Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (SPOILERS!)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kevin42 said:
Was it really assisted suicide? Dumbledore was certainly probably going to be killed by Malfoy or one of the other Death Eaters. Snape and Dumbledore made the arrangement to avoid tearing Malfoys soul, and seeing as Dumbledore’s death seemed imminent that night, I have a heard time seeing this as “assisted suicide”. Perhaps I will have to go back and reread that part of the sixth book though, since it has admittidly been a while.
Click to expand...
And remember the oath that the Snape took with Narcissa in the beginning of the sixth book. If Draco failed then he would kill Dumbledore.
 
maria29 said:
And remember the oath that the Snape took with Narcissa in the beginning of the sixth book. If Draco failed then he would kill Dumbledore.
Click to expand...
I think that oath was made after DD injured his hand with the horcrux.
 
RobNY said:
As a side note, I just realized another thing J.K. may have been pointing to. She opened the book with a powerful quote from Aeschylus’ The Libation Bearers. Perhaps this is too much of a stretch, but if anyone is familiar with the Oresteia they know of the troubled history of the house of Atreus- where violence begets violence in a seemingly endless pattern. Violence necessitates revenge, and the cycle cannot break. It ends, oddly enough, when violence will not continue, when the Furies are stopped from fulfilling their duties as the punishers of matricide.

The gods of reason side with Orestes, and in the foundational myth which Aeschylus creates, they acquit him with Athena’s tie-breaking vote in a trial by jury. The Furies become the Eumenides, and themselves serve as a foundation to the city of Athens when Athena persuades them to participate.

Harry in many ways represents a refusal to perpetuate the, ‘cycle of violence,’ especially as regards the Elder Wand and Voldemort.

Perhaps too much of a stretch.

-Rob
Click to expand...
No, not too much of a stretch. Interesting. I think the only reason DD wanted Snape to kill him was to protect Draco and stop the violence with the wand. When DD bested Grindelwald in the duel he didn’t kill him and got the Elder Wand. DD thought he had to die before Draco got to him in order to stop the cycle of violence. DD giving up his life (the arrangement with Snape) is a selfless act, not to avoid pain (which is the argument for assisted suicide) but to stop the cycle of violence. It didn’t work out as planned and Draco became the owner of the Elder Wand anyway, but he didn’t know it.

I know that the ends don’t justify the means, but we also know how HUGE DD’s mistakes are. He is still trying to cheat/manipulate/trick death to his own agenda, and we know that can’t be done. It proves even more how much more innocent and moral Harry is who doesn’t even consider killing even as a last resort.
 
Did anyone else notice that one of the first acts of the Death Eaters after taking over the Ministry was to do away with homeschooling?
The penny didn’t drop right off when I read it but after attendance at Hogwart’s (the “state”-run school) was made compulsory Ron says something like “Of course, most wizards sent their children to Hogwart’s, but it was never illegal to teach them at home.” or something like that.

Maybe You-Know-Who has been running our educational policy? An Ed.D. after your name is another version of the Dark Mark?
 
wisdom_3_5 said:
I know that the ends don’t justify the means, but we also know how HUGE DD’s mistakes are. He is still trying to cheat/manipulate/trick death to his own agenda, and we know that can’t be done. It proves even more how much more innocent and moral Harry is who doesn’t even consider killing even as a last resort.
Click to expand...
I think so.

What makes J.K.'s books different from most children’s books is the moral ambiguity-- which is not bad in itself, but when presented to children who may not have formed their moral consciences, perhaps dangerous.

Some people assume that because J.K. takes no explicit position on Snape and Dumbledore’s decision to kill Dumbledore that she approves it, but I’m not sure we can conclude this from silence.

If anything, as you said, she argues quite powerfully that Harry and not Dumbledore is the model of action. Dumbledore is well intentioned and brilliant, but his, “for the greater good” is critiqued severely. More or less, I think J.K. would agree with the proposition that, ‘the ends do not justify the means.’

didymus-- good point. The reason this was done was twofold-- first, that the best way to control a populace is to teach them as you’d like them to be, but the second was for leverage on famillies, because they could threaten either the parents or the children. I don’t think the point is quite so direct, but I think it’s definitely there.

-Rob
 
I’m sorry guys, but IT DOESN"T MATTER that Dumbledore would soon die anyway. The point is precisely that he is NOT master over death, so arranging his own death is assisted suicide. He ended his life by his own means, by making someone kill him. To try to justify that amounts to saying the ends justify the means, or “for the greater good” morality, if you will.

