On horcruxes and the saving of souls

[likeaglass]

It was sunny and the grounds around him were full of laughing people, and even though he felt as distant from them as though he belonged to a different race, it was still very hard to believe as he sat here that his life must include, or end in, murder....

OotP, 855-856

Comments

[sigune]

Interesting essay!

Like you, I agree that Harry can't, and in fact mustn't, kill. It will be difficult for me to accept, in the world that Rowling has created, that Harry vanquishes Voldemort by Avada Kedavra. It would be descending to the level of the bad guys and, indeed, tearing his soul. I believe with you that, quite apart from any motives or plans we can only take a stab at, Snape made the right choice by not encouraging a sixteen-year-old to kill someone, even if it meant he had to do the killing himself; he effectively saved Draco's soul.

I sometimes think that Snape's capacity to kill - or more generally, to do extreme things that other, 'softer' people would object to - is one of the reasons why Dumbledore kept him around at all... He needs people like that; an army of goody-goodies was never going to suffice, witness his friendship with Mad-Eye Moody *and* his own extreme demands of people (like Harry in the cave).

Still, I do feel that Snape's killing Dumbledore (even if he was already dying, and even if it was necessary) is an unforgivable thing in Rowling's eyes, and he's going to pay for it with his own life. I don't think his function is to kill Voldemort; I suspect Rowling has cooked up a nicely painful ending for Mr Evil through the Horcruxes and such, and that Harry will be able to destroy him in a way that does not involve a Killing Curse. (At that point I'm going to ask myself the question why a clean Killing Curse tears your soul whereas, say, bashing someone to death apparently wouldn't, but I'll take about that when the book comes out, LOL.) And Snape (*sniff*) will kick the bucket before that.

[likeaglass]

Thanks :)

I believe with you that, quite apart from any motives or plans we can only take a stab at, Snape made the right choice by not encouraging a sixteen-year-old to kill someone, even if it meant he had to do the killing himself; he effectively saved Draco's soul.

Oh yes, definitely. Snape may or may not have been working for Dumbledore, and he may or may not have only been doing it to save his own skin, but whatever the reason, the outcome is the same. A teenager's soul was saved from destruction, at great personal cost.

I sometimes think that Snape's capacity to kill - or more generally, to do extreme things that other, 'softer' people would object to - is one of the reasons why Dumbledore kept him around at all

Yes, I've thought that, as well. I can't imagine McGonagall or Remus letting loose with an AK, but Snape is obviously the exception.

God, I hope Snape doesn't die, but I think you're right, and that's where it's heading. At which point I will set my book on fire and run screaming into the night in anguish DDD: Well, probably not, but I'll be upset. I think Rowling thinking up a painful death is slightly unlikely, though, because, no matter what she says, these are books mainly geared towards children-young adults. And she has a history of killing people off with painless means: Cedric with AK, Sirius by drapery. I just don't think the Order would be capable of something suitably brutal, and I don't think Harry's going to go apeshit and start whacking Voldemort with a club (though, I must admit, that is quite the mental image :D)