understand why people want to keep Harry innocent 
and want to stop him having to get his hands dirty, particularly 
since we found out about how killing rips the soul, I'm just not 
convinced that JKR's going to be as nice to Harry as you want her to 
be. Even if you don't want Harry to have to kill Voldemort 
literally, Harry's pretty much resigned himself to it:

HBP ch5 (UK p96).
"... it looks like I'm the one who's got to finish off Voldemort ... 
at least, it said neither of us could live while the other survives."

On the next page Hermione asks if he's scared.
"Not as much as I was," said Harry. "When I first heard it, I 
was ... but now, it seems as though I always knew I'd have to face 
him in the end ..."

Given the choices theme, are we agreed that Harry's going to have to 
make a difficult decision in order to defeat Voldy? And are we 
agreed that it's going to have to be a conscious choice? Your choice 
seems to be either forgive and defeat him forever, or hang on to 
your desire for vengeance and let evil win. Right? That's all fine 
and dandy – a clear choice with a strong moral at base. But how is 
it going to be difficult for Harry to make the decision? It might be 
tremendously difficult for Harry to actually follow through with the 
practicalities of forgiving, but it's hardly likely to be a 
difficult *choice*, is it? Perhaps you can see something I can't...

I like my theory because it suggests some kind of rapprochement with 
DDM!Snape. Being presented with a rotten choice like the one I 
outlined would help Harry understand what Snape had to do on the 
tower, and what a hellish choice it was. Harry in the end decides 
that he's going to take responsibility for finishing Voldemort 
himself, not push the sin onto others' shoulders, and if that 
involves injuring his soul, it's worth it. Snape therefore finally 
sees Harry taking some responsibility for his actions, instead of 
being let off by an over-indulgent Dumbledore.

Snow:
My point was that we don't know what can happen (because of the 
variables) to a Horcrux that has been encased in a living soul. 
Dumbledore said that it would be inadvisable to encase a soul piece 
inside something that can think for itself. We don't know what Harry 
could be capable of doing to destroy the piece of soul that is a 
part of him. There may be many doorways to how Harry can get rid of 
or influence the soul piece to the extent of destroying Voldemort as 
a result because of the free will status.
<snip>
No matter how a Horcrux in an inanimate object can be destroyed, the 
equation changes when the Horcrux is inside a living thinking person 
or animal. So even if we are told how a Horcrux can be destroyed 
inside an inanimate object that procedure may not be the same as 
inside a living thing because of the free will factor.

Dungrollin:
Oh I *see*. You're worried she might just pull something out of the 
hat that hasn't been foreshadowed? Could be. She might, indeed. I 
prefer to theorise under the delusion that she's got something 
clever up her sleeve, and that she plays by at least some rules 
though. :D

Dungrollin
A little distracted by the *adorable* pair of baby skinks who have 
set up home in her living room.