One True Hero and Hero By Committee - LONG

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 182379

---  "Zara" <zgirnius at ...> wrote:
>
> > bboyminn:
> > 1.) All the Horcruxes including Harry have been destroyed. Harry
> > did that. He created that circumstance. Likely at some point
> > in some undetermined future, some one else could have done
> > that, but with each passing day in which Voldemort gains 
> > greater power, the opportunity and the likelihood to do so 
> > diminishes.
> 
> zgirnius:
> ... The bottom line is, Harry did not destroy all of the 
> Horcruxes including Harry. Harry destroyed the Diary and the
>  Harry Horcrux. ...
> 

bboyminn:

Just a minor correction, I was generalizing in what I said. The
point was NOT that Harry destroyed every single Horcrux with is 
own hand, but that Harry had a hand, or an influence, in the 
destruction of each.

As Carol pointed out, Dumbledore was able to use the Sword to
destroy the Ring because Harry's actions have imbued the Sword
with the power to do so.

Again, even the Horcruxes destroyed by Ron and Hermione were not
done so without some secondary efforts from Harry.

The general thrust of this conversation, and of other similar
conversations, is that Harry is not needed, which I deny. In
every case, directly or indirectly, Harry has a hand in what 
happens.

But, by the same token, I will not deny that in every victory,
or escape if you prefer, that Harry has had help; he certainly
could not have done so without the help of other people. So, 
on that point I agree, Harry doesn't really do anything alone.

My central point was in response to the idea that 'anybody'
could have done this; it didn't have to be Harry. But Harry
does it because he is not the kind of guy to stay snug in his
bed and leave it to others. 

Seamus could have defeated Voldemort given the right 
circumstances, except, he preferred to stay toasty warm in his 
bed and let other deal with it. Since he was not willing to
make the initial effort, that, and his attitude, block him from
making all subsequent efforts.

Anyone could have defeated Voldemort, just as anyone could have
conceived the Theory of Relativity. They had as much of a chance
as Einstein or Harry, but they didn't act. They could have but
they didn't. Harry did because he did; he chose to act while 
others chose to wait and see. 


> 
> > bboyminn:
> > 2.) Harry is the presumed Master of the Elder Wand which 
> > Voldemort is wielding. Harry created that circumstance, 
> > though he did so inadvertently. Who else could have created
> > a similar circumstance? Better yet, who did? No one. 
> 
> zgirnius:
> If Albus had died of the Ring Curse, it is my opinion that 
> the Wand would have passed to Voldemort. Albus deserves credit,
> in my book, for ensuring this did not happen through his 
> handling of the Draco mission with Snape. While his plan did 
> not work out precisely, in its absence, Harry would not have 
> been master of the wand.
> 

bboyminn:

Yes, but I find that a very thin supposition. That's like saying,
if only Al Gore had won the election we wouldn't be in this 
mess. While it may have some truth to it, it's not reality. 
Bush won and we are in a mess. It's like saying if I have only
been born rich instead of the son of a construction worker, I
would be driving a new Jaguar instead of an old Ford. It may be 
true but it is irrelevant. 

I also question whether Dumbledore succumbing to the cursed 
ring constitutes a victory for Voldemort. I think the 
confrontation leading to victory and defeat needs to be a 
lot more direct. Hence, we see Grindlewald perched on the 
window waiting for Gregorovitch to catch him. To be the Master,
their needs to be some degree of direct confrontation between
its current Master and the one desiring to become the new
Master.

Of course, I can't say that with any true authority, it's
just my vision of how the thing works. 

Though to your central point of Albus's plan going wrong but
ultimately actually helping put Harry into the position he
needs to be in, I agree.
 
> > bboyminn:
> > 4.) Harry does not act with vengence, or a will or desire 
> > to kill. Though he certainly has more reason than most. He
> > defends himself, but does not really attack Voldemort.
> > 
> > Who else would have thought to or been able to do this? 
> 
> zgirnius:
> I am not convinced this was a necessary condition. If Harry 
> was vengeful and desried Voldemoert's death, and thus he and 
> Voldemort had *both* yelled "Avada Kedavra!" at the top of 
> their lungs, I would think Voldemort would be just as dead.
>

bboyminn:

On this point, you may be right. Presumably, Harry could have
cast any curse or spell as long as it occurred at the same 
instant as Voldemort's spell, and as long as the spells 
meet head on. 

But, I think there is an element involved that depends on 
Harry's innocence (such as it is). It is like in the forest, 
it is important for Harry to be passive and offer no resistance
or defense against Voldemort's attempt to kill him. Back in the
Great Hall, I see a similar theme playing out. Harry must by 
conscience, if not by actual need, rise above vengeance and
aggression, and act only to defend himself.

By the technical aspects of magic, you are probably right. But
by Harry's character, and by the spiritual (or abstract if you
prefer) aspects of the books, I think it is important that
Harry not counter with his own Killing Curse.

If Harry had countered with a Killing Curse would we be able
to say that Harry did not kill Voldemort? That Voldemort died
by his own hand, his own arrogance, his own greed, by his
own lack of remorse? I think it was necessary for Harry to 
not throw a Killing Curse; I think it was important for Harry
to respond defensively rather that offensively.

Still, on the technical point, you are probably right.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn