Harry's happy death (Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of posses

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 161740

Sarah:
> Let's say there had not been any Horcruxes.  Would you also
interpret Lily's actions as not a success?  Voldemort dead forever and
the world safe?  She failed because she died?
> 
> I have a different view of those actions.

Carol responds:
I know you're addressing Sherry, but I agree with her here, as I
indicated upthread, so I'll take the liberty of answering (speaking
for myself, not Sherry).

Lily was not attempting to destroy Voldemort or she would have
attempted to fight him as James did, and her sacrifice would not have
provided the ancient magic needed to save Harrry. Her goal was purely
and simply to save her son and if necessary to die in his place. She
had no idea that the SK would rebound on Voldemort and cause his
fragmented soul to leave his body. So her action or sacrifice
succeeded beyond her expectations. She's a martyr, IMO, not a hero.
Yes, Harry owes his life to her, and for that reason, the WW also owes
her a debt. But we don't even know whether she knew that her son was
destined to fight Voldemort, and it really didn't make any difference
to her. She sacrificed her life, trading it for her son's ("Kill me,
not Harry!") and refusing to "step aside" not because of the Prophecy
but because, like Narcissa and Molly and Mrs. Crouch and Alice
Longbottom, she loved her child. Almost any mother would have refused
to step aside. 

What makes Lily's sacrifice unique, IMO, is the offer to exchange her
life for his, a bargain that Voldemort implicitly agreed to and then
violated (back to binding magical contracts again). Otherwise, her
sacrifice would be no different from that of any other mother who
attempted to protect her child, an action that can't be unique in the
WW any more than it is in the RW.

Harry, too, will be willing to sacrifice his life, but he won't go
down without fighting. He can't do what Lily did, offering his life
for another, because he has to fight Voldemort himself. He won't be a
martyr like Lily; he'sll be a hero like James. But unlike James, he'll
have what's left of the blood protection and the powers given him,
unwittingly, by Voldemort himself.

So, no. Lily didn't die for nothing. She died to save Harry. It's
possible that Harry will die to save the WW, but it would be more
rewarding to Harry, to his surviving friends, and to many readers if
he lives.

BTW, I'm aware that many children, especially boys, like the
gratuitous violence of video games, but blowing up nameless people (or
feeding guests to the Tyrannosaurus in Zoo Tycoon) is different from
living through seven books with a hero you can identify with and
having him die. I wonder, in fact, how many children (ten and under)
will have the fortitude to read Book 7 after JKR killed off Dumbledore
in Book 6. I'll bet some will ask their parents whether Harry dies,
and if he does, they won't want to read it.

As for me, it will take a really good death scene and satisfactory
fates for the other characters I care about to get me to reread a book
in which Harry dies. Yes, there will be deaths, and some of them will
be what JKR labels "favorite characters" (most likely her own
favorites and those she thinks he child readers like best), but I
don't think they'll be Harry or Ron or Hermione--or even Ginny, whom
I'd like a lot better if she didn't hex everyone who crosses her, just
like the young James.

Carol, who'd be satisfied if the deaths were limited to Voldemort,
Bellatrix, and Grawp, but doesn't think the death count will be quite
that small