So much time.

[bookworm777]

I have one question. if Voldy knew he had a lot of Horcruxes, why did he go after the Sorcerer's Stone when he died instead of using a Horcrux?

[phrodo41]

and where does Unicorn blood fit into the equation?

The description of what happens when you drink Unicorn blood sounds an awful lot like what happens when you become a Vampire - you become immortal, but at a great cost.

Anyone read the magician's nephew? It sounds an awful lot like what happens to the High Queen Jadis (who becomes the White Witch) after eating the forbidden fruit.

Message Edited by phrodo41 on 04-02-200711:58 PM

[PattyBNUChick]

Good question. The elixir of life right? What exactly does that mean? Would it have given him strength? He was very weak, maybe he wanted the stone for strength and all, but would it have given him a body? He needed the cauldron/graveyard rebirthing to get back into a body.

---

bookworm777 wrote:
I have one question. if Voldy knew he had a lot of Horcruxes, why did he go after the Sorcerer's Stone when he died instead of using a Horcrux?

---

[PattyBNUChick]

I've always wondered about the unicorn blood. It gives you 'a half-life, a cursed life'. WHat does that mean a half-life?

---

phrodo41 wrote:
and where does Unicorn blood fit into the equation?

The description of what happens when you drink Unicorn blood sounds an awful lot like what happens when you become a Vampire - you become immortal, but at a great cost.

Anyone read the magician's nephew? It sounds an awful lot like what happens to the High Queen Jadis (who becomes the White Witch) after eating the forbidden fruit.

Message Edited by phrodo41 on 04-02-200711:58 PM

---

[bookworm777]

That's weird, you two are the two that were the only posters on my Diary Horcrux (or not) post. Ha, ha. Anyways . . .

I've always thought that unicorn blood would make a huge appearance in DH just because of the whole half-life thing. That reminds me of Horcruxes. You need to do something that tears your soul to make a Horcrux. Would unicorn blood hurt your soul if you drank it even if it continued your life? I know, I'm ranting, but I've always thought unicorn blood (or even unicorns themselves) had a huge part in the series.

[iheartbooks]

Thats a good point, but what if voldemort didnt have the horcruxes (sorry if its spelled wrong) at the time that he was seen drinking the unicorn blood? He probaly planned to get a body through the stone and a soul by drinking unicorn blood. When that failed he then turned to plan B which was getting a body through that potion in the graveyard and a soul through the horcruxes.

[bookworm777]

---

iheartbooks wrote:
Thats a good point, but what if voldemort didnt have the horcruxes (sorry if its spelled wrong) at the time that he was seen drinking the unicorn blood? He probaly planned to get a body through the stone and a soul by drinking unicorn blood. When that failed he then turned to plan B which was getting a body through that potion in the graveyard and a soul through the horcruxes.

---

He should have already had his Horcruxes, or at least the ring or diary.

[Molly]

Voldemort explains this to us in "The Man With Two Faces" in PS/SS (and more in GOF). The horcruxes (that we don't yet know about) keep his essence, his "spirit" intact... but he's powerless without a body (less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost). He was sharing Quirrel's body but his spirit was too weak and Quirrel too weak a wizard... so he had Quirrel drink Unicorn blood to strengthen himself (and remember, possessing living creatures shortens their lives) until he could obtain the Stone which he could somehow use to create a body.

Firenze explains the "half life" to us when he rescues Harry from Quirrelmort in the forest. The "half life" means you are alive, but cursed. You are cursed because you have slain something pure and defenseless merely to save yourself. Firenze then goes on to explain the unicorn blood is only a temporary need, until such time as the elixer could return "whomever" to full strength and power.

He doesn't need to "go get" any horcruxes. They merely contain pieces of his soul. But, as Dumbledore tells us in HBP, the 7th piece of Voldemort's soul WAS that part of him that had possessed Quirrel. It was the only part of his soul that didn't already reside SOMEWHERE. It was the part of his soul that HAD resided in the body he lost when his killing curse rebounded upon himself. The body died, the spirit did not. And, due to the "steps toward immortality" Voldemort had taken (I would assume this isn't too much more than the other portions of his soul - still intact in their hiding places - keeping him anchored to "here" ), it did not "move on".

Imagine the horcruxes as savings accounts. You spend everything you have in your checking account, but you aren't dead in the water because you have a reserve (or 6 of them) elsewhere. Same thing.

