![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
In the process of working out some plot ideas for a new fic, a question suddenly occurred to me, one with important consequences for any real appraisal of Severus' moral/ethical position in the books. Don't get me wrong - I love Severus and think he's gotten a bad rap from a lot of people. Considering what he's had to work with, his moral growth is striking. However, there's a point where I have to wonder if his submission to Dumbledore kept him from making a moral step he really should have made after the revelation of the Harrycrux. The question, namely, is this:
Was it truly necessary for Voldemort to be KILLED? Not just defeated, not just prevented from murdering and wreaking havoc, but actually killed. Or in the words of the prophecy, destroyed.
I ask because the answer to this question is also the answer to the question of whether or not HARRY had to die (or sort-of-die, but Severus didn't know that), and therefore has real implications when we try to judge not only Dumbledore's, but also Severus', moral status after Dumbledore's coming-clean about the Harrycrux. Severus was suitably shocked and horrified at the realization that Dumbledore had used him and had set up Harry to die, yes.
However, after that moment of horror had passed, he went along with the plan. Apparently (from what we're shown in canon) without much of a complaint or attempt to find another way of resolving the whole mess. Granted, I'm assuming here that, outside the boundaries of JKR's rather...strange moral world, the idea of actually sending a boy off to commit suicide for the Greater Good (TM), without telling him until the last minute that this is what he is doing, is going to be viewed as at least as questionable as secretly raising the boy for this purpose all along was. Considering his horror at Dumbledore's deception, I do believe that Severus could reasonably be expected to infer this. And yet this is precisely what he ultimately does. Which, in my reading of the situation, leaves us with two distinct options (please correct me if you see any other way out), one of which has almost no actual support in canon that I can think of at the moment. These options are:
1. It is truly necessary for Voldemort to DIE, and therefore for Harry to die. For some reason it is pretty much impossible - not simply very, very difficult, but actually impossible (or so close to impossible that the difference is negligible) - to simply imprison Voldie or otherwise render him harmless once the other Horcruxes are destroyed. Best-case scenario for Severus, though totally unsupported by canon, is that Dumbledore knew this and at some point explained to Severus exactly why this was, indeed, the situation. Very little in canon to suggest this, beyond the fact that the idea of capturing Voldemort rather than killing him simply never comes up. If this is indeed the case, I'd like some details as to why, please, and not just 'he's so POWERFUL.' We haven't really been given anything solid to suggest that his powers of of such a magnitude as to make his death the only viable option in the war, whereas in Grindelwald we HAVE been given an example of a powerful, formerly terrifying Dark Lord being defeated and locked up. By Dumbledore himself.
2. It is not, in fact, truly necessary for Voldemort (and therefore Harry) to die. He could theoretically, given enough time and manpower, be captured, rendered unable to do magic (there has to be a way, considering the existence of Azkaban in conjunction with the existence of wandless magic) and imprisoned. Dumbledore's and Severus' failure to thoroughly investigate this option (we are not shown that it is ever an issue for them) before sending Harry off on his death march then, in my book at least, counts as a moral failing for both of them.
I don't much like the implications of 2 for Severus, particularly considering how I stood up an applauded him with his "You have used me!" speech. But in light of what we are given in canon to go on, I find myself leaning towards this interpretation of events nonetheless. So I'm interested in how other people read the situation - and also your thoughts on why JKR doesn't seem at all concerned with this angle, and what that says about her and her creation in turn. What do you think? Am I missing something, or mis-reading something? Or has JKR for whatever reason slipped up and given us a big, glaring moral hole in her story? (And one more crack in the already-shaky foundation for her claims that Dumbles is ultimately really good)?
Anyway, thanks for listening to me rant. ;)
Was it truly necessary for Voldemort to be KILLED? Not just defeated, not just prevented from murdering and wreaking havoc, but actually killed. Or in the words of the prophecy, destroyed.
I ask because the answer to this question is also the answer to the question of whether or not HARRY had to die (or sort-of-die, but Severus didn't know that), and therefore has real implications when we try to judge not only Dumbledore's, but also Severus', moral status after Dumbledore's coming-clean about the Harrycrux. Severus was suitably shocked and horrified at the realization that Dumbledore had used him and had set up Harry to die, yes.
