Ma chere, you are probably the closest thing to an absolute genius in my whole f-list - at least since Kenna Hijja is not there - but in this you suffer from the problem that you have never been Christian and know fairly little about it. Above all, your tone rather than your content suggests that you simply missed the point of my opening paragraph - namely, that Christianity and morality are two different things. So are Christianity and "religion". What you call "religion" is certainly present in JKR; it is what I call paganism, and, if you read again, you will find that I approve of it, and only wish JKR had more. It is an attitude of honour and respect for all things that deserve it, natural and supernatural. Christianity, on the other hand, is a doctrine, indeed a philosophy. Some of the finest men in history have not been Christian. Some of the worst scoundrels have been (although I as a Christian would argue that they have misunderstood and misapplied the doctrine). It is my view that the impact of Christianity on a
( ... )
Probably you are right about this. I can't help thinking, though, that there is a sense in which Christ became the Master of Death by embracing it. There is also a sense in the HP books that because HP embraced death it didn't have a hold on him but because Voldemort did resist it did.
My first impulse was to answer in the negative, but you have a really good point there. However, JKR has given a proper magical reason why Harry did not die - though he came to the edge of death: Voldemort himself bore Harry's own protection in himself. All he had managed to do was destroy his own Horcrux. Death itself, as such, is not involved here - but we know that Our Lord defeated death itself.
To control or to master Death in the way you seem to understand it would be to bring destruction, to let it make a puppet of you and bring Death to people. Suppose it meant the opposite? Suppose it meant removing death from those who had it too early - those who die in stupid accidents or from cruel diseases, the victims of crime and greed, of starvation, of thirst? You have given no reason whatever why a "master of death" should be evil, and your reasoning comes close to implying that all human beings, if they had such an opportunity, would abuse it. "Mastery" is non-moral. A master of archery may become a bandit who murders people on the highway, or train an army to defend his kingdom from bandits and enemies. A master of music may use it to compose the Ninth Symphony, or to seduce his female students. You have no reason whatever to argue that a master of Death must be a destroyer.
Death is not something like archery or music, which are skills that can be attained To use the word "mastery" in this context is to imply exactly that. Mastery applies to skills that can be attained. If it is not used in that meaning, then it is used misleadingly. Tell me about one thing, one bit of potential, one quality that mankind hasn't exploited and abused No, my dear - you tell me of one thing, one bit of potential, one quality, that this same mankind has not used to the height of possible excellence. To run down "mankind" as if you did not belong to it is both cheap and fraudulent - you seem to forget that saints and heroes are as common as villains and crminals.
Have a look at the closing chapter of my fic "A crime to outlive him", just published in my LJ (with a weird datestamp, alas - no fault of mine). It contains stuff that you might like to discuss.
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Suppose it meant the opposite? Suppose it meant removing death from those who had it too early - those who die in stupid accidents or from cruel diseases, the victims of crime and greed, of starvation, of thirst? You have given no reason whatever why a "master of death" should be evil, and your reasoning comes close to implying that all human beings, if they had such an opportunity, would abuse it. "Mastery" is non-moral. A master of archery may become a bandit who murders people on the highway, or train an army to defend his kingdom from bandits and enemies. A master of music may use it to compose the Ninth Symphony, or to seduce his female students. You have no reason whatever to argue that a master of Death must be a destroyer.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
To use the word "mastery" in this context is to imply exactly that. Mastery applies to skills that can be attained. If it is not used in that meaning, then it is used misleadingly.
Tell me about one thing, one bit of potential, one quality that mankind hasn't exploited and abused
No, my dear - you tell me of one thing, one bit of potential, one quality, that this same mankind has not used to the height of possible excellence. To run down "mankind" as if you did not belong to it is both cheap and fraudulent - you seem to forget that saints and heroes are as common as villains and crminals.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment