![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
"To Love and Be Wise": the Ethical Imperative in the Potterverse
Title:"To Love and Be Wise": the Ethical Imperative in the Potterverse
Author:mary_j_59
Type: Essay
Category: Gen
Length: About 6,000 words
Rating: G
Summary:What is the major conflict in the Potterverse, and, if we can answer that question, might it help us predict the ending? Compares the Potterverse to the world of "Lord of the Rings"
Disclaimers and Notes: I'd like to thank my sister and Beyond_Pale, who read this for me and approved it. The essay follows the cut (and it's not about Severus Snape! Really! This one is about Harry-)
This is not so much a formal essay as a series of questions raised by Darkthirty's essay on the Ethical Imperative in Harry Potter. Darkthirty asserts the Harry Potter books are about life and death and that it is odd that the majority of fans, particularly adult fans, do not seem to grasp that. I think there are actually several legitimate ways to read Harry Potter, but that almost all readers, both children and adults, do grasp that these books are about a struggle between good and evil, in which choice and free will are paramount. Victory will depend on Harry's choices, possibly not on his alone - but certainly on his.This boy must choose between good and evil constantly. Darkthirty is right to say so, and is also right to suggest we all make similar choices in the real world. However, in this world, and even in the Potterverse, good and evil are not always easy to recognize.
The first question that came to mind when I read Darkthirty's essay was: what, exactly, is the struggle in the Harry Potter books? To say these books are about life and death, and life and death decisions, is a bit too simple.After all, Rowling has made it clear that death, while a fearful thing, is not the ultimate evil. At the end of PS/SS, Dumbledore says that, to the well regulated mind, death is merely the next adventure. In POA, when faced with Peter Pettigrew's treachery, Sirius Black roars, "You should have died!", stating emphatically that death is preferable to betraying one's friends. Finally, there is Voldemort, who represents the ultimate evil in this universe. What is his goal? Physical immortality. Voldemort - whose name means "fear of death" or "flight from death", depending on how one translates it(1 ) - is so terrified of his physical dissolution that he has committed murders and deliberately split his soul to ensure his own immortality. In seeking this immortality, he has found an illusion, for he has made himself less than human. He has no real life - no family, no friends, no useful work, no joy in anyone or anything - but is instead obsessed with death and destruction. On a psychological/Jungian level, I would guess that he is full of self-hatred, and cannot bear his own evil, so he projects it outward - onto everything that is alien to him. As a result, he thrusts death - exactly what he hates and fears - onto the entire world. This, by the way, is where I believe all the Muggle-baiting comes from; since Muggles are even more alien to Voldemort than ordinary wizards, they are even more to be feared and despised. As a result, ironically, Voldemort is surrounded by death and a false dream of power. His great, overriding fear of death has made him incapable of perceiving anything else. He is trapped in his fear and in his own ego.
What stands in direct opposition to Voldemort is represented, throughout these books, by a young mother's sacrifice. It is love. Love has been defined as desiring the good of the other. When Lily Potter stands in front of Voldemort rather than allow her child to be killed, she performs an act that is inconceivable to him on several levels. First, Voldemort has no true conception of anything or anyone outside his own ego. Certainly, other people exist, but they are merely tools to him, or else toys for his amusement. No other person could ever be as important as himself. Second, Voldemort is so terrified of death that he cannot imagine anyone voluntarily choosing to die. Finally, as a logical conclusion, to die *for another person*, so that another may live, is utterly outside of the Dark Lord's imagination. Lily Potter's act on behalf of Harry is an act of love - "No greater love has a man than this: to lay down his life for his friends." But Voldemort cannot love. He cannot imagine another as his equal; every other person in the world is his inferior and his tool. He has no friends, for friends are equals, brothers and sisters, and Albus Dumbledore has told us that, even as a schoolboy, Tom Riddle had only servants. And as for laying down his life, a man who has spent his entire life in flight from death cannot even imagine doing that. The confrontation between Voldemort's murderous rage and fear and Lily's loving self-sacrifice ends in a victory for Lily. She dies, but she succeeds in saving her young son's life, and also - if only temporarily - destroys the enemy.
This, then is the conflict in the Harry Potter books. Love, in particular, self-sacrificial love, is opposed to the fear of death. That fear, personified in Voldemort, ironically brings death to everyone and everything it touches; love, on the other hand, by fearlessly accepting death, brings life from it.
The Harry Potter books are also a 7-volume Bildungsroman. Harry is a child of eleven when we first meet him, and has no idea that he is special in any way. On his birthday, he receives a heritage that is both wonderful and terrible - wonderful, in that he finds his talents are valued and accepted in a world full of joys and marvels he has not imagined before, but terrible, in that he is the focal point in a war he did not choose and does not desire. In this, Harry is like all of us. We all live in a world which is beautiful and full of marvels; we all live in a world full of fear and death. Like all of us, Harry must learn to cope with this world. One thing Darkthirty said was correct: Harry is plunged into serious, life-and-death decisions from a young age. He is the 'child foretold', the only possible conquerer of Voldemort, and that is a heavy burden indeed for a young adolescent. How, then, should Harry guide his actions? What ethical imperative must he follow to "do the right thing"? Harry is not, initially, aware of any ethical imperative; he simply acts on his instincts, knowing that Voldemort has killed his parents and is therefore also his enemy. Harry is determined to face danger, and possibly even death, to prevent Voldemort from coming back and causing injury, pain and death to many innocent people.
In acting on this instinct, Harry is showing his innate capacity for love. He is willing to risk his life so that his friends, their families, and the wizarding world in general may have a future. So, unlike Voldemort, he doesn't consider himself all-important. Although, at not-quite-twelve, he cannot articulate it, Harry knows that his friends are as valuable as he and that he would rather die than passively give in to evil. His innate understanding of what is right is remarkable given the family he comes from; his aunt, uncle and cousin have all either abused, neglected, or bullied him, and, from the time he came to live with them, he has not been loved. That this child is capable of any kind of love or trust seems miraculous. J.K.Rowling has said that she believes children are naturally, innately good, and that this is one of the things she wanted to show in her portrayal of Harry and his friends.
In going after the philosopher's stone in order to spare the world a second rise of Voldemort, Harry acts on the ethical imperative that permeates these books. It is this: love, and don't be afraid, not even of death. As the series continues, we see this imperative defined more clearly, especially through Hermione and Dumbledore. Hermione, a Muggleborn, is appalled by some of the blatant prejudices and injustices that pervade the wizarding world. The boys, Ron especially, mock her attempts to free the house elves, but Dumbledore quietly backs her up when he gives Dobby the house elf a job with wages. In a world which is racist to the core, Dumbledore is remarkable for his lack of prejudice; he not only accepts young wizards of all backgrounds in his school, but has also found a place for a werewolf, a half-giant, a squib, and a centaur on his staff. He is the only wizard we know of whom the centaurs honor, and the only one who can speak to merpeople in their own language. The wizarding government, as represented by Dolores Umbridge, is quite different. She has helped push through anti-werewolf legislation and makes no secret of her hatred for half-breeds of all kinds. As for the Death Eaters, they hate all but pure-blooded wizards, and grant no rights to other species.