[PattyBNUChick]

At some point (maybe the graveyard in GOF?) VOldemort says one or more of my experiments worked. Is he talking about Horcruxes when he says one or more? If so, then is he not sure that all his horcruxes are 'valid'? or 'made correctly'? Or has he done other things besides Horcruxes to maintain immportality and so does Harry possibly need to figure out what that thing is as well?

---

Molly wrote:
Voldemort explains this to us in "The Man With Two Faces" in PS/SS (and more in GOF). The horcruxes (that we don't yet know about) keep his essence, his "spirit" intact... but he's powerless without a body (less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost). He was sharing Quirrel's body but his spirit was too weak and Quirrel too weak a wizard... so he had Quirrel drink Unicorn blood to strengthen himself (and remember, possessing living creatures shortens their lives) until he could obtain the Stone which he could somehow use to create a body.

Firenze explains the "half life" to us when he rescues Harry from Quirrelmort in the forest. The "half life" means you are alive, but cursed. You are cursed because you have slain something pure and defenseless merely to save yourself. Firenze then goes on to explain the unicorn blood is only a temporary need, until such time as the elixer could return "whomever" to full strength and power.

He doesn't need to "go get" any horcruxes. They merely contain pieces of his soul. But, as Dumbledore tells us in HBP, the 7th piece of Voldemort's soul WAS that part of him that had possessed Quirrel. It was the only part of his soul that didn't already reside SOMEWHERE. It was the part of his soul that HAD resided in the body he lost when his killing curse rebounded upon himself. The body died, the spirit did not. And, due to the "steps toward immortality" Voldemort had taken (I would assume this isn't too much more than the other portions of his soul - still intact in their hiding places - keeping him anchored to "here" ), it did not "move on".

Imagine the horcruxes as savings accounts. You spend everything you have in your checking account, but you aren't dead in the water because you have a reserve (or 6 of them) elsewhere. Same thing.

---

[Molly]

---

PattyBNUChick wrote:
At some point (maybe the graveyard in GOF?) VOldemort says one or more of my experiments worked. Is he talking about Horcruxes when he says one or more? If so, then is he not sure that all his horcruxes are 'valid'? or 'made correctly'? Or has he done other things besides Horcruxes to maintain immportality and so does Harry possibly need to figure out what that thing is as well?

---

Could be there is more for Harry to find. I think it more likely he (Voldemort) was himself unsure how his "experiments" had worked. Dumbledore tells us at some point in HBP no one had ever split their soul into more than two, so each of Voldemort's Horcruxes was a step (an experiment, if you will) into the goal of immortality. Certainly Voldemort's questioning of Slughorn on the matter tells us he was really functioning on mere theory ("Isn't seven the most powerful magical number?" ).

Brings up the interesting point that Harry knows more about the success/failure of Voldemort's experiments than Voldemort himself does. Voldemort knows ONE horcrux was destroyed - not two (or possibly three - if RAB has already destroyed the locket horcrux). Hopefully the false security of believing his "experiments" are still secret and worked, while having no clue what has been done toward their individual destruction not only gives Harry an edge, but also makes Voldemort overconfident and perhaps careless. Especially with Dumbledore dead... in Voldemort's mind there is no real barrier left to him.

[Solitud]

---

PattyBNUChick wrote:
At some point (maybe the graveyard in GOF?) VOldemort says one or more of my experiments worked. Is he talking about Horcruxes when he says one or more? If so, then is he not sure that all his horcruxes are 'valid'? or 'made correctly'? Or has he done other things besides Horcruxes to maintain immportality and so does Harry possibly need to figure out what that thing is as well?

---

Molly wrote:
Voldemort explains this to us in "The Man With Two Faces" in PS/SS (and more in GOF). The horcruxes (that we don't yet know about) keep his essence, his "spirit" intact... but he's powerless without a body (less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost). He was sharing Quirrel's body but his spirit was too weak and Quirrel too weak a wizard... so he had Quirrel drink Unicorn blood to strengthen himself (and remember, possessing living creatures shortens their lives) until he could obtain the Stone which he could somehow use to create a body.

Firenze explains the "half life" to us when he rescues Harry from Quirrelmort in the forest. The "half life" means you are alive, but cursed. You are cursed because you have slain something pure and defenseless merely to save yourself. Firenze then goes on to explain the unicorn blood is only a temporary need, until such time as the elixer could return "whomever" to full strength and power.

