|
Post by queenie on Jul 22, 2009 21:32:46 GMT -5
I think starting a new thread on the guants would be a great idea. Harry didn't kill Voldemort. Harry was going to use expeliramus and Voldemort his him with a killing curse that rebounded against him. Harry offered Voldemort the chance to repent which he scoffed at. Whether Harry really believed V. could or would is immaterial. Voldemort refused. The way in which Voldemort died is one thing - what I'm talking about is the means that JKR gave to Harry to kill him. She gave him ownership of the Death Star Elder Wand (my personal nickname for it.) I saw it as kind of an... dammit. It's hard to explain. I kind of saw it as a backtrack of, "Love has an indelible power all its own," and amended it to, "Love has power, sure, but more importantly, it makes you worthy of possessing power. Power that you happen to have inherited through a series of extremely convoluted circumstances." As in, to quote Rhett Butler, "You're not a bit sorry for what you've done, but you're sorry that you'll get caught." ?? All right, fine, I was an optimist who read too much A Wrinkle In Time. I never said I wanted to see Voldemort repenting - but I wanted to see Harry really pity Voldemort, the way he did at the very end of the Order of the Phoenix movie. Otherwise what was the point of those lessons? It seemed to culminate in the idea that Harry's choice to face Voldemort is what defines their conflict, that Harry is a being created by choices - but Tom Riddle isn't. What choices did he ever have? What choices did Merope ever have? His instability was in his blood; her life and her suffering would have crushed anyone's spirit. Tom Riddle and his family strain of "instability and violence" were united from the moment of his birth. (He did not choose to be who he was; it was his karma. And anyone who gets that reference wins a free dinner for two at the Three Broomsticks plus a complimentary bottle of wine.)
|
|
|
Post by birdg on Jul 22, 2009 22:21:15 GMT -5
Voldemort had some choice. He was likely born a sociopath but not all sociopaths become murderers or are even violent. Many are just everyday jerks who - at the very worst - will steal from the company and cheat on their spouses.
He couldn't choose not to be a sociopath but he could choose the power he pursued and what he did with it.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Jul 22, 2009 23:49:31 GMT -5
Tom Riddle was an extremely talented young man who was offered a fine education and was surrounded by people who offered him help. I don't believe that people are born evil. I don't believe evil is in a particular person's genes. I do not see how the influence of people he never met and never knew about was going to make Tom Riddle evil.
I do believe that Tom Riddle had a hundred choices that he made through out his life. He taught himself to enjoy hurting people. The children he tormented in the orphanage had no better a start in life than he did.
I don 't have a problem with the Elder wand. Harry was a seventeen year old boy who hadn't yet passed his newts. He wasn't going to love Riddle into oblivion. Harry needed a tool to allow him to defeat him.
|
|
|
Post by starsea on Jul 23, 2009 11:35:32 GMT -5
Harry was a seventeen year old boy who hadn't yet passed his newts. He wasn't going to love Riddle into oblivion. Okay, I know it's wrong, but this image makes me laugh SO hard. Also, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that after Neville decapitated Nagini, anyone could have killed Voldemort given the opportunity, as all the Horcruxes were gone. It was Voldemort who was proud enough and stupid enough to let Harry face him one-on-one. I really think it's moot whether it was having the Elder Wand which enabled Harry to defeat Voldemort or whether it was Voldemort's BELIEF that Harry had the Elder Wand. If Harry had still been able to use his original wand, we'd have had the graveyard battle all over again, which wouldn't have been as dramatic the second time around. Riddle's upbringing was bleak but I still think Harry's was worse. I guess that one year of love from his parents made a big difference.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Jul 23, 2009 13:09:22 GMT -5
Harry was a seventeen year old boy who hadn't yet passed his newts. He wasn't going to love Riddle into oblivion. Okay, I know it's wrong, but this image makes me laugh SO hard. I know think of the shipping possibilities. Voldemort, though mortal would still have had his prodigious skill as a wizard. I don't know if Harry could have beat him in a battle. Though realistically someone else, perhaps everyone would have joined in the attempt to kill him. But not only would it have been a repeat of the graveyard scene but it would also be a repeat of Molly's fight with Bellatrix. I kind of like the idea of everyone killing Voldemort, it seems both realistic and just. But I think JKR wanted Harry to have all the attention and also to have V. kill himself. The mob images might have bothered her as well.
|
|
|
Post by queenie on Jul 23, 2009 18:03:19 GMT -5
I admitted, my idea was implausible in the light of the Potterverse. In the L'Engleverse, it made perfect sense. In the Earthsea Verse it makes a sort of sense. Even in the His Dark Materials Verse it would have made sense. But it doesn't make sense in the Potterverse. I've come to terms with that. ( xkcd.com/146/) I don't believe that people are born evil. I don't believe evil is in a particular person's genes. I do not see how the influence of people he never met and never knew about was going to make Tom Riddle evil. I do believe that Tom Riddle had a hundred choices that he made through out his life. I don't believe that people are born evil, either, nor did I ever say that. However, Dumbledore himself says that the Gaunt family had a strong strain of instability and violence enhanced by their habit of marrying their own cousins (paraphrase.) Even though Tom Riddle Jr. has half of his genes from an not-inbred source, (we think) half of his genes will still have this Gaunt instability - (though the more I think about it, the more I do agree that Dumbledore had no right to compare Merope Gaunt to Lily Evans, especially in terms of courage.) I would agree that Tom Riddle had a thousand choices, as did Merope Gaunt, but the thing about the way that their stories are written is, we never see them as beings with choices. We see them as people in static situations (Merope in the Gaunt hovel), or people who have already made their choices and who will not be dissuaded from them (Tom Riddle talking to Slughorn about horcruxes.) Any choices given to them must be supposed. What moments of choice do we see granted to Tom Riddle? Choosing to frame Hagrid for the murder of Myrtle? ... actually, yeah, there's an indecision here. After Dippet says that they may have to close the school if they don't find the killer, Riddle leaves the headmaster's office. All right, there's one decision. But other than that... Dumbledore even says that the Sorting Hat placed Riddle into Slytherin the instant it touched his head. There didn't seem to be a second for indecision, a second for him to go, "You know, I think I really like blue." Maybe this is more a flaw in JKR's writing than a deliberate choice on her part. But Harry's story is full of choices - to choose to befriend Ron, to go to Gryffindor, to try out the invisibility cloak alone, to face Voldemort at the bottom of the trapdoor. But Riddle is a character without choices - or rather, one who has already made all of his choices and who is going to take any means to achieve them.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Jul 23, 2009 23:23:05 GMT -5
I'm sorry I wasn't accusing you of saying Riddle was born evil. I was covering all my Riddle bases. I hope I wasn't offensive.