If love sees others as equals, then the prejudice the Death Eaters show can be seen as a failure to love. And, as the series progresses, we see that this imperative - to love everyone, no matter what their background and no matter who they are - is very difficult to follow. In fact, I'm not sure anyone, even Dumbledore, completely succeeds in doing so. Harry certainly does not. He does not love Severus Snape, any more than Snape loves him, and this, to my mind, is their great failure. Nor can he manage to love Kreacher, the Black family's insane house elf. These are failures shared by Harry's godfather, Sirius Black. Harry is furious at Dumbledore when the headmaster tells him Sirius should have had compassion for Kreacher, who betrayed Sirius, and, as much as anyone, caused his death. We can't tell what might have happened if Sirius had managed to treat Kreacher with respect and compassion, but it is not too late for Harry to do so. Nor is it too late, appearances to the contrary, for Severus Snape and Harry to learn respect for each other. If these two - the child foretold, who has a weapon Voldemort cannot know, and the half-blood prince who is one of the most original and inventive thinkers in the wizarding world - could manage to unite, what a formidable force against Voldemort they would be!
But how can Harry ever love the loathsome Kreacher? How can he ever love and forgive Severus Snape, who has done him such harm? This is exactly the point - as the brilliant U2 song says, love is not an easy thing. It can demand more of us than seems humanly possible. Nevertheless, the constant references to his mother Lily's eyes make it clear that this sort of love - aware, imaginative, and courageous - is exactly what will be required of Harry if he is to become the person he should be and triumph over the enemy who has sought to destroy him from babyhood.
I want to make clear that, in talking about Harry loving Severus Snape, or Kreacher, or Umbridge, or even Draco Malfoy, I am not talking about some sort of sentimental, feel-good ending in which everyone ends up friends and lives happily ever after. No - to love someone is to recognize what they truly are and to desire whatever is truly good for them. There are, I believe, strong hints in the text that Snape is truly a hero, but he is also genuinely nasty and difficult. It would not be wrong for Harry to desire Snape's sincere apology, since it would be good for Snape - hero or not - to humble himself. Draco seems a lost, overwhelmed and rather cowardly bully - worthy of compassion, certainly, but not likely to be Harry's lifelong friend. As for Umbridge and Kreacher, they are truly loathsome and repellent. This does not make it impossible for Harry to love them, but it does mean they are likely to remain obstacles to him, all the same. Voldemort, for his part, has made himself a monster. It may be possible for Harry to love even him, but that does not mean that Harry must save him from himself. Voldemort's redemption is not impossible, but it's not very likely. It is far more likely that the story will end with the death Voldemort has been so strenuously avoiding.
We also need to recognize that, though love may be the answer, it can be badly directed, partial, and misleading. The events of HBP show this clearly. Narcissa Malfoy very obviously loves her son, and wants to save him from death when she goes to Severus Snape to ask for his help. Snape, for his part, is moved with compassion for Narcissa when he takes the Unbreakable Vow, and Draco is motivated by love for his family when he agrees to assassinate Albus Dumbledore. He may be seeking glory from the Death Eaters, but he is also trying to save his mother's life. It is not evil to love one's child and to want to save him; it is not evil to be moved by a mother's tears; it is not evil for a teenage boy to want to save his parents. Yet these very human motivations, worthy though they are, lead directly to evil actions. Part of the reason may be the choices these people made earlier. They may be acting out of love in the situations they find themselves in, but hatred and prejudice led them to those situations in the first place.* That is why good and human motivations nevertheless lead to bad actions - because these good motives are not pure. This, I would guess, is why Dumbledore tells Harry that his greatest weapon is a soul that is whole and pure. The lesson is clear - since all acts and decisions have consequences, Harry must make sure that his motives are always good. Otherwise he may find himself trapped by his earlier decisions, as has apparently happened to Severus Snape.
It's interesting to contrast Narcissa Malfoy with Lily Potter. Both women are motivated by love for their sons and want to keep Voldemort from causing the boys' deaths. But Draco has walked directly into danger by believing and acting on the prejudice his parents have taught him. Harry, in contrast, is an innocent toddler who has never harmed anyone. Lily saves her son by putting her own body between him and evil, even though this causes her own death. Narcissa, on the other hand, goes to a third party - Snape - and asks him to protect her son. Lily offers her life; Narcissa, in essence, threatens Snape's. And Snape, who takes the Unbreakable Vow, is bound to kill, or else die. While Lily dies, Snape kills. At first glance, both Narcissa and Snape come off quite badly in comparison to Lily, the loving young girl who dies for her son. Yet, as a few fans pointed out, both Narcissa and Snape are nonetheless capable of love, the power Voldemort does not know, and this fact may have unexpected consequences for the Dark Lord.
In comparing these characters, I wanted to emphasize how difficult it can be to both love and keep one's motives pure. It actually is possible, here, to compare the Potterverse with another fictional universe, that of Tolkien's masterpiece, "The Lord Of the Rings". The main protagonist and hero of LOTR (the first among several heroes) is Samwise Gamgee, and the action of the story follows his movement from the innocence of ignorance and inexperience to the innocence of grace. Harry, though also (IMHO) not the only hero of the "Harry Potter" books, is the protagonist and main character. And he is a child when the story begins, and will be a man when it ends. Thus, it is reasonable to guess that his spiritual journey will mirror Sam Gamgee's.
Sam is an extraordinarily brave, faithful and loyal young man. But he is narrow - minded and capable of being very judgemental. He will do anything for his friend and master, Frodo (whom he seems to worship at times, just as both Harry and Hagrid seem to worship Dumbledore), but he considers Frodo foolish for trusting the corrupted old hobbit, Gollum. One of the key scenes in LOTR occurs on the stairs of Cirith Ungol (this is a scene that was unforgivably mangled in the movie, for those who don't know the books). Frodo has tamed Gollum - who now calls himself Smeagol. Frodo always uses only that name when speaking to the creature, but Sam does not, instead calling him either Gollum or Smeagol when speaking to him, and Slinker or Stinker when speaking about him. His hatred and contempt for the creature is constant, and he cannot forgive Smeagol for what he has been and done, even though Smeagol has never harmed Sam directly. But Sam is very aware of the danger Smeagol might pose to Frodo, the master he loves. And he finds it harder to forgive dangers and injuries to loved ones than injuries to himself. As Stratford Caldecott says in his essay, "Over the Chasm of Fire":
In Jungian terms, Golllum is Sam's (and Frodo's) shadow. Sam frequently advises Frodo
to kill him when he has the chance. The hatred between them is one of the themes of their
journey into the Land of Shadow itself. (Tolkien: A Celebration, p. 31)
Of course, Sam is right to distrust Gollum, just as Harry and Sirius are right to distrust Kreacher. The creature is plotting to kill both Frodo and Sam and take the ring of power from Frodo's body. But he is offered a moment of choice on the stairs - a moment Sam interrupts. Here is the scene:
Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam
faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemd to
twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if
engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling
hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee - but almost the touch was a caress.
