Great analysis...

[CJ Estes]

> Borrowing spoiler spacers
> 
> 
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> > spoiler space...
> >  
> 


I read an excellant analysis tonight on a livejournal
and thought you guys would be interested.  It can be
found and properly credited here:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/redknight38/

But will copy and paste for those LJimpaired:

The Ethics of Rowling  
I warn there are key spoilers to OoTP here.

Well, after reading book 5 of Harry Potter (The Order
of the Phoenix), all of my literature interpretation
instincts just kicked in automatically. Never mind the
predictions of what will happen, who will end up with
whom, etc... I was instantly drawn by the notion of
psychomachia (I mentioned it before, it is the battle
between good and evil) and the nature of right and
wrong, choice and free will and the 'good' according
to J. K. Rowling. 

Rowling's approach to the battle between good and evil
is highly interesting because it is deceptive. Far
from being conventional, it is actually quite
different from the norm and (as I know she was greatly
influenced by him) follows C.S. Lewis' approach to it.
The term psychomachia is here eminently suitable as,
to define it more properly, it is "the fight for a
person's soul" or "the fight in a person's soul"
(http://icg.harvard.edu/~lac22/studyaids/glossary.html).

Quite simply, the idea that Voldemort is "the great
evil" that Harry has to battle is wrong. Quite unlike,
say, J.R.R. Tolkien with his Sauron or other
equivalent stories, evil is not a distinct entity to
defeat and after which everything will be back to
normal. Evil here is something that is fought strictly
by each person. Voldemort has to deal with
psychomachia just as much as Harry does. Evil, then,
according to Rowling, is not so much an act or an
entity as much is it is a CHOICE. Harry and Tom Riddle
have been deliberately contrasted because they are
basically the same characters at heart. This is
obvious and well-known. The difference lies in what
they chose. 

But what does that mean, exactly? How does one
'choose' evil? For the moment, I see it as basically
being selfishness and self-centeredness. Evil is when
you say "MY will be done". The great I, or ego and it
is obviously no coincidence that Voldemort survived
for the longest time as pure ego. Both Harry and Tom
Riddle were handed pain early in life and this pain
was obviously inflicted on them repeatedly. But
whereas Tom Riddle buckled under the pain and decided
to take vengeance. 

And the ultimate in self-centerdeness is of course the
quest for unbridled and total power, specifically,
power for its own sake. Tom Riddle as Voldemort wants
it because he wants the world, which so cruelly
handled him, to finally bend to HIS will. Something it
refused to do for so long. You could even say that he
had no faith in cosmic justice or even just cosmic
balance. 

It also explains why he is so afraid of death. For the
selfish, self-centered person, death is the ultimate
end. You are not particularly concerned, for instance,
about 'leaving something lasting' since you won't get
to enjoy it. What does it matter to you that 'you live
on in people's hearts'? 

Tom Riddle, thus, lost faith in the universe. He gave
up on being human because it so ill-abused him and he
gave up on just having faith that things would either
work out or were as they supposed to be. He decided,
instead, to MAKE the world work for him. 

This is also explains why Dumbledore is so unafraid of
him. It isn't because of Dumbledore's power, something
that the wizarding community, HP fans and Voldemort
all obsess over. Certainly, Dumbledore is 'powerful'
objectively. But his true strength is that Dumbledore
CARES. Dumbledore doesn't care much for power for its
own sake and always does his best to empower others.
Hence, he knows his death is NOT the end of it. Death
will NOT destroy Dumbledore, as envisaged by two key
lines from the five books, (I don't remember them
exactly) for instance, when in Book 2 Dumbledore
reminds Lucius that there will ALWAYS be loyalty to
him in Hogwarts and now in Book 5, when he mentions
that death is not the only way to destroy a man. 

That last is crucial, since that is the only way that
Voldemort can think. It was this that lead to
Voldemort's ironic creation of his own nemesis: he
thought that the death of the Potters would end his
troubles and never counted on love. 

But what about Harry? Where does he stand? The end of
Book 5 clearly stated it. Harry is now old enough so
he has been given a moral crossroads. While Dumbledore
says he made a mistake in telling Harry only now what
everybody intuitively knew, literary-wise, it makes
sense why Rowling would only say that now that it is
just Harry who can kill Voldemort. And Harry finds out
that he has a terrible responsibility that is totally
self-less oriented at the moment when he wishes the
most to dwell on his own pain. He can either give up,
as he wanted, or he can go on, realizing now what
price he has to pay.

Book 5 is then very crucial in that sense. Quite
obviously, Harry will most probably choose to go on,
face his destiny and destroy Voldemort. There are then
three important questions for the next two books. How
will he make this decision? Why will he make this
decision? And, of course, WHAT will make him decide to
go on? 
 
 
********

Isn't that an interesting take?  I thought so.

Carole

=====
Are you coming to Nimbus - 2003?
A symposium for afficionados, enthusiasts, scholars, and students of JK Rowling's Harry Potter books.  

July 17-20, 2003, in Orlando, Florida at Walt Disney's Swan & Dolphin Hotel. 

For information about this event:
http://www.hp2003.org

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com