Re: The Prophecy From Voldemort’s POV (long)

[davewitley]

Kneasy:

> << And where in the Prophecy does it mention the transfer of powers
> that Voldy's little helper couldn't warn him about? It doesn't so 
far
> as I can see, yet DD acts as if it were an unavoidable adjunct to
> Voldy's actions at GH. >>
> 
> Maybe there is special wizarding jargon that we Muggles don't know 
in
> which 'mark as an equal' MEANS 'transfer powers to'. :)
> 
> << Dunno if you remember, but about a year back there was a 
discussion
> on HPfGU that resulted in great wailings and gnashings of teeth for
> some, and blank incomprehension for others. All about 
the 'morality'
> of Harry killing Voldy and how doing so would 'stain' or 'pollute' 
his
> noble character. Ah well, takes all sorts, I suppose. The argument
> seems pretty pointless, 'cos if the Prophecy is to be taken at face
> value it'll be Harry or nobody. He's the one with the power; nobody
> else - not DD, Dung or Daedelus Diggle - Harry. (Assuming that the
> Prophecy is about him.) >>

Catlady:

> IIRC the argument began about whether there is any way to 
permanently
> vanquish Voldy and make sure he never harms anyone again other 
than to
> kill him, not about whether someone other than the Prophecy Boy 
should
> kill him.

I missed all that on HPFGU.  I think, however, there is undoubtedly 
a valid debate to be had here.

At the end of POA, JKR made it part of the ethics of the story that 
killing is not a valid way to achieve an end.  By Harry's own words, 
he would make himself a murderer by killing Voldemort.  Dumbledore's 
reluctance to share the prophecy with Harry is based, as I 
understand it, on the idea that both *apparent* alternatives - kill 
or be killed - are equally awful.

The task JKR has set herself, then, is to come up with a way of 
permanently neutralising Voldemort, consistent with the prophecy, 
that does not leave Harry morally compromised.  Harry's use of 
Cruciatus in the MOM suggests she will push this one to the wire.

David