(The Two Towers, p. 341 )
Sam, who has fallen asleep when he was supposed to be on watch, wakes up and reacts with outrage. He calls Gollum a sneak, and Gollum, for his part, retreats back into his safe anger and vengefulness. Tolkien has said that this moment is pivotal for both Gollum's character and Sam's. Had Gollum had a little more time, or had Sam greeted him with friendliness and understanding, Gollum would have been confirmed in his good impulse to warn the hobbits about the trap waiting for them - the huge spider, Shelob. Granted, Gollum was the one who set the trap in the first place - he is no innocent - but, if it were not for Sam's anger, love for Frodo would have won out over hatred. This, professor Tolkien has said, would not have affected the end of the story, but it would have made a great difference to Gollum's spiritual journey - through his love for Frodo, he would have achieved redemption. Because of Sam's anger, that doesn't happen.
At this stage of the journey, Sam cannot imagine what it is like to be Gollum. He loves his master and hates anyone who might be a threat to Frodo; empathy for a twisted, evil creature like Gollum never enters his head, even as a possibility. But, after the betrayal and the battle with Shelob, Sam takes the ring from Frodo's body and puts it on:
At once he was aware that hearing was sharpened while sight was dimmed, . . .All things about him were not dark, but vague; while he himself was there in a grey hazy world, alone, like a small black solid rock, and the Ring, weighing down his left hand, was like an orb of hot gold. He did not feel invisible at all, but horribly and uniquely visible; and he knew that somewhere an Eye was searching for him. (Two Towers, page 363).
This is another scene that was left out of the movies, and which is essential for Sam's character arc. He does not want to take the ring, and does not want to leave Frodo, whom he thinks dead. But he is aware that the quest must not fail, so Sam screws himself up to do something absolutely contrary to his nature, in the service of a greater good, and this experience changes him. When Gollum attacks on the side of Mount Doom, Sam is able to see him for what he is, as he could not on the stairs of Cirith Ungol. "He himself . . . had borne the Ring, and now dimly he guessed the agony of Gollum's shrivelled mind and body, enslaved to that ring, unable to find peace or relief ever in life again." (Return of the King, page 234). Because he understands that agony, Sam lets Gollum live.
It is because Sam spares Gollum that the quest succeeds. Sam's act of mercy and compassion is the last in a chain - for Frodo has made the same leap, for the same reason; by bearing the ring, he has come to understand both Gollum's torment and the darkness within him. Back when he himself was innocent and ignorant, and Gandalf first told him about Gollum and the Ring of power, Frodo responded, "What a pity that Bilbo did not stab the vile creature, when he had a chance!" (Fellowship, page 77) It is not until he himself has carried the ring that Frodo is able to say, "Now that I see him, I do pity him." (Two Towers, page 232) Aragorn, too, treated Gollum as mercifully as he was able when he captured him, as did the wood elves when they kept him in prison. If one person had chosen to kill Gollum, rather than having mercy on him, the quest would have failed. But it is Sam who spares Gollum at the critical time, when he has very good reason to kill him. And it is that final act of mercy which leads to victory.
Some fans have argued that Harry has already shown a mercy similar to Sam's. They see Peter Pettigrew as the Gollum figure in the Potterverse, and believe Harry's sparing of Peter's life in POA is the equivalent of Sam's sparing Gollum. Certainly, Pettigrew resembles Gollum; he is a contemptible coward who is also very dangerous. But is Harry merciful to Pettigrew in the same way that Sam (or, for that matter, Frodo) is to Gollum? I believe not. For one thing, Sam and Frodo, like Bilbo before them, actually have the opportunity to kill Gollum themselves. Harry does not. It is his godfather, Sirius Black, and Black's friend Remus Lupin who are about to kill their former friend. Also, what sort of mercy does Harry actually offer Pettigrew? Where Bilbo and Sam let Gollum go free to do what he will, and where Frodo, Aragorn and the wood elves give him good treatment - and, in Frodo's case, trust - Harry does none of these things. He says, "We'll take him up to the castle. We'll hand him over to the dementors." (POA page 375) We should not forget that Harry himself fears the dementors more than anything else. And having one's soul sucked out by a dementor is a fate worse than death. Harry is not really threatening this, but he fully expects Pettigrew to be surrounded and tormented by dementors for the rest of his life. He thinks - perhaps rightly - that the man deserves this fate. As mercy goes, this is rather problematic. Finally, unlike Frodo, Sam, and even Bilbo, Harry shows absolutely no empathy for Pettigrew in this scene. The people he is concerned for, and is sparing, are Lupin and Black. Here is his reaction to Pettigrew when he urges the two men not to kill him:
"Get off me!" Harry spat, throwing Pettigrew's hands off him in disgust. "I'm not doing this for you. I'm doing it because - I don't reckon my dad would've wanted them to become killers - just for you. (POA, pages 375, 376)
But Harry, in this scene, is still a child not quite fourteen years old. To expect an adult level of empathy and forgiveness from him is unreasonable. And he has already listened to and 'forgiven' Sirius Black, whom he suspected of betraying his parents. As it turns out, Black, though certainly a flawed human being, doesn't need Harry's forgiveness since he means Harry well and never betrayed his parents. Still, Harry spares Black's life when he has a chance to kill him. And he listens to him, becoming convinced of his innocence, and also urges him not to kill Pettigrew. These acts show that Harry is capable of empathy, even if he has not yet achieved Sam or Frodo's level of understanding.
