![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Moral dilemmas in the HP-verse
Oct. 8th, 2007 09:46 amIn spite of the thinker-icon, don't expect any deeply philosophical stuff.
Yesterday, while cleaning out ze boyz' toilet (yes, that's always a source of inspiration) I thought that vegetable lasagna has become my party piece - it's always good, and people always like it.
Bear with me, we're coming to the moral dilemma bit.
Then I thought that Avada Kedavra - Expelliarmus really is Harry and Voldie's party piece - works like a charm (pardon the pun) and they perform it every time they meet.
Which finally led to the conclusion that, by employing the party piece, JKR eschews a moral dilemma that ought to be explored.
If Harry doesn't even consider using the killing curse, he dodges one of the most important decisions a human being can possibly make: Do I have the right to take another life in order to save not only my own life and the lives of my friends, but possibly also the lives of hundreds of others?
There's only one brief allusion to the problem in DH, in the Seven Potters chapter, when Remus argues with Harry that he ought to use less harmless spells and get out the heavy weaponry, because the Death Eaters fight dirty. Harry is very strongly against the suggestion, so we *do* see his point of view on the matter.
But the book covers an entire year, and lots of things happen during that year, among them a few serious attempts at taking Harry's life - one might reasonably expect his opinion on the matter to have undergone a change by the time he has to face Voldemort.
In my opinion, if an author undertakes to write a series of books, the major leitmotiv of which is Good vs Evil, solving the question by having the killing curse rebounce (again!) on the one who casts it isn't an answer to this most important of questions.
If, on the other hand, Harry knew exactly what was going to happen, i.e. that Voldemort was going to die, it might have been interesting to learn how he feels about the issue. The crapilogue doesn't tell the reader much, except that having killed at the tender age of 17 doesn't prevent you from living happily ever after.
And no, the argument 'it's a children's book' does *not* convince me, because HP stopped being a series for children after book 2.
Besides, even if it was a valid argument, writing for children implies an even stronger obligation to solve moral issues satisfactorily and not merely by showing the young readers that killing is ok, so long as you take an Evil Overlord's life. Maybe it is, but even then I'd like to be able to recognize *why* it's ok and what it does to the person who casts the curse.
On a less dramatic note, I'm going to skip today's kick boxing lesson, because I'm dog tired. Janine and Irene are leaving today, so yesterday was our last evening together, and of course we made the most of it. *falls asleep at desk*
And finally, a cultural observation: During Ramadan, there are people walking through the street, beating drums at 3.30 a.m., in order to wake people up, so they can start eating in time before sunrise. My amusement coefficient is below zero.
Yesterday, while cleaning out ze boyz' toilet (yes, that's always a source of inspiration) I thought that vegetable lasagna has become my party piece - it's always good, and people always like it.
Bear with me, we're coming to the moral dilemma bit.
Then I thought that Avada Kedavra - Expelliarmus really is Harry and Voldie's party piece - works like a charm (pardon the pun) and they perform it every time they meet.
Which finally led to the conclusion that, by employing the party piece, JKR eschews a moral dilemma that ought to be explored.
If Harry doesn't even consider using the killing curse, he dodges one of the most important decisions a human being can possibly make: Do I have the right to take another life in order to save not only my own life and the lives of my friends, but possibly also the lives of hundreds of others?
There's only one brief allusion to the problem in DH, in the Seven Potters chapter, when Remus argues with Harry that he ought to use less harmless spells and get out the heavy weaponry, because the Death Eaters fight dirty. Harry is very strongly against the suggestion, so we *do* see his point of view on the matter.
But the book covers an entire year, and lots of things happen during that year, among them a few serious attempts at taking Harry's life - one might reasonably expect his opinion on the matter to have undergone a change by the time he has to face Voldemort.
In my opinion, if an author undertakes to write a series of books, the major leitmotiv of which is Good vs Evil, solving the question by having the killing curse rebounce (again!) on the one who casts it isn't an answer to this most important of questions.
If, on the other hand, Harry knew exactly what was going to happen, i.e. that Voldemort was going to die, it might have been interesting to learn how he feels about the issue. The crapilogue doesn't tell the reader much, except that having killed at the tender age of 17 doesn't prevent you from living happily ever after.
And no, the argument 'it's a children's book' does *not* convince me, because HP stopped being a series for children after book 2.
Besides, even if it was a valid argument, writing for children implies an even stronger obligation to solve moral issues satisfactorily and not merely by showing the young readers that killing is ok, so long as you take an Evil Overlord's life. Maybe it is, but even then I'd like to be able to recognize *why* it's ok and what it does to the person who casts the curse.
On a less dramatic note, I'm going to skip today's kick boxing lesson, because I'm dog tired. Janine and Irene are leaving today, so yesterday was our last evening together, and of course we made the most of it. *falls asleep at desk*
And finally, a cultural observation: During Ramadan, there are people walking through the street, beating drums at 3.30 a.m., in order to wake people up, so they can start eating in time before sunrise. My amusement coefficient is below zero.
