Comments | likeaglass: On horcruxes and the saving of souls

likeaglass

On horcruxes and the saving of souls

Nov 28, 2005 21:12

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

( The purpose of this (rather scattered and informal, forgive me) essay is to refute this statement of Harry's from OotP, and deal with the fallout from the conclusion that Harry can't possibly murder someone, even Voldemort. )

fandom: harry potter, meta: theories

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

woman_ironing November 29 2005, 22:22:25 UTC

likeaglass November 29 2005, 23:11:33 UTC

It is hard to imagine Harry doing Avada Kedavra. But Harry has killed. He killed Quirrell and DiaryTom. And a basilisk - with a sword! And as a baby he as good as killed Voldemort! Okay, Quirrell and Voldemort perhaps weren't entirely intentional, the basilisk not human, and DiaryTom not yet fully human, but still ...

Er, I think you kind of took my rebuttal :D But, yes, I think there is a difference between intentional and unintentional murder, and AK is definitely intentional.

The prophecy doesn't talk about killing or murdering; it's all about vanquishing and dying.No, it doesn't, but I can't see any other way to get rid of Voldemort once and for all. There could be another way to kill Voldemort, but I would like to think that JKR set up the climax sufficiently, and that we've already seen the means for "vanquishing" Voldemort. The only thing I can think of that would do this is AK. Basically it comes down to my faith in JKR as a writer, that she's set all the pieces in place and now only has to checkmate in Book 7 ( ... )

woman_ironing November 30 2005, 00:06:26 UTC

I'm a great believer in Harry being able to do whatever is necessary. He certainly intended to kill DiaryTom, and didn't the diary spurt inkblood and Tom scream a bit? (Or maybe that was just the film?) I think I might be disappointed if Harry actually kills Voldemort though, unless he does so in order to save someone else perhaps. But I think somehow that something more than killing Voldemort is necessary and Harry will understand this and again do whatever is necessary. One can be vanquished by love, after all.

Thanks for the icon love! Of course I didn't make it but borrowed it from someone cleverer.

likeaglass November 30 2005, 00:40:19 UTC

He certainly intended to kill DiaryTom, and didn't the diary spurt inkblood and Tom scream a bit?

Well, but DiaryTom isn't human. I don't think you would rip your soul by stabbing a diary. Yes, the diary spurted ink and screamed, but destroying a magical object, even if it is a horcrux, seems to me to be a major step away from actually destroying a person, from taking someone's life.

But I think somehow that something more than killing Voldemort is necessary and Harry will understand this and again do whatever is necessary. One can be vanquished by love, after all.I'm a big fan of Harry pulling through in the end, as well, but, like you, would be majorly disappointed if what he needs to do is kill someone. I think what I like most about Harry is his innocence, that he hasn't been spoiled by all these horrible things happening to him. Like Dumbledore said, he has intimate connections to Voldemort and the Dark Arts, yet he's not succumbed to them ( ... )

jane85 November 30 2005, 00:57:37 UTC

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Harry actually killed Quirrell. At least, on the Lexicon, it says that Harry did not actually see Quirrell die in the book like he did in the movie. I believe that when Voldemort had to leave Quirrell's body, the act itself actually killed Quirrell, not Harry.

ireactions November 30 2005, 01:02:21 UTC

I'd argue that Quirrell killed himself; he couldn't touch Harry without intense pain and the act of continuing to touch Harry resulted in Quirrell's death. If one burns his hands by choosing to grip a hot coal, the coal isn't held responsible for the injury.

woman_ironing November 30 2005, 10:31:58 UTC

Oh no, Harry killed him alright. I was going to quote the bit from PS but it's long, so a summary: Quirrell siezes Harry but has to let go because his hands blister. Voldemort orders him to kill Harry. Harry 'by instinct' grabs his face. Quirrell screams, face blistering. Harry realises Quirrell can't touch him and that his only chance is to keep Quirrell in pain. He jumps up and catches Quirrell's arm and hangs on as tight as he can, though his head hurts and he can't see. Quirrell tries to throw Harry off, shrieking terribly but Harry doesn't let go. Someone wrenches him away from Harry and Harry passes out. Dumbledore later tells Harry that Voldemort left Quirrell to die ( ... )

likeaglass December 9 2005, 20:30:27 UTC

Well, I'm still not entirely convinced that Harry meant to kill Quirrell. I think he meant to do whatever he could to get away, and the outcome of that just happened to be Quirrell's death. Of course Quirrell could have been killed by Voldemort leaving him, and Harry's attack didn't help. We just don't know what exactly happened after Harry passed out. I think intent matters, and Harry's intent was to save himself, not kill someone else. But if he goes into battle with Voldemort with the intent of killing him, then he's no better than Voldemort himself.

And again, I think kiling a book is a little bit different from killing a person, no matter how many times that person has split his soul.

Back to all threads