What will it take for Harry to achieve that adult level of compassion, which Caldecott calls the innocence of grace? I believe Harry will have to understand his own capacity for evil. After all, Frodo and Sam grant mercy to Gollum because they have both faced the same temptation he faced. They understand that, in different circumstances, they might have become like him. Gollum is completely enslaved to the ring; Frodo struggles against it bravely, only to succumb at the very end of the quest (and Tolkien has said it is important that readers should realize Frodo actually fails. He fails only because he has been asked to do the impossible, but he does fail.) Sam, in contrast, is one of only two people in the entire history of Middle-Earth who gives up the ring freely ( the other is Bilbo Baggins), and he is the only one who manages to do so on his own, without help from any other person. Even so, though he rejects the dream of power the ring gives him, he is tempted by it. In forgiving Gollum on the side of Mount Doom, Sam finally accepts his shadow. As Caldecott says,
Gollum, despised and outcast, represents the weakness and evil that lurks in the soul of
a hobbit - even of a hobbit like Sam. . . . Sam's soul is only reordered and healed at the
very end of the Quest, on the side of Mount Doom, by first sparing and finally forgiving Gollum. (Tolkien: a Celebration: page 31)
As far as Harry is concerned, evil has always been external to himself. Its physical embodiment has been Voldemort, who killed both his parents and tried to kill him when he was a baby. Harry also locates evil in Slytherin house, and particularly in its head, Severus Snape. He has a tendency to project his failings onto Snape (who has failings enough of his own) and to blame the man for things he himself has done. Perhaps the clearest example of this is at the end of Order of the Phoenix, after Sirius has died. Harry blames Snape for taunting Sirius and thereby pushing him to go rescue Harry. "He felt a savage pleasure in blaming Snape, it seemed to be easing his own sense of dreadful guilt, and he wanted to hear Dumbledore agree with him" (OOTP page 833). And again, shortly later: "Snape had emerged from the staircase leading down to his office, and at the sight of him Harry felt a great rush of hatred . . .Whatever Dumbledore said, he would never forgive Snape. . ." (OOTP, page 851) As with Sam's hatred of Gollum, Harry's hatred of Severus Snape is constant and relentless. If there is anyone in these books who represents Harry's shadow, it is surely Snape. This is one reason why I believe Harry's forgiving Snape will be one of the climaxes of the final book.
But there is no doubt that, at the end of HBP, Harry is a very long way from any such mature understanding. He desires vengeance on both Snape and Voldemort, and pushes away the young girl who loves him - in order to protect her, true, but to deny love of any sort when you have been told repeatedly that it is your best weapon seems unwise at best. What most frustrates me about the sixteen-year-old Harry is his lack of curiousity about his own mother and her sacrifice. It is really Lily who has defeated Voldemort twice, but, when Dumbledore reminds Harry about the power of love, the boy is dismissive:
"But I haven't got uncommon skill and power," said Harry before he could stop himself.
"Yes, you have," said Dumbledore firmly. "You have a power that Voldemort has never had.
You can -"
"I know!" said Harry impatiently. "I can love!" It was only with difficulty that he stopped
himself adding, "Big deal!" (HBP, page 509)
As Jodel remarks in her essay, "The Premature prediction", "Harry is still ignoring the implications of his mother's sacrifice. In fact, he is not just ignoring is mother's death. He is largely ignoring her life as well." She adds, "Harry really does not come across in the books as a particularly loving child." (http://www.redhen-publications.com/Premature.html) Still, if Harry does not seem particularly loving and aware, he is capable of love, and, as I said at the beginning of this essay, that fact alone is remarkable given the upbringing and training the Dursleys have given him. And - though he does not yet realize it - he has already used this power to defeat Voldemort. Harry's victory takes place in the Ministry of Magic, and an essayist called Beyond_Pale has written a brief, but insightful analysis of his struggle. She points out that Harry accepts death willingly - even gladly - at the thought of being reunited with his godfather, Sirius Black. And this acceptance of death is what drives Voldemort, who has been possessing him, out of his body. Here is the link to her essay: (http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/147638.html)
Beyond-Pale contends it is really Harry's acceptance of death that drives out Voldemort, not the boy's ability to love. However, I don't think these two capacities can be separated. It is precisely because he loves his godfather that Harry experiences something akin to joy at the thought of being reunited with him. And that is what gives him the victory. In his willingness to accept death, Harry is imitating his mother, who willingly accepted death so that he could live. But Harry has not consciously realized this, and no one has pointed it out to him. I hope Harry will realize exactly what his mother did for him at some point in the seventh book.
I'd also like to point out that there seems to be a logical progression in the acts of love that have defeated, or will defeat, Voldemort. A mother's love for her child is primal and instinctive; I think any mother would gladly risk her life to protect her baby. A boy's love for a loving godfather - the only father figure he has ever known - is natural and human. And this love has brought Harry the second victory. But Lily's sacrifice did not destroy Voldemort completely, and Harry's victory in the Ministry was only temporary. The third and final victory will, I believe, require something more. I think Harry will be required to love his enemy. If Harry can manage to do so - to love and forgive Severus Snape, his shadow figure, as Sam forgives Gollum on Mount Doom - Voldemort will be defeated forever. Perhaps this seems an impossible task for Harry, especially given the events of HBP. But the boy was not able to kill Sirius Black when he thought he had good reason to do so. He was willing, in POA, to listen and forgive, and he found that the man he had thought his worst enemy was actually his godfather, who loved him and sought to protect him. It may be that the toxic relationship between Harry and Snape will likewise be transformed by Harry's forgiveness. Even if this is not the case, it seems clear that nothing less than loving his enemy will be required of Harry if he is to win the final victory.
The Harry Potter books may seem to be simple fairy tales for children, in which Harry and his friends represent 'good' and Voldemort and his minions represent 'evil'. Certainly, that is one level on which the books operate. But, if we look at the main struggle in the books, we find it is not a battle between some generic good and an evil bogeyman. It is not even a struggle between life and death. No, in these books, love is the greatest power in the universe, and that is especially true of self-sacrificial love. This love is opposed, not to death, but to the fear of death. It is as if Rowling was asking, "We humans all know that we are going to die. What should we do with that knowledge?" Her answer is, "Love. Love and be wise (2 )." For love conquers death, and transcends it. I am confident that, in the end, Harry will learn that lesson and act on it.
Sources:
Books
Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, first American Edition, Scholastic, 1998
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, first American edition, Scholastic 1999
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, first American edition, Scholastic, 2003
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, first American edition, Scholastic, 2005
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Fellowship of the Ring. London: Folio Society, 1998 (second printing)
The Two Towers London: Folio Society, 1998 (second printing)
The Return of the King, London: Folio Society, 1998 (second printing)
"Over the Chasm of Fire: Christian Heroism in The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings", by Stratford Caldecott, in Tolkien: A Celebration: Collected Writings on a Literary Legacy, edited by Joseph Pierce. Fount (an Imprint of HarperCollins), London 1999, Pages 17 - 33.
Webistes:
John Granger's Hogwarts Professor: www.hogwartsprofessor.com
Joyce Odell's Red Hen: "The Premature Prediction": http://www.redhen-publications.com/Premature.html
Beyond_Pale's livejournal: "A Radical Hypothesis on the Nature of the Feedback Loop"
http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/147638.html
Miscellaneous:
"All that you can't Leave Behind" is from the U2 album of the same name, Island Records
Footnotes:
1. John Granger points out the two meanings of "Voldemort", but the name also reminds me of "voluntas mortis" - will to death.
2. I struggled to remember where this quote came from; it is the title of a mystery by Josephine Tey.
* About the wrong choices made by these characters - we still don't know exactly when or why Severus Snape became a Death Eater, nor the full story of his repentance. This is also something I hope Rowling will clarify in the final book.
