Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 179475

> > a_svirn:
> > Here is from OED:
> > expendable, a. (and n.) that may be expended; considered as not 
> worth 
> > preserving or salvaging; <snip>
> > The key connotation here is "considered as not worth preserving". 
> In 
> > other words – canon folder. Sirius did not mean that at all. He 
> meant 
> > it as a free choice, he did not mean – could not mean – that any 
> > member of the Order can be sacrificed by other members of the 
> order 
> > because he or she is not worthy of preserving! 
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> And constrast this with what Kingsley Shacklebot said in DH: "Every 
> human life is worth the same, and worth saving." That's probably 
one 
> of the only statements in DH that really expressed a clear moral 
> vision. But to DD, it seems like every life was expendable, & worth 
> losing. DD's methods went directly against the ideals that they 
were 
> supposedly fighting for. But Kinglsey's statement is later echoed 
by 
> Snape, who mentions saving every life he could. I don't think we're 
> meant to accept that DD's way is the right way or the moral way.


Magpie:
Or else it's a contrast between what the books say and what they do. 
Certain speeches sound good being spoken and in certain contexts, but 
that doesn't mean they are intended to contradict Dumbledore. I don't 
remember the contexts for those two lines, but I feel like Kingsley 
was talking about saving Muggles, which is a chance to make a point 
about the good guys being not cruelly anti-Muggle like Voldemort 
(though they certain never consider them equals) and Snape ruefully 
referencing his own dark past. I'm not sure the author might not 
consider both those statements as supporting Dumbledore's choices 
overall. It doesn't work for me, but I'm not sure they're 
intentionally supposed to be saying Dumbledore was wrong or treating 
people as expendable.

-m