He doesn't need to "go get" any horcruxes. They merely contain pieces of his soul. But, as Dumbledore tells us in HBP, the 7th piece of Voldemort's soul WAS that part of him that had possessed Quirrel. It was the only part of his soul that didn't already reside SOMEWHERE. It was the part of his soul that HAD resided in the body he lost when his killing curse rebounded upon himself. The body died, the spirit did not. And, due to the "steps toward immortality" Voldemort had taken (I would assume this isn't too much more than the other portions of his soul - still intact in their hiding places - keeping him anchored to "here" ), it did not "move on".

Imagine the horcruxes as savings accounts. You spend everything you have in your checking account, but you aren't dead in the water because you have a reserve (or 6 of them) elsewhere. Same thing.

---

---

I agree with Molly's coments (both her last posts). I do believe that beside of his horcruxes he is also referring to the experiment he had just performed to obtain a body. I think he did not know at that point in GOF that his diary had been destroyed nor did he know that RAB had removed the locket from the cave (yes, I believe that happened even before LV's fall).

Message Edited by Solitud on 04-11-200701:24 PM

[Dkrupp]

---

PattyBNUChick wrote:
At some point (maybe the graveyard in GOF?) VOldemort says one or more of my experiments worked. Is he talking about Horcruxes when he says one or more? If so, then is he not sure that all his horcruxes are 'valid'? or 'made correctly'? Or has he done other things besides Horcruxes to maintain immportality and so does Harry possibly need to figure out what that thing is as well?

---

This is one of the big inconsistencies people cite about Horcruxes. Supposedly, they were incredibly secret, yet in this scene from GoF, Voldemort is blabbering on about them, if not by name. The experiments in question - the Horcruxes, and the potion to regain a valid body, are the only two in my mind.

I think once Harry gets the Horcruxes out of the picture, he'll be able to defeat Voldemort successfully, though I still don't think it will be as simple as Harry killing him.

I've always had a problem with Harry's line from HBP (Am. Hdbk. Ed., page 77), which goes, "It could be me next. But if it is, I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with me as I can, and Voldemort too if I can manage it." To which Dumbledore responds approvingly. We also see three spider references, two spoken by Dumbledore, in the three pages of the Weasley broom shed chat.

Why all the spiders? And why is Dumbledore so accepting of Harry wanting to kill as many bad people as he can, he is after all, the man of second chances? This is the only part of HBP where Dumbledore feels really off to me. Anyone else bothered by it, or have any ideas of what is going on with Dumbledore in that scene?

[PattyBNUChick]

I think its Snape in the cave and either Snape or Slughorn (or maybe both at different times) giving some or all of those HBP lessons to Harry. I think Dumbledore was resting or some state of suspended animation or something where he didnt have much strength and reserved it for the big Hogsmeade switch and onto the Tower where he bit the dust. Hope this makes sense.

---

Dkrupp wrote:

---

PattyBNUChick wrote:
At some point (maybe the graveyard in GOF?) VOldemort says one or more of my experiments worked. Is he talking about Horcruxes when he says one or more? If so, then is he not sure that all his horcruxes are 'valid'? or 'made correctly'? Or has he done other things besides Horcruxes to maintain immportality and so does Harry possibly need to figure out what that thing is as well?

---

This is one of the big inconsistencies people cite about Horcruxes. Supposedly, they were incredibly secret, yet in this scene from GoF, Voldemort is blabbering on about them, if not by name. The experiments in question - the Horcruxes, and the potion to regain a valid body, are the only two in my mind.

I think once Harry gets the Horcruxes out of the picture, he'll be able to defeat Voldemort successfully, though I still don't think it will be as simple as Harry killing him.

I've always had a problem with Harry's line from HBP (Am. Hdbk. Ed., page 77), which goes, "It could be me next. But if it is, I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with me as I can, and Voldemort too if I can manage it." To which Dumbledore responds approvingly. We also see three spider references, two spoken by Dumbledore, in the three pages of the Weasley broom shed chat.

Why all the spiders? And why is Dumbledore so accepting of Harry wanting to kill as many bad people as he can, he is after all, the man of second chances? This is the only part of HBP where Dumbledore feels really off to me. Anyone else bothered by it, or have any ideas of what is going on with Dumbledore in that scene?