Author:mary_j_59
Type: Essay
Category: Gen
Length: About 6,000 words
Rating: G
Summary:What is the major conflict in the Potterverse, and, if we can answer that question, might it help us predict the ending? Compares the Potterverse to the world of "Lord of the Rings"
Disclaimers and Notes: I'd like to thank my sister and Beyond_Pale, who read this for me and approved it. The essay follows the cut (and it's not about Severus Snape! Really! This one is about Harry-)
This is not so much a formal essay as a series of questions raised by Darkthirty's essay on the Ethical Imperative in Harry Potter. Darkthirty asserts the Harry Potter books are about life and death and that it is odd that the majority of fans, particularly adult fans, do not seem to grasp that. I think there are actually several legitimate ways to read Harry Potter, but that almost all readers, both children and adults, do grasp that these books are about a struggle between good and evil, in which choice and free will are paramount. Victory will depend on Harry's choices, possibly not on his alone - but certainly on his.This boy must choose between good and evil constantly. Darkthirty is right to say so, and is also right to suggest we all make similar choices in the real world. However, in this world, and even in the Potterverse, good and evil are not always easy to recognize.
The first question that came to mind when I read Darkthirty's essay was: what, exactly, is the struggle in the Harry Potter books? To say these books are about life and death, and life and death decisions, is a bit too simple.After all, Rowling has made it clear that death, while a fearful thing, is not the ultimate evil. At the end of PS/SS, Dumbledore says that, to the well regulated mind, death is merely the next adventure. In POA, when faced with Peter Pettigrew's treachery, Sirius Black roars, "You should have died!", stating emphatically that death is preferable to betraying one's friends. Finally, there is Voldemort, who represents the ultimate evil in this universe. What is his goal? Physical immortality. Voldemort - whose name means "fear of death" or "flight from death", depending on how one translates it(1 ) - is so terrified of his physical dissolution that he has committed murders and deliberately split his soul to ensure his own immortality. In seeking this immortality, he has found an illusion, for he has made himself less than human. He has no real life - no family, no friends, no useful work, no joy in anyone or anything - but is instead obsessed with death and destruction. On a psychological/Jungian level, I would guess that he is full of self-hatred, and cannot bear his own evil, so he projects it outward - onto everything that is alien to him. As a result, he thrusts death - exactly what he hates and fears - onto the entire world. This, by the way, is where I believe all the Muggle-baiting comes from; since Muggles are even more alien to Voldemort than ordinary wizards, they are even more to be feared and despised. As a result, ironically, Voldemort is surrounded by death and a false dream of power. His great, overriding fear of death has made him incapable of perceiving anything else. He is trapped in his fear and in his own ego.
What stands in direct opposition to Voldemort is represented, throughout these books, by a young mother's sacrifice. It is love. Love has been defined as desiring the good of the other. When Lily Potter stands in front of Voldemort rather than allow her child to be killed, she performs an act that is inconceivable to him on several levels. First, Voldemort has no true conception of anything or anyone outside his own ego. Certainly, other people exist, but they are merely tools to him, or else toys for his amusement. No other person could ever be as important as himself. Second, Voldemort is so terrified of death that he cannot imagine anyone voluntarily choosing to die. Finally, as a logical conclusion, to die *for another person*, so that another may live, is utterly outside of the Dark Lord's imagination. Lily Potter's act on behalf of Harry is an act of love - "No greater love has a man than this: to lay down his life for his friends." But Voldemort cannot love. He cannot imagine another as his equal; every other person in the world is his inferior and his tool. He has no friends, for friends are equals, brothers and sisters, and Albus Dumbledore has told us that, even as a schoolboy, Tom Riddle had only servants. And as for laying down his life, a man who has spent his entire life in flight from death cannot even imagine doing that. The confrontation between Voldemort's murderous rage and fear and Lily's loving self-sacrifice ends in a victory for Lily. She dies, but she succeeds in saving her young son's life, and also - if only temporarily - destroys the enemy.
This, then is the conflict in the Harry Potter books. Love, in particular, self-sacrificial love, is opposed to the fear of death. That fear, personified in Voldemort, ironically brings death to everyone and everything it touches; love, on the other hand, by fearlessly accepting death, brings life from it.
The Harry Potter books are also a 7-volume Bildungsroman. Harry is a child of eleven when we first meet him, and has no idea that he is special in any way. On his birthday, he receives a heritage that is both wonderful and terrible - wonderful, in that he finds his talents are valued and accepted in a world full of joys and marvels he has not imagined before, but terrible, in that he is the focal point in a war he did not choose and does not desire. In this, Harry is like all of us. We all live in a world which is beautiful and full of marvels; we all live in a world full of fear and death. Like all of us, Harry must learn to cope with this world. One thing Darkthirty said was correct: Harry is plunged into serious, life-and-death decisions from a young age. He is the 'child foretold', the only possible conquerer of Voldemort, and that is a heavy burden indeed for a young adolescent. How, then, should Harry guide his actions? What ethical imperative must he follow to "do the right thing"? Harry is not, initially, aware of any ethical imperative; he simply acts on his instincts, knowing that Voldemort has killed his parents and is therefore also his enemy. Harry is determined to face danger, and possibly even death, to prevent Voldemort from coming back and causing injury, pain and death to many innocent people.
In acting on this instinct, Harry is showing his innate capacity for love. He is willing to risk his life so that his friends, their families, and the wizarding world in general may have a future. So, unlike Voldemort, he doesn't consider himself all-important. Although, at not-quite-twelve, he cannot articulate it, Harry knows that his friends are as valuable as he and that he would rather die than passively give in to evil. His innate understanding of what is right is remarkable given the family he comes from; his aunt, uncle and cousin have all either abused, neglected, or bullied him, and, from the time he came to live with them, he has not been loved. That this child is capable of any kind of love or trust seems miraculous. J.K.Rowling has said that she believes children are naturally, innately good, and that this is one of the things she wanted to show in her portrayal of Harry and his friends.
In going after the philosopher's stone in order to spare the world a second rise of Voldemort, Harry acts on the ethical imperative that permeates these books. It is this: love, and don't be afraid, not even of death. As the series continues, we see this imperative defined more clearly, especially through Hermione and Dumbledore. Hermione, a Muggleborn, is appalled by some of the blatant prejudices and injustices that pervade the wizarding world. The boys, Ron especially, mock her attempts to free the house elves, but Dumbledore quietly backs her up when he gives Dobby the house elf a job with wages. In a world which is racist to the core, Dumbledore is remarkable for his lack of prejudice; he not only accepts young wizards of all backgrounds in his school, but has also found a place for a werewolf, a half-giant, a squib, and a centaur on his staff. He is the only wizard we know of whom the centaurs honor, and the only one who can speak to merpeople in their own language. The wizarding government, as represented by Dolores Umbridge, is quite different. She has helped push through anti-werewolf legislation and makes no secret of her hatred for half-breeds of all kinds. As for the Death Eaters, they hate all but pure-blooded wizards, and grant no rights to other species.
