Harry's Angst Re: A Simpler Scenario

[davewitley]

Annemehr wrote:

> Let me try to come at my dissatisfaction another way.
> 
> Since GoF, Harry knew LV would never stop trying to kill him. But,
> though we never see him thinking about it, he probably assumed the 
WW
> battle would go on until *somebody* killed LV without ever really
> thinking it was very likely to be he himself.
> 
> In OoP, Harry heard the prophecy.  Not only did he find out why LV
> wanted to kill him, he also found out that (supposedly) Harry was 
the
> *only* one who *could* kill LV.  So, things went from "somebody's 
got
> to stop him" to "I've got to stop him."
> 
> So in HBP, DD explains that the prophecy did not have to come true;
> that the reason it does seem to be coming true is that LV believes 
it
> and acts accordingly; that Harry has free choice in the matter.  DD
> asks Harry what his choice is, and Harry replies he'd like to kill 
LV.
> 
> My problem? I thought that in OoP it wasn't the idea of "destiny" 
that
> bothered Harry so much, it was the idea that he would either kill 
or
> be killed.  Then in HBP, DD takes away the idea of destiny.  But 
where
> did the angst about killing go?  Was it ever there, or did I read 
OoP
> wrong?  It's the process of Harry reconciling himself to killing 
that
> we never see.

I feel the same way.

I think the angst was there.  It's very clear, IMO, in POA when he 
prevents Sirius and Lupin from killing Pettigrew.

We have yet to see what JKR really makes of this, but I will feel 
cheated either if:

- Harry kills Voldemort because that's what he has to do
- Deus ex machina kills Voldemort, saving Harry the bother

The classic way to deal with this is for Voldemort's own plans to 
somehow recoil upon his own head, triggered in some way be Harry's 
presence or intervention, hostile to Voldemort, yes, but not 
directly aimed at his life at that point.  Not sure how I feel about 
that one.

I do feel this debate is unexpectedly salient.  We have our Home 
Secretary (and Prime Minister) arguing for various kinds of loss of 
liberty on the ground that it is necessary to prevent or mitigate 
the evils of terrorism.  For me, that's parallel: just as killing 
Voldemort implies that killing is sometimes OK, and so how do we 
decide what killing is or isn't OK, other than 'these killers belong 
to *our* side so they must be OK' (Crouch's aurors), so we adopt 
methods that open the door to the very society that the terrorists 
(allegedly) want in the name of stopping them.

The thought that rough men may be doing violence on my behalf does 
not make *me* sleep more easily at night.

David, who thinks these application-to-life questions will be the 
most fruitful source of debate after Book 7 comes out