---

[Solitud]

---

Dkrupp wrote:

---

PattyBNUChick wrote:
At some point (maybe the graveyard in GOF?) VOldemort says one or more of my experiments worked. Is he talking about Horcruxes when he says one or more? If so, then is he not sure that all his horcruxes are 'valid'? or 'made correctly'? Or has he done other things besides Horcruxes to maintain immportality and so does Harry possibly need to figure out what that thing is as well?

---

This is one of the big inconsistencies people cite about Horcruxes. Supposedly, they were incredibly secret, yet in this scene from GoF, Voldemort is blabbering on about them, if not by name. The experiments in question - the Horcruxes, and the potion to regain a valid body, are the only two in my mind.

I think once Harry gets the Horcruxes out of the picture, he'll be able to defeat Voldemort successfully, though I still don't think it will be as simple as Harry killing him.

I've always had a problem with Harry's line from HBP (Am. Hdbk. Ed., page 77), which goes, "It could be me next. But if it is, I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with me as I can, and Voldemort too if I can manage it." To which Dumbledore responds approvingly. We also see three spider references, two spoken by Dumbledore, in the three pages of the Weasley broom shed chat.

Why all the spiders? And why is Dumbledore so accepting of Harry wanting to kill as many bad people as he can, he is after all, the man of second chances? This is the only part of HBP where Dumbledore feels really off to me. Anyone else bothered by it, or have any ideas of what is going on with Dumbledore in that scene?

---

About LV bragging about his experiments since no one, or not many, know what experiments he has conducted it is only useful to make his followers admire him. Even if the DEs knew he has made horcruxes they don't know which artifacts were used for that purpose. How did RAB found out is a mystery that I'm sure will be revealed in the coming book.

[Molly]

---

Dkrupp wrote:

---

PattyBNUChick wrote:
At some point (maybe the graveyard in GOF?) VOldemort says one or more of my experiments worked. Is he talking about Horcruxes when he says one or more? If so, then is he not sure that all his horcruxes are 'valid'? or 'made correctly'? Or has he done other things besides Horcruxes to maintain immportality and so does Harry possibly need to figure out what that thing is as well?

---

This is one of the big inconsistencies people cite about Horcruxes. Supposedly, they were incredibly secret, yet in this scene from GoF, Voldemort is blabbering on about them, if not by name. The experiments in question - the Horcruxes, and the potion to regain a valid body, are the only two in my mind.

I think once Harry gets the Horcruxes out of the picture, he'll be able to defeat Voldemort successfully, though I still don't think it will be as simple as Harry killing him.

I've always had a problem with Harry's line from HBP (Am. Hdbk. Ed., page 77), which goes, "It could be me next. But if it is, I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with me as I can, and Voldemort too if I can manage it." To which Dumbledore responds approvingly. We also see three spider references, two spoken by Dumbledore, in the three pages of the Weasley broom shed chat.

Why all the spiders? And why is Dumbledore so accepting of Harry wanting to kill as many bad people as he can, he is after all, the man of second chances? This is the only part of HBP where Dumbledore feels really off to me. Anyone else bothered by it, or have any ideas of what is going on with Dumbledore in that scene?

---

Was it Solitud who answered this saying (essentially) Voldemort was bragging, enhancing his mystique to his followers? I agree.

Which makes perfect sense if you are a Voldemort. You NEED your people to believe you're omniscient. He's standing right there in front of them, when for years they have believed him dead... what power has this man, their leader, got to conquer death? It would be enough to make you fall to your knees and kiss his robes. As they did. But what if you got over your awe just enough to start asking questions? What if (as someone - RAB - apparently has), they figure out your deep dark secret is nothing more than a spell you recite after committing murder? These are Death Eaters. They don't care about murder. All of a sudden Voldemort isn't so amazing. All of a sudden maybe THEY could do what he has done... so he brags. Gives them just enough to keep that awe at the proper levels, answering the question without actually answering. Thus keeping himself on the throne and protected by the power of their awe and fear all at the same time.

Yes, the horcruxes gone means Harry can kill him. No, it won't be simple. Dumbledore told us these things. Makes the English cover quite interesting. What treasures beyond gold were added to Harry's vault upon Siruis' death? If you believe RAB is Regulus, it may be the locket has found it's way right to Harry.

Spiders? They (Dumbledore and Harry) are in a garden shed. Loads of spiders in garden sheds. Didn't ring any bells for me. Interesting to note though. I'll remember you if something comes out of it!