If love sees others as equals, then the prejudice the Death Eaters show can be seen as a failure to love. And, as the series progresses, we see that this imperative - to love everyone, no matter what their background and no matter who they are - is very difficult to follow. In fact, I'm not sure anyone, even Dumbledore, completely succeeds in doing so. Harry certainly does not. He does not love Severus Snape, any more than Snape loves him, and this, to my mind, is their great failure. Nor can he manage to love Kreacher, the Black family's insane house elf. These are failures shared by Harry's godfather, Sirius Black. Harry is furious at Dumbledore when the headmaster tells him Sirius should have had compassion for Kreacher, who betrayed Sirius, and, as much as anyone, caused his death. We can't tell what might have happened if Sirius had managed to treat Kreacher with respect and compassion, but it is not too late for Harry to do so. Nor is it too late, appearances to the contrary, for Severus Snape and Harry to learn respect for each other. If these two - the child foretold, who has a weapon Voldemort cannot know, and the half-blood prince who is one of the most original and inventive thinkers in the wizarding world - could manage to unite, what a formidable force against Voldemort they would be!
But how can Harry ever love the loathsome Kreacher? How can he ever love and forgive Severus Snape, who has done him such harm? This is exactly the point - as the brilliant U2 song says, love is not an easy thing. It can demand more of us than seems humanly possible. Nevertheless, the constant references to his mother Lily's eyes make it clear that this sort of love - aware, imaginative, and courageous - is exactly what will be required of Harry if he is to become the person he should be and triumph over the enemy who has sought to destroy him from babyhood.
I want to make clear that, in talking about Harry loving Severus Snape, or Kreacher, or Umbridge, or even Draco Malfoy, I am not talking about some sort of sentimental, feel-good ending in which everyone ends up friends and lives happily ever after. No - to love someone is to recognize what they truly are and to desire whatever is truly good for them. There are, I believe, strong hints in the text that Snape is truly a hero, but he is also genuinely nasty and difficult. It would not be wrong for Harry to desire Snape's sincere apology, since it would be good for Snape - hero or not - to humble himself. Draco seems a lost, overwhelmed and rather cowardly bully - worthy of compassion, certainly, but not likely to be Harry's lifelong friend. As for Umbridge and Kreacher, they are truly loathsome and repellent. This does not make it impossible for Harry to love them, but it does mean they are likely to remain obstacles to him, all the same. Voldemort, for his part, has made himself a monster. It may be possible for Harry to love even him, but that does not mean that Harry must save him from himself. Voldemort's redemption is not impossible, but it's not very likely. It is far more likely that the story will end with the death Voldemort has been so strenuously avoiding.
We also need to recognize that, though love may be the answer, it can be badly directed, partial, and misleading. The events of HBP show this clearly. Narcissa Malfoy very obviously loves her son, and wants to save him from death when she goes to Severus Snape to ask for his help. Snape, for his part, is moved with compassion for Narcissa when he takes the Unbreakable Vow, and Draco is motivated by love for his family when he agrees to assassinate Albus Dumbledore. He may be seeking glory from the Death Eaters, but he is also trying to save his mother's life. It is not evil to love one's child and to want to save him; it is not evil to be moved by a mother's tears; it is not evil for a teenage boy to want to save his parents. Yet these very human motivations, worthy though they are, lead directly to evil actions. Part of the reason may be the choices these people made earlier. They may be acting out of love in the situations they find themselves in, but hatred and prejudice led them to those situations in the first place.* That is why good and human motivations nevertheless lead to bad actions - because these good motives are not pure. This, I would guess, is why Dumbledore tells Harry that his greatest weapon is a soul that is whole and pure. The lesson is clear - since all acts and decisions have consequences, Harry must make sure that his motives are always good. Otherwise he may find himself trapped by his earlier decisions, as has apparently happened to Severus Snape.
It's interesting to contrast Narcissa Malfoy with Lily Potter. Both women are motivated by love for their sons and want to keep Voldemort from causing the boys' deaths. But Draco has walked directly into danger by believing and acting on the prejudice his parents have taught him. Harry, in contrast, is an innocent toddler who has never harmed anyone. Lily saves her son by putting her own body between him and evil, even though this causes her own death. Narcissa, on the other hand, goes to a third party - Snape - and asks him to protect her son. Lily offers her life; Narcissa, in essence, threatens Snape's. And Snape, who takes the Unbreakable Vow, is bound to kill, or else die. While Lily dies, Snape kills. At first glance, both Narcissa and Snape come off quite badly in comparison to Lily, the loving young girl who dies for her son. Yet, as a few fans pointed out, both Narcissa and Snape are nonetheless capable of love, the power Voldemort does not know, and this fact may have unexpected consequences for the Dark Lord.
In comparing these characters, I wanted to emphasize how difficult it can be to both love and keep one's motives pure. It actually is possible, here, to compare the Potterverse with another fictional universe, that of Tolkien's masterpiece, "The Lord Of the Rings". The main protagonist and hero of LOTR (the first among several heroes) is Samwise Gamgee, and the action of the story follows his movement from the innocence of ignorance and inexperience to the innocence of grace. Harry, though also (IMHO) not the only hero of the "Harry Potter" books, is the protagonist and main character. And he is a child when the story begins, and will be a man when it ends. Thus, it is reasonable to guess that his spiritual journey will mirror Sam Gamgee's.
Sam is an extraordinarily brave, faithful and loyal young man. But he is narrow - minded and capable of being very judgemental. He will do anything for his friend and master, Frodo (whom he seems to worship at times, just as both Harry and Hagrid seem to worship Dumbledore), but he considers Frodo foolish for trusting the corrupted old hobbit, Gollum. One of the key scenes in LOTR occurs on the stairs of Cirith Ungol (this is a scene that was unforgivably mangled in the movie, for those who don't know the books). Frodo has tamed Gollum - who now calls himself Smeagol. Frodo always uses only that name when speaking to the creature, but Sam does not, instead calling him either Gollum or Smeagol when speaking to him, and Slinker or Stinker when speaking about him. His hatred and contempt for the creature is constant, and he cannot forgive Smeagol for what he has been and done, even though Smeagol has never harmed Sam directly. But Sam is very aware of the danger Smeagol might pose to Frodo, the master he loves. And he finds it harder to forgive dangers and injuries to loved ones than injuries to himself. As Stratford Caldecott says in his essay, "Over the Chasm of Fire":
In Jungian terms, Golllum is Sam's (and Frodo's) shadow. Sam frequently advises Frodo
to kill him when he has the chance. The hatred between them is one of the themes of their
journey into the Land of Shadow itself. (Tolkien: A Celebration, p. 31)
Of course, Sam is right to distrust Gollum, just as Harry and Sirius are right to distrust Kreacher. The creature is plotting to kill both Frodo and Sam and take the ring of power from Frodo's body. But he is offered a moment of choice on the stairs - a moment Sam interrupts. Here is the scene:
Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam
faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemd to
twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if
engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling
hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee - but almost the touch was a caress.
