A philosophical question about the attitudes toward killing in fantasy using the example of HP
Would you be disappointed in HP's character or even the series, if he deliberately killed Voldemort?
I started thinking about the topic after reading the fake spoiler, in which TMS, answering a question about Harry/Voldemort final confrontation, expressed the sentiment that Harry would never deliberately kill another human being. Many fans hold a similar view on the subject, which I think is supposed to be a sign of Harry's purity and humanity. I find this attitude quite problematic at best.
In HP series JKR seems to take Tom Robbins's attitude that “There are many things worth living for, a few things worth dying for, and nothing worth killing for.” The damage AK does to the caster's soul, tearing it apart, is horrible and most likely irreversible. Most people, hearing the phrase "deliberately killing", probably imagine Harry throwing AK at Voldemort, but it doesn't have to be this way. Casting a spell, which throws one slightly backwards, on standing in front of the veil or even somewhere high enough above the ground level V would lead to his death too. There are numerous ways to kill a wizard, using completely innocent at first glance spells. So is one's soul torn only after using AK or after deliberately killing somebody with a "harmless" spell too? The first option doesn't make much sense morally, since isn't it the intention, which counts?
Would Harry's unwillingness/inability to deliberately kill V show his good heart as much as being unready and not up to the task? I am sure JKR have thought of something so that V will be defeated without Harry having to destroy the pure wholeness of his soul by killing, but most chances are that in the real life events wouldn't unfold in such a good way (in the sense I am talking about). I hope this doesn't come out as 'I want Harry AK his enemies & make them pay for every single thing' because I really don't share Rowling's love for incessantly punishing bad characters. I just feel that after pretending to raise really complicated issues of life & death, love & hate, choices, the author in the end cheats by creating elaborate subterfuges so that the hero won't be forced to soil his pure soul by killing/doing something else morally grey.
Besides, I don't understand how people can talk of Harry not deliberately killing, when the last book's big adventure is the Horcruxes Hunt. If I put bits of my soul into a few objects and somebody went searching for them, so that I would be mortal once again and could be killed, I would already consider this person in the process of murdering me. The last bit of V soul, which is located in his body, is different, being "the part of him that lived a spectral existence for so many years during his exile; without that, he has no self at all", but probably not as different as most people seem to think. If Harry destroys all Horcruxes & then V is killed by Snape/fluke/love!power melting him like The Wizard of Oz's Witch of the West [remembered the melted blade of Sirius's knife], won't he be just as guilty as [I can't think of the better simile, sorry] Peter, who by giving V the information enabled him to kill Harry's parents? Sure Peter didn't cast AK himself, but isn't he just as responsible as V for their deaths? Still, I am sure Harry won't deliberately kill by AK's definition and thus will remain "pure", while other characters would be considered anything but that and 100% responsible. Since the Japanese Proverb “If you have to kill a snake, kill it once and for all” (which is the only realistic attitude in HP's universe, unless they want to become V's slaves or alternatively being killed) isn't considered good enough for Harry (thus no, not deliberately killing - a somewhat hypocrite sentiment, since it assumes the job will be done by somebody else); and Robert Graves' words "Kill if you must, but never hate: Man is but grass and hate is blight, The sun will scorch you soon or late, Die wholesome then, since you must fight” weren't heard of either [AK apparently = Hate], the only way to stay alive is by "sheer dumb luck".
I have been thinking about pity vs arrogance & the attitude toward enemies in general in fantasy. How is the hero supposed to treat his fallen enemies (if they stay alive, like the situation with Peter in PoA)? The villain would kill the hero in slow tortures, of course. In LoTR Frodo's pity for Gollum saves the world (which I think is great), but on the Evil Overlord list there is one point talking about the villains' arrogance to leave their weak enemies alive to show they pose no threat. Err… wouldn't the same action be considered the sign of a kind soul, if the hero did it? What about heroes showing pity and having this hurt them afterwards or not been so kind, despite wanting to be so, out of practical reasons? Harry has never had to pay a price for something good he has done despite his desires [thus things like starting DA or saving Ginny don't count]. He saved Peter's life [more exactly agreed to feed him to Dementors instead of AK], enabling the latter's escape & V's return, but D told "the day will come you will be happy, you saved his life" and I believe we will see that. In the last book, most likely, V will be defeated again in a way, preventing Harry from making what needs to be done [killing V] and thus sacrificing his purity [I rather like Frodo in the end of LoTR].
The same desire to keep Harry as pure as possible has led to the demonizing of V in HBP, btw. Our hero, whose greatest strength is love, has to view his enemy as the incarnation of evil so that when he kills him, he won't really 'sully' his hands by killing a real, even if horrible, person.
So would you be disappointed? Why or why not? I am very interested to hear what other fans think about the issue.
* limyaael has written about treatment of enemies in the rant Writing nobility of spirit without being sappy and in the poll of the suggested rants my idea Attitudes towards killing/violence still firmly holds the second place [the first is of Using non-Western influence in fantasy], so I am eager to read her rant on the subject.