I think Rowling is rather confused on this point herself. Even if Harry and not Dumbledore is supposed to be the model of virtue, we still have Harry using 2 out of 3 Unforgivable Curses, including Crucio. I was shocked that McGonagall called that action GALLANT, of all things. Kind of screwed up no? It amount to saying that it’s OK as long as the good guys do it. Rowling seems to reject “for the greater good” in principle, but not always in practice.
 
  1. www.hogwartsprofessor.com (for adults, contains adult content discussion points)
  2. Harry Potter = Heir Pater = Heir to the Father. (Theory)
  3. I didn’t much care for Mrs. Weasely’s exclimation. A friend of mind reminded her how uncharacteristic it would be for her considering her demeanour and the use of the muggle word, and for that, I am looking at it in a new way, but…I don’t much care for the harsh language in all uses of these books.
  4. TALK ABOUT LET US NOT KID OURSELVES!!! SNAPE WAS DISPICABLE!!! Do you all realise that Dudley grew more as a person than Snape? I have always stated that Snape was stunted in adolecence, just like Sirius, which is why, no matter how adult they were, part of their brain was stuck on that era and all it entitled. Now we know why. Let’s look at things:
a) Yes, Snape did feel remorse for what he had done, but, why did Dumbledore say, ‘Only you will know what damage helping an old man avoid pain and humiliation will do to your soul…’ WHAT DID THAT MEAN!!!

b) Everytime we thought that Snape was lingering on Harry’s eyes, just to read his mind or convey contempt, it could have been for the reason to see Lily, which, isn’t romantic or sweet, it is just plain creepy to look in the eyes of an 11 - 16 year old boy and think about your first love.

c) His worst memory – not so much because he was humiliated, but, because he called Lily a mudblood…and if we take a look at everything, his life until that point, it seemed he really didn’t care. He wanted Lily as his own and wanted to seperate her from her family to get her. Misery loves company as they say.

d) “Look…at…me…” So he can look into Lily’s eyes as he dies…EWWWWWWw!!!

e) He takes the letter with her love and signature, the picture of the family, keeps Lily, AND THROWS THE PART WITH JAMES AND HARRY UNDER THE DRESSER!!! After 16/17 years, he still hasn’t learned anything. He hasn’t grown in love or appreciation, he keeps the pretty picture of the first girl he ever had feelings for to do God knows what while looking at it.

f) Dumbledore & Snape:
‘You have grown to love the child?’
‘HIS child?!!!’
Doe patronus – AWAY!
‘After all this time?’
‘Always’

:confused: I first read that to mean that he has always loved Harry, but, looking at it, he has never stopped ‘loving’ Lily.

g) He begged Voldemort to kill Harry and spare Lily, and I think that is the only reason he went (begrudgingly) to Dumbledore. He didn’t want to have to owe Dumbledore anything, but, he couldn’t trust Voldemort. After all this, though he is as good as his word, and ultimately accepting Dumbledore telling him he cannot have all the answers, he’s really not the deep person we were (I was) expecting

And yet, after all this, he is redemed in the eyes of Harry.

I will admit, he never aimed to kill and his detentions to Luna, Neville, & Ginny was a bit of a joke.
 
Atheist2Theist said:
While I enjoyed it, I didn’t much care for Wizard Assisted Suicide. The excuse of Dumbledore to have Snape kill him to avoid humiliation just wasn’t moral and was just plain euthanasia. Whether you are going to die anyway does not change the moral weight of the situation.
Click to expand...
I’m in complete agreement. I was greatly disappointed that, instead of contuing to offer a heroic adventure, Rowling chose to make a case for killing the sick. It seems she thinks being sick and suffering are too undignified for someone like Dumbledore.

We were blessed to have a real hero, Pope John Paul II, who did not put himself above suffering according to God’s plan for him.