(The Two Towers, p. 341 )
Sam, who has fallen asleep when he was supposed to be on watch, wakes up and reacts with outrage. He calls Gollum a sneak, and Gollum, for his part, retreats back into his safe anger and vengefulness. Tolkien has said that this moment is pivotal for both Gollum's character and Sam's. Had Gollum had a little more time, or had Sam greeted him with friendliness and understanding, Gollum would have been confirmed in his good impulse to warn the hobbits about the trap waiting for them - the huge spider, Shelob. Granted, Gollum was the one who set the trap in the first place - he is no innocent - but, if it were not for Sam's anger, love for Frodo would have won out over hatred. This, professor Tolkien has said, would not have affected the end of the story, but it would have made a great difference to Gollum's spiritual journey - through his love for Frodo, he would have achieved redemption. Because of Sam's anger, that doesn't happen.
At this stage of the journey, Sam cannot imagine what it is like to be Gollum. He loves his master and hates anyone who might be a threat to Frodo; empathy for a twisted, evil creature like Gollum never enters his head, even as a possibility. But, after the betrayal and the battle with Shelob, Sam takes the ring from Frodo's body and puts it on:
At once he was aware that hearing was sharpened while sight was dimmed, . . .All things about him were not dark, but vague; while he himself was there in a grey hazy world, alone, like a small black solid rock, and the Ring, weighing down his left hand, was like an orb of hot gold. He did not feel invisible at all, but horribly and uniquely visible; and he knew that somewhere an Eye was searching for him. (Two Towers, page 363).
This is another scene that was left out of the movies, and which is essential for Sam's character arc. He does not want to take the ring, and does not want to leave Frodo, whom he thinks dead. But he is aware that the quest must not fail, so Sam screws himself up to do something absolutely contrary to his nature, in the service of a greater good, and this experience changes him. When Gollum attacks on the side of Mount Doom, Sam is able to see him for what he is, as he could not on the stairs of Cirith Ungol. "He himself . . . had borne the Ring, and now dimly he guessed the agony of Gollum's shrivelled mind and body, enslaved to that ring, unable to find peace or relief ever in life again." (Return of the King, page 234). Because he understands that agony, Sam lets Gollum live.
It is because Sam spares Gollum that the quest succeeds. Sam's act of mercy and compassion is the last in a chain - for Frodo has made the same leap, for the same reason; by bearing the ring, he has come to understand both Gollum's torment and the darkness within him. Back when he himself was innocent and ignorant, and Gandalf first told him about Gollum and the Ring of power, Frodo responded, "What a pity that Bilbo did not stab the vile creature, when he had a chance!" (Fellowship, page 77) It is not until he himself has carried the ring that Frodo is able to say, "Now that I see him, I do pity him." (Two Towers, page 232) Aragorn, too, treated Gollum as mercifully as he was able when he captured him, as did the wood elves when they kept him in prison. If one person had chosen to kill Gollum, rather than having mercy on him, the quest would have failed. But it is Sam who spares Gollum at the critical time, when he has very good reason to kill him. And it is that final act of mercy which leads to victory.
Some fans have argued that Harry has already shown a mercy similar to Sam's. They see Peter Pettigrew as the Gollum figure in the Potterverse, and believe Harry's sparing of Peter's life in POA is the equivalent of Sam's sparing Gollum. Certainly, Pettigrew resembles Gollum; he is a contemptible coward who is also very dangerous. But is Harry merciful to Pettigrew in the same way that Sam (or, for that matter, Frodo) is to Gollum? I believe not. For one thing, Sam and Frodo, like Bilbo before them, actually have the opportunity to kill Gollum themselves. Harry does not. It is his godfather, Sirius Black, and Black's friend Remus Lupin who are about to kill their former friend. Also, what sort of mercy does Harry actually offer Pettigrew? Where Bilbo and Sam let Gollum go free to do what he will, and where Frodo, Aragorn and the wood elves give him good treatment - and, in Frodo's case, trust - Harry does none of these things. He says, "We'll take him up to the castle. We'll hand him over to the dementors." (POA page 375) We should not forget that Harry himself fears the dementors more than anything else. And having one's soul sucked out by a dementor is a fate worse than death. Harry is not really threatening this, but he fully expects Pettigrew to be surrounded and tormented by dementors for the rest of his life. He thinks - perhaps rightly - that the man deserves this fate. As mercy goes, this is rather problematic. Finally, unlike Frodo, Sam, and even Bilbo, Harry shows absolutely no empathy for Pettigrew in this scene. The people he is concerned for, and is sparing, are Lupin and Black. Here is his reaction to Pettigrew when he urges the two men not to kill him:
"Get off me!" Harry spat, throwing Pettigrew's hands off him in disgust. "I'm not doing this for you. I'm doing it because - I don't reckon my dad would've wanted them to become killers - just for you. (POA, pages 375, 376)
But Harry, in this scene, is still a child not quite fourteen years old. To expect an adult level of empathy and forgiveness from him is unreasonable. And he has already listened to and 'forgiven' Sirius Black, whom he suspected of betraying his parents. As it turns out, Black, though certainly a flawed human being, doesn't need Harry's forgiveness since he means Harry well and never betrayed his parents. Still, Harry spares Black's life when he has a chance to kill him. And he listens to him, becoming convinced of his innocence, and also urges him not to kill Pettigrew. These acts show that Harry is capable of empathy, even if he has not yet achieved Sam or Frodo's level of understanding.