I don't understand what you mean. Riddle made any number of choices that we know about in the books. He decided to steal his fellows orphans things and torment them by using his magic to frighten them in various ways.
He decided to kill Hephzabah Smith and frame the house-elf Hokey for the crime.
He decided to kill the Riddle family and blame his uncle Morfin for the crime.
He decided to make any number of Horcruxes.
He decided to kill Frank Bryce addled Muggle war veteran for the crime of over hearing him discuss killing other people.
He decided to break Bertha Jorkin's memory charm and then when that left her in a disabled state to kill her after muttering a rather callous joke about it.
He decided to kill Cedric Diggory. He decided to torture some of his returned Death Eaters.
He decided to kill Charity Burbage after kidnapping and mistreating her. He did it not because she was in anyway a threat to him. She knew nothing about him, but because she had the courage to write an article that he didn't like.
He decided to take Lucius's wand. He decided to ridicule Lucius in front of his wife. He decided to trust Snape. He decided to order the death of Dumbldedore. He decided to believe Narcissa when she said that Harry was dead instead of checking himself.
All of these are decisions. Most of which we see him perform in front of us, a few we hear about off screen. I don't see how that makes him different from any other character in the book.
He had as much choice asHarry or Lilly Potter, Draco or Neville or any random child brought up in the same Orphanage as he was.
Right now there are children being brought up in the US, the product of incest in an unstable family in foster care unloved and often with far fewer opportunities than Tom Riddle had. Most will never commit a single crime. Those that do will be held accountable for their actions by society if caught just like anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Oct 21, 2009 12:11:21 GMT -5
My husband who grew up in a very rough and tumble world and got into a lot of fights as a child, told me once that it hurts a person's hand to punch someone and of course it hurts to be punched back. There's a cost to a fight.
When Malfoy curses Neville in the Library in book one it is a painless experience to him, not just because Neville doesn't curse him back but because the casting of the curse doesn't seem to cost him anything. His hand doesn't hurt so to speak.
The kids at Hogwarts cast a lot of curses at each other. Do you think they do this because it doesn't even cost them the pain of a punch? They can impose themselves, their will, their pranks very easily. Are they more quick to attack than kids in a normal boarding school? Is this a product of magic?
Magic seems to involve the imposition of power on others. A more powerful wizard can overpower the shield charm of another and curse him. A wizard can attack a Muggle who is completely powerless to protect themselves. A lot of magical interactions seem to involve the imposition of the casters will on the world and others. I will make a turtle a tea Kettle. I will make you do what I wish by confounding you, or freezing you. Muggles need to use machines to do so, but few Muggles ever impose their will on others and the world to the extent that Wizards do casually.
Does this make wizards different?
|
|
|
Post by siriusgirl on Jan 13, 2010 16:55:47 GMT -5
Love Voldy into obilivion? LOL! "You just need a hug!" hugs Voldy and Voldy just goes POOF!
sorry.
Here's a question: Does killing always split your soul or does it depend?
My intepretation is no. Dumbledore tells Snape only he knows what will damage his soul. Plus, Slughorn describes "A supreme act of evil" for splitting your soul, so killing in cold blood, esp just to create a horcrux. If you kill someone in self defence like Kingsley in the Battle of Little Whinging, or Molly killing Bellatrix, to defend Ginny split your soul? I don't think would. Slughorn says "Committing murder" which has a moral implication behind it.
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Jan 14, 2010 3:38:12 GMT -5
Not all killing is wrong.
For example, Snape killing Dumbledore because ~ A. They had made a deal B. It saved Draco from going down an unredeemable route C. Dumbledore was already dying, it simply hurried the inevitable D. Grace over suffering is a gift not a drawback E. Nothing was "taken"/stollen
I'm sure there are other angles, but basically, like with magic, intention is everything.
.
|
|
|
Post by siriusgirl on Jan 14, 2010 12:33:33 GMT -5
Not all killing is wrong. For example, Snape killing Dumbledore because ~ A. They had made a deal B. It saved Draco from going down an unredeemable route C. Dumbledore was already dying, it simply hurried the inevitable D. Grace over suffering is a gift not a drawback E. Nothing was "taken"/stollen I'm sure there are other angles, but basically, like with magic, intention is everything. . Exactly, MWPP. Snape's soul isn't damaged for the reasons mentioned. Molly's soul won't be damaged because she was defending her child. Voldy and Bellatrix killed for power and pleasure. It's Harry who we see blur the two and in this thinking killing a death eater chasing him makes him like Voldemort (as I said in my trio post, Harry doesn't see grey a lot). And he realizes in the final battle, that killing does not always mean evil.
|
|