I think you may have missed the main thrust of their discussion there. Harry is saying, in conjunction with Sirius' death - and Madame Bones and Emmaline Vance, that he recognizes he cannot wallow in despair or give up. Any one of them COULD be next. He can choose to cry, hide, bemoan his (and everyone's) fate... or he can enjoy what he has and be ready to face the fight when it comes. And when it does come, as many of the bad guys as is possible are going to be taken out of the picture before Harry himself will be. Dumbledore agrees.

This is not incongruous of Dumbledore. After all, he has twice organized and headed the opposition - having come to the conclusion he can no longer frighten or negotiate Voldemort into the right choices. Harry does not SEEK or WANT the fight, neither does Dumbledore or any other wizard not on Voldemort's side. But not wanting it doesn't make it go away. It HAS to be faced. It's like Siruis tells Fred and George when their father is taken to St. Mungo's ... there are things worth fighting and dying for.

If the "good" side isn't willing (or able) to fight, it's not a war - it's just genocide. Which guarantees the bad guys win. Dumbledore DEFINITELY does not want that. And if people - good and bad - didn't die in war, it wouldn't be called war. It would be called a picnic. A very tense picnic.

[Dkrupp]

---

Molly wrote:
Spiders? They (Dumbledore and Harry) are in a garden shed. Loads of spiders in garden sheds. Didn't ring any bells for me. Interesting to note though. I'll remember you if something comes out of it!

I think you may have missed the main thrust of their discussion there. Harry is saying, in conjunction with Sirius' death - and Madame Bones and Emmaline Vance, that he recognizes he cannot wallow in despair or give up. Any one of them COULD be next. He can choose to cry, hide, bemoan his (and everyone's) fate... or he can enjoy what he has and be ready to face the fight when it comes. And when it does come, as many of the bad guys as is possible are going to be taken out of the picture before Harry himself will be. Dumbledore agrees.

This is not incongruous of Dumbledore. After all, he has twice organized and headed the opposition - having come to the conclusion he can no longer frighten or negotiate Voldemort into the right choices. Harry does not SEEK or WANT the fight, neither does Dumbledore or any other wizard not on Voldemort's side. But not wanting it doesn't make it go away. It HAS to be faced. It's like Siruis tells Fred and George when their father is taken to St. Mungo's ... there are things worth fighting and dying for.

If the "good" side isn't willing (or able) to fight, it's not a war - it's just genocide. Which guarantees the bad guys win. Dumbledore DEFINITELY does not want that. And if people - good and bad - didn't die in war, it wouldn't be called war. It would be called a picnic. A very tense picnic.

---

I agree with your read of Voldemort in the graveyard scene of GoF. I don't agree with a bit of what I've quoted above.

My trouble is a Dumbledore who goes from telling Harry his power is the power of love, to patting him on the back over his ambition to kill as many Death Eaters as possible and Voldemort as well before he himself dies.

Dumbledore is above killing, and the line, "my father wouldn't want you to become murderers over him" (my paraphrase, from Harry's choice not to allow Sirius and Lupin to kill Pettigrew in the shrieking shack)leads me to believe Harry isn't a killer either. There are people in these stories who have different roles, and I don't see Harry as murderer. Even if he were to kill people who are "bad" his soul would be tarnished. This is a bit like Dumbledore's quandry of saving the life of the boy he has grown to love, at the cost of the many nameless faceless people he has unknowingly sacrificed, and I don't see him asking Harry to do what he himself could not accomplish.

Is it better to die with one's soul intact, or to sacrifice your own soul (by murdering another) for the greater good? I believe Dumbledore asked Snape to do the latter, but expects Harry to be able to defeat Voldemort, likely with Snape's help again, without Harry harming his own soul. Just as the Death Eaters are not to touch Harry, I don't see Dumbledore encouraging Harry to try to kill them (though I'm not so thick that I don't understand people die in wars.) The Order as a whole seems to murder as a last resort - the only Death Eater we see who dies in HBP is killed by friendly fire, not an Order member. Harry is ill-equipped to kill - he can use hexes, but his conscience would not let him seriously injure anyone. (He was so sorry when he hurt Draco, who he possibly hated, with the Secumsempra spell, and was punished severely for using dark magic by Snape.) Harry's uncommon ability is to love, not to hate, so I do think this read of Dumledore is not in line with the Dumbledore of the rest of the series. Overall, it's just a couple of lines, but it does bother me.