What will it take for Harry to achieve that adult level of compassion, which Caldecott calls the innocence of grace? I believe Harry will have to understand his own capacity for evil. After all, Frodo and Sam grant mercy to Gollum because they have both faced the same temptation he faced. They understand that, in different circumstances, they might have become like him. Gollum is completely enslaved to the ring; Frodo struggles against it bravely, only to succumb at the very end of the quest (and Tolkien has said it is important that readers should realize Frodo actually fails. He fails only because he has been asked to do the impossible, but he does fail.) Sam, in contrast, is one of only two people in the entire history of Middle-Earth who gives up the ring freely ( the other is Bilbo Baggins), and he is the only one who manages to do so on his own, without help from any other person. Even so, though he rejects the dream of power the ring gives him, he is tempted by it. In forgiving Gollum on the side of Mount Doom, Sam finally accepts his shadow. As Caldecott says,
Gollum, despised and outcast, represents the weakness and evil that lurks in the soul of
a hobbit - even of a hobbit like Sam. . . . Sam's soul is only reordered and healed at the
very end of the Quest, on the side of Mount Doom, by first sparing and finally forgiving Gollum. (Tolkien: a Celebration: page 31)
As far as Harry is concerned, evil has always been external to himself. Its physical embodiment has been Voldemort, who killed both his parents and tried to kill him when he was a baby. Harry also locates evil in Slytherin house, and particularly in its head, Severus Snape. He has a tendency to project his failings onto Snape (who has failings enough of his own) and to blame the man for things he himself has done. Perhaps the clearest example of this is at the end of Order of the Phoenix, after Sirius has died. Harry blames Snape for taunting Sirius and thereby pushing him to go rescue Harry. "He felt a savage pleasure in blaming Snape, it seemed to be easing his own sense of dreadful guilt, and he wanted to hear Dumbledore agree with him" (OOTP page 833). And again, shortly later: "Snape had emerged from the staircase leading down to his office, and at the sight of him Harry felt a great rush of hatred . . .Whatever Dumbledore said, he would never forgive Snape. . ." (OOTP, page 851) As with Sam's hatred of Gollum, Harry's hatred of Severus Snape is constant and relentless. If there is anyone in these books who represents Harry's shadow, it is surely Snape. This is one reason why I believe Harry's forgiving Snape will be one of the climaxes of the final book.
But there is no doubt that, at the end of HBP, Harry is a very long way from any such mature understanding. He desires vengeance on both Snape and Voldemort, and pushes away the young girl who loves him - in order to protect her, true, but to deny love of any sort when you have been told repeatedly that it is your best weapon seems unwise at best. What most frustrates me about the sixteen-year-old Harry is his lack of curiousity about his own mother and her sacrifice. It is really Lily who has defeated Voldemort twice, but, when Dumbledore reminds Harry about the power of love, the boy is dismissive:
"But I haven't got uncommon skill and power," said Harry before he could stop himself.
"Yes, you have," said Dumbledore firmly. "You have a power that Voldemort has never had.
You can -"
"I know!" said Harry impatiently. "I can love!" It was only with difficulty that he stopped
himself adding, "Big deal!" (HBP, page 509)
As Jodel remarks in her essay, "The Premature prediction", "Harry is still ignoring the implications of his mother's sacrifice. In fact, he is not just ignoring is mother's death. He is largely ignoring her life as well." She adds, "Harry really does not come across in the books as a particularly loving child." (http://www.redhen-publications.com/Premature.html) Still, if Harry does not seem particularly loving and aware, he is capable of love, and, as I said at the beginning of this essay, that fact alone is remarkable given the upbringing and training the Dursleys have given him. And - though he does not yet realize it - he has already used this power to defeat Voldemort. Harry's victory takes place in the Ministry of Magic, and an essayist called Beyond_Pale has written a brief, but insightful analysis of his struggle. She points out that Harry accepts death willingly - even gladly - at the thought of being reunited with his godfather, Sirius Black. And this acceptance of death is what drives Voldemort, who has been possessing him, out of his body. Here is the link to her essay: (http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/147638.html)
Beyond-Pale contends it is really Harry's acceptance of death that drives out Voldemort, not the boy's ability to love. However, I don't think these two capacities can be separated. It is precisely because he loves his godfather that Harry experiences something akin to joy at the thought of being reunited with him. And that is what gives him the victory. In his willingness to accept death, Harry is imitating his mother, who willingly accepted death so that he could live. But Harry has not consciously realized this, and no one has pointed it out to him. I hope Harry will realize exactly what his mother did for him at some point in the seventh book.
I'd also like to point out that there seems to be a logical progression in the acts of love that have defeated, or will defeat, Voldemort. A mother's love for her child is primal and instinctive; I think any mother would gladly risk her life to protect her baby. A boy's love for a loving godfather - the only father figure he has ever known - is natural and human. And this love has brought Harry the second victory. But Lily's sacrifice did not destroy Voldemort completely, and Harry's victory in the Ministry was only temporary. The third and final victory will, I believe, require something more. I think Harry will be required to love his enemy. If Harry can manage to do so - to love and forgive Severus Snape, his shadow figure, as Sam forgives Gollum on Mount Doom - Voldemort will be defeated forever. Perhaps this seems an impossible task for Harry, especially given the events of HBP. But the boy was not able to kill Sirius Black when he thought he had good reason to do so. He was willing, in POA, to listen and forgive, and he found that the man he had thought his worst enemy was actually his godfather, who loved him and sought to protect him. It may be that the toxic relationship between Harry and Snape will likewise be transformed by Harry's forgiveness. Even if this is not the case, it seems clear that nothing less than loving his enemy will be required of Harry if he is to win the final victory.
The Harry Potter books may seem to be simple fairy tales for children, in which Harry and his friends represent 'good' and Voldemort and his minions represent 'evil'. Certainly, that is one level on which the books operate. But, if we look at the main struggle in the books, we find it is not a battle between some generic good and an evil bogeyman. It is not even a struggle between life and death. No, in these books, love is the greatest power in the universe, and that is especially true of self-sacrificial love. This love is opposed, not to death, but to the fear of death. It is as if Rowling was asking, "We humans all know that we are going to die. What should we do with that knowledge?" Her answer is, "Love. Love and be wise (2 )." For love conquers death, and transcends it. I am confident that, in the end, Harry will learn that lesson and act on it.
Sources:
Books
Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, first American Edition, Scholastic, 1998
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, first American edition, Scholastic 1999
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, first American edition, Scholastic, 2003
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, first American edition, Scholastic, 2005
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Fellowship of the Ring. London: Folio Society, 1998 (second printing)
The Two Towers London: Folio Society, 1998 (second printing)
The Return of the King, London: Folio Society, 1998 (second printing)
"Over the Chasm of Fire: Christian Heroism in The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings", by Stratford Caldecott, in Tolkien: A Celebration: Collected Writings on a Literary Legacy, edited by Joseph Pierce. Fount (an Imprint of HarperCollins), London 1999, Pages 17 - 33.
Webistes:
John Granger's Hogwarts Professor: www.hogwartsprofessor.com
Joyce Odell's Red Hen: "The Premature Prediction": http://www.redhen-publications.com/Premature.html
Beyond_Pale's livejournal: "A Radical Hypothesis on the Nature of the Feedback Loop"
http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/147638.html
Miscellaneous:
"All that you can't Leave Behind" is from the U2 album of the same name, Island Records
Footnotes:
1. John Granger points out the two meanings of "Voldemort", but the name also reminds me of "voluntas mortis" - will to death.
2. I struggled to remember where this quote came from; it is the title of a mystery by Josephine Tey.
* About the wrong choices made by these characters - we still don't know exactly when or why Severus Snape became a Death Eater, nor the full story of his repentance. This is also something I hope Rowling will clarify in the final book.