Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario

[nrenka]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" 
<kumayama at e...> wrote:

<snip>

> Lyn again:
> At this point, Rowling just hasn't developed enough what she means 
> by having one's sole ripped, and the possible ramifications. The 
> only clear consequence of a soul being ripped that she has 
> presented thus far is actually one of utility, the ability to make 
> a Hx. She implies that a ripped soul is bad, but she has yet to 
> demonstrate in what way it is bad for one. She has definitely left 
> open that one can do good whether or not one's soul has been  
> ripped. 

A ripped sole is generally bad for walking on. :)

Not fully developed, no--but it does fit in with her essentialist 
ideas.  I'm thinking of PoA, and the whole thing there with the 
removal of the soul being a fate worse than death.  It's clearly some 
sort of thing, and to damage/remove it is to do something horrible to 
a person as a person.

>> Nora:
>> I can easily envision a grand law of Potterverse ethics being that 
>> killing is categorically wrong.  Then the interest comes in 
>> dealing with it, the whole issue of lesser of two evils, bad 
>> necessities, mending torn souls, etc.  To take away the essence of 
>> AK as willing death upon another being as a fundamental act...eh, 
>> I don't see it.

> Lyn now: 
> Possible, and you demonstrate how it could be handled with some 
> interest, but I will be disappointed if JKR emphasizes such a view. 
> Of course most of us would like to see our personal ethics be 
> confirmed in the series.

Well, wouldn't we all.  I gave up on that in this series a long time 
ago, so everything I posted upthread is me calling it how I see it in 
what Rowling is writing.  Doesn't mean that I *like* it.

-Nora goes out to enjoy some daylight while it lasts