Dumbledore defeated the Dark Lord Grindenwald, but he didn't kill him. I don't think Harry will kill Voldemort either. He is not to use Unforgiveable Curses, as this diminishes his power, which is derived from love and being pure of heart.

My read of Dumbledore is that the most unfortunate thing he knows is the prophecy, but that the gleam of triumph over Harry's blood, was the realization that Harry could possibly defeat Voldemort without having to kill him. I'm aware my read of Dumbledore is very idealistic, but I hope it's right!

As for the spiders, it is likely a throw-away detail, but the fact that Dumbledore himself references them twice in two pages makes me pay attention.

[Molly]

You may well be right about the gleam in Dumbledore's eye... and it would be very nice if the ultimate battle can be won without the hero killing the villian. Lord knows I don't want to argue with anyone over an answer we'll have shortly enough.

But I must disagree on one fine point. Murder destroys the soul. Murder. Not killing. To kill in self defense - or the defense of others - is not murder. I assure you, were you and I on a train platform and some bad man was going to kill you, I wouldn't think to shrug at you and say "Dude, sorry, can't tarnish my soul" and just watch you die. Were I able to do so, I would stop, harm, maim or kill the bad guy before he could get you. This is an honorable choice. Much more honorable than standing by and simply allowing innocents to die. And it doesn't make me a "killer".

Harry is not only ABLE to do so (stop the Dark Lord), he is the ONLY ONE able to do so. Were he to stand by and allow Voldemort to live and continue killing, he would be an accomplice to every evil deed Voldemort ordered or completed himself.

Would it be nice if Voldemort could be stopped without death? Sure. Is it especially likely or reasonable? I don't think so. Jo is an insanely talented author. If anyone could pull it off she could. I just don't see Voldemort as a real candidate for rehabilitation and positive reinstatement to society.

Also, we don't know that Dumbledore did or didn't kill Grindelwald. We only know he defeated him.

[Dkrupp]

---

Molly wrote:
You may well be right about the gleam in Dumbledore's eye... and it would be very nice if the ultimate battle can be won without the hero killing the villian. Lord knows I don't want to argue with anyone over an answer we'll have shortly enough.

But I must disagree on one fine point. Murder destroys the soul. Murder. Not killing. To kill in self defense - or the defense of others - is not murder. I assure you, were you and I on a train platform and some bad man was going to kill you, I wouldn't think to shrug at you and say "Dude, sorry, can't tarnish my soul" and just watch you die. Were I able to do so, I would stop, harm, maim or kill the bad guy before he could get you. This is an honorable choice. Much more honorable than standing by and simply allowing innocents to die. And it doesn't make me a "killer".

Harry is not only ABLE to do so (stop the Dark Lord), he is the ONLY ONE able to do so. Were he to stand by and allow Voldemort to live and continue killing, he would be an accomplice to every evil deed Voldemort ordered or completed himself.

Would it be nice if Voldemort could be stopped without death? Sure. Is it especially likely or reasonable? I don't think so. Jo is an insanely talented author. If anyone could pull it off she could. I just don't see Voldemort as a real candidate for rehabilitation and positive reinstatement to society.

Also, we don't know that Dumbledore did or didn't kill Grindelwald. We only know he defeated him.

---

Okay, I'll agree and disagree again. I don't think the finale is being set up as Harry killing Voldemort in an act of self-defense, or to protect another at that time. It's murder or be murdered, not protect Ron and Hermione or save yourself only because he's after you. Harry chooses to go after Voldemort himself. I admire him for it, but your scenario doesn't hold true. No matter how bad a person is, or is perceived to be, unless there are very extenuating circumstances, like your train platform set-up, the good person doesn't get to just decide to kill.

You're overstepping to say if Harry chooses not to go after Voldemort he is an accomplice to Voldemort's horrible deeds. Harry has a choice, and he makes a courageous one, but not having enough courage to face Voldemort does not make him responsible for someone else's deeds.

It is "kill or be killed" because of the prophecy, but I still hang onto Dumbledore saying "You're setting too much store by the prophecy." Harry doesn't have to follow the prophecy because it is prophesied. He chooses to go after Voldemort because he doesn't want to live in the world with him. (I'm still thinking if Voldemort is absolutely killed, it will be one of his own who completes the deed - my leading contendors for the honor are Snape, Draco, Pettigrew, or Bellatrix.)