I never would have guessed Rowling would use the last book to reveal herself as a Death Eater.
 
syme said:
I’m sorry guys, but IT DOESN"T MATTER that Dumbledore would soon die anyway. The point is precisely that he is NOT master over death, so arranging his own death is assisted suicide. He ended his life by his own means, by making someone kill him. To try to justify that amounts to saying the ends justify the means, or “for the greater good” morality, if you will.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is trying to justify the Snape/Dumbledore action-- we’re just saying that, perhaps J.K. Rowling doesn’t endorse it either. It’s left ambiguous
I think Rowling is rather confused on this point herself. Even if Harry and not Dumbledore is supposed to be the model of virtue, we still have Harry using 2 out of 3 Unforgivable Curses, including Crucio. I was shocked that McGonagall called that action GALLANT, of all things. Kind of screwed up no? It amount to saying that it’s OK as long as the good guys do it. Rowling seems to reject “for the greater good” in principle, but not always in practice.
Click to expand...
We’d have to flesh out more a more specific moral theology to see whether or not these curses were immoral to use. Simply calling them, “unforgivable curses” isn’t enough. The cruciatus curse is surely brutal, and there’s the least justification for using it, but what of the imperius curse? It can’t be used in self defense? Why or why not? Surely the killing curse could be used in self-defense-- it would seem perfectly consonant with Catholic moral theology.

adstrinity-- yes, Snape is despicable. He’s an anti-hero.

-Rob
 
adstrinity,

I agree that Snape’s “redemption” was hard to swallow. I DID expect that it was going to turn out that he’d been on Dumbledore’s side all along, but I was hoping we’d learn that he’d simultaneously faked the Avada Kedavra curse (which you have to mean in order to actually do it) while casting some other spell (since Snape knew how to cast spells without saying them out loud), and that the two had used additional spells to make Dumbledore’s death appear real.

This pro-euthanasia ending left a REALLY bad taste in my mouth.
 
RobNY said:
I don’t think anyone is trying to justify the Snape/Dumbledore action-- we’re just saying that, perhaps J.K. Rowling doesn’t endorse it either. It’s left ambiguous
Click to expand...
Rowling doesn’t come out and write “Dumbledore and Snape did this and it was good,” but she has Harry referring to it as something noble and heroic, and she doesn’t offer anything to suggest that anyone might have reason to disagree with it. The tone of the book is completely supportive of the act.
 
Putting aside the euthanasia question, there really was nothing in the book that was a big surprise, except maybe that Draco seemed to be waffling on his support for Voldemort and his hatred of Harry, Dudley’s change of character and Neville’s display of heroism. Just about all of the major plot points were things I thought might happen, and I was certain Snape wasn’t going to turn out to be a true Death Eater. Frankly, I’m disappointed – I’m used to Rowling coming up with outcomes that I hadn’t expected, but that make perfect sense when they occur. This was completely predictable.
 
RobNY said:
The ring wants to return to its master. The locket. I meant. The locket.

Ahmisa-- I suppose, but then again, Ron was the one who was supposed to use the sword (no reason given, as far as I remember)… and we must not forget, “Weasley is our king.” 😉

-Rob
Click to expand...
I believe the reason was that using the Gryffindor sword required an act of bravery and heroism, and while Harry was somewhat brave and heroic in jumping in the cold water, it didn’t really compare with jumping in, saving Harry from drowning, diving in again for the sword and saving Harry from asphyxiation. Ron’s heroism was more than a token gesture.
 
Incidentally, I it is a HUGE comfort to me to know that I am not the only one who had some trouble with the moral implications of the book. Most people I know would tell me I’m making way too much out of it. After all, it’s “just a story.” (Remember “The Da Vinci Code”?)
 
No, bquinnan, you are not the only one who didn’t know what to make of this book (though, I will have to go back to re-read to see if it is, overall, anti-what Dumbledore told Snape to do).

Also, there were some, little, things I liked. Did we all catch that after Harry came back (the choice was his, and throughout the series, free will and choices have been of the utmost importance), the curses from Voldemort didn’t really stick? They lasted a bit, but, they really weren’t powerful…that was pretty decent…
 
Ahimsa said:
So, you’re saying Harry was a reluctant messiah?
Click to expand...
I think he yearned to be normal at times, but he did not seem at all reluctant when he realized that his death was the only way. It seemed while he wished there was another way, he was not scared or reluctant to accept what must happened.
 
For all of you who are concerned about euthanasia(i was also a little concerned about that) I found something else out(i think) on page 683. On that page Dumbledore explains that he is afraid Bellatrix or Greyback will kill him because they “play with there food”. It’s possible that he might have let them fight him and win if Snape refused. He was would have been pretty weak either way because of the curse and had no chance of defeating anyone maybe he had snape kill him because like he said before he did not want any humiliation. It’s not much better than euthanasia, but that is what i think along with protecting Draco.
 
Alright, how about this: Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him, but, Snape always had the right to say no. Free will and choice is more than a predominant theme throughout the series. …And besides, how do we know that Snape kills Dumbledore BECAUSE Dumbledore says so?

😦 I so want to make sense of all this…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top