For a real world analogy, say we have a psychotic serial killer and the police are after him. One particular officer is highly motivated, as the serial killer taunts him and killed his entire family. Should that officer kill the serial killer if he has the chance to do so, or should he capture him peacefully if possible? You said you'd stop, harm, maim, or kill to save me from the bad guy. What if you could just stop him, but consciously chose to kill him. Sure, you'd probably be okay legally, but wouldn't you know you took a life that you needn't have taken?

Remember, our author is an active member of Amnesty International and seems to oppose the death penalty. I don't disagree that there aren't instances where killing someone is the only option - I'm just not sure this is one of them. And, I agree, Voldemort isn't up for rehabilitation. But couldn't there be another alternative besides killing him? (Azkaban, St. Mungo's, I'd even prefer a Dementor's kiss to Harry finishing him off.) His fate is already worse than death, as his quest for immortality will prevent him from entering the "next great adventure." His tampering with his soul will cost him what he seems to crave - power and immortality.

If Dumbledore had killed Grindenwald, we'd know that. If Dumbledore killed him, I'll eat one of my children.

Thanks for helping me think through my ideas. Your argument is well-made, although I still don't agree with some of the finer points.

[dcsbelle]

Hey, doesn't that make TWO children up for marination now?
Seriously, I just don't think Harry has it in him to kill anybody deliberately. As furious as he was at Wormtail in the shrieking shack he still couldn't let Sirius and Remus kill him any more than he could bring himself to kill Sirius when he first arrived there and still thought Sirius was responsible for his parents' deaths. I don't call that weakness, however; I call it mercy and compassion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Okay, I'll agree and disagree again. I don't think the finale is being set up as Harry killing Voldemort in an act of self-defense, or to protect another at that time. It's murder or be murdered, not protect Ron and Hermione or save yourself only because he's after you. Harry chooses to go after Voldemort himself. I admire him for it, but your scenario doesn't hold true. No matter how bad a person is, or is perceived to be, unless there are very extenuating circumstances, like your train platform set-up, the good person doesn't get to just decide to kill.

You're overstepping to say if Harry chooses not to go after Voldemort he is an accomplice to Voldemort's horrible deeds. Harry has a choice, and he makes a courageous one, but not having enough courage to face Voldemort does not make him responsible for someone else's deeds.

It is "kill or be killed" because of the prophecy, but I still hang onto Dumbledore saying "You're setting too much store by the prophecy." Harry doesn't have to follow the prophecy because it is prophesied. He chooses to go after Voldemort because he doesn't want to live in the world with him. (I'm still thinking if Voldemort is absolutely killed, it will be one of his own who completes the deed - my leading contendors for the honor are Snape, Draco, Pettigrew, or Bellatrix.)

For a real world analogy, say we have a psychotic serial killer and the police are after him. One particular officer is highly motivated, as the serial killer taunts him and killed his entire family. Should that officer kill the serial killer if he has the chance to do so, or should he capture him peacefully if possible? You said you'd stop, harm, maim, or kill to save me from the bad guy. What if you could just stop him, but consciously chose to kill him. Sure, you'd probably be okay legally, but wouldn't you know you took a life that you needn't have taken?

Remember, our author is an active member of Amnesty International and seems to oppose the death penalty. I don't disagree that there aren't instances where killing someone is the only option - I'm just not sure this is one of them. And, I agree, Voldemort isn't up for rehabilitation. But couldn't there be another alternative besides killing him? (Azkaban, St. Mungo's, I'd even prefer a Dementor's kiss to Harry finishing him off.) His fate is already worse than death, as his quest for immortality will prevent him from entering the "next great adventure." His tampering with his soul will cost him what he seems to crave - power and immortality.

If Dumbledore had killed Grindenwald, we'd know that. If Dumbledore killed him, I'll eat one of my children.

Thanks for helping me think through my ideas. Your argument is well-made, although I still don't agree with some of the finer points.

---

Message Edited by dcsbelle on 04-13-200701:38 AM

[phrodo41]

Here's a thing... Jo said that Voldemort is beyond the point of redemption. She says everyone else in the story is redeemable, but not Voldemort.

So, Harry would be more justified in actually killing Voldemort than he would be in killing, say, Snape or Umbridge. Because there's at least a remote chance that Snape and Umbridge could redeem themselves somehow.