However, after that moment of horror had passed, he went along with the plan. Apparently (from what we're shown in canon) without much of a complaint or attempt to find another way of resolving the whole mess. Granted, I'm assuming here that, outside the boundaries of JKR's rather...strange moral world, the idea of actually sending a boy off to commit suicide for the Greater Good (TM), without telling him until the last minute that this is what he is doing, is going to be viewed as at least as questionable as secretly raising the boy for this purpose all along was. Considering his horror at Dumbledore's deception, I do believe that Severus could reasonably be expected to infer this. And yet this is precisely what he ultimately does. Which, in my reading of the situation, leaves us with two distinct options (please correct me if you see any other way out), one of which has almost no actual support in canon that I can think of at the moment. These options are:
1. It is truly necessary for Voldemort to DIE, and therefore for Harry to die. For some reason it is pretty much impossible - not simply very, very difficult, but actually impossible (or so close to impossible that the difference is negligible) - to simply imprison Voldie or otherwise render him harmless once the other Horcruxes are destroyed. Best-case scenario for Severus, though totally unsupported by canon, is that Dumbledore knew this and at some point explained to Severus exactly why this was, indeed, the situation. Very little in canon to suggest this, beyond the fact that the idea of capturing Voldemort rather than killing him simply never comes up. If this is indeed the case, I'd like some details as to why, please, and not just 'he's so POWERFUL.' We haven't really been given anything solid to suggest that his powers of of such a magnitude as to make his death the only viable option in the war, whereas in Grindelwald we HAVE been given an example of a powerful, formerly terrifying Dark Lord being defeated and locked up. By Dumbledore himself.
2. It is not, in fact, truly necessary for Voldemort (and therefore Harry) to die. He could theoretically, given enough time and manpower, be captured, rendered unable to do magic (there has to be a way, considering the existence of Azkaban in conjunction with the existence of wandless magic) and imprisoned. Dumbledore's and Severus' failure to thoroughly investigate this option (we are not shown that it is ever an issue for them) before sending Harry off on his death march then, in my book at least, counts as a moral failing for both of them.
I don't much like the implications of 2 for Severus, particularly considering how I stood up an applauded him with his "You have used me!" speech. But in light of what we are given in canon to go on, I find myself leaning towards this interpretation of events nonetheless. So I'm interested in how other people read the situation - and also your thoughts on why JKR doesn't seem at all concerned with this angle, and what that says about her and her creation in turn. What do you think? Am I missing something, or mis-reading something? Or has JKR for whatever reason slipped up and given us a big, glaring moral hole in her story? (And one more crack in the already-shaky foundation for her claims that Dumbles is ultimately really good)?
Anyway, thanks for listening to me rant. ;)
My theory after HBP was that Voldemort intended to take over Harry, body and soul. Not to possess him - no, I thought he planned to merge with Harry by expelling the boy's soul from his (Harry's) body and then taking over. This, I thought, was why he kept insisting he, and only he, could kill Harry. Severus hated Harry because he hated and feared Voldemort and sensed the soul fragment in him (0r so I thought) and Dumbledore, the only person with the whole picture, was more afraid of this spiritual death for Harry than physical death. That's where I was after HBP. Rowling dropped the ball on a lot of this, but it still makes sense.
As to why Voldemort has to die, it's because, for all practical purposes, he is already dead. He has destroyed his own soul and his body is made up of parts taken by violence or bits of corpse. There is no chance of real life for him.
But, again, I still read the prophecy - "neither can live while the other survives" - as referring to Severus and Voldemort. Harry is living just fine, thank you - except, of course, for the fact that he has a soul fragment lodged in his skull. That does have to go. But it seems to me that it's Severus who is trapped in a half-life, not Harry.
I don't know if any of these ideas help to answer your questions. But, as I said, it's obvious to me that Voldemort really does have to die, because he is not alive. And Harry has to die - or at least offer his life - in order to drive the soul fragment out of him. I don't think there is any other way. But what I would have done - what I did do, is (1) Have Harry come to his own understanding of Voldemort's plans for him. (2) Have him decide to sacrifice himself to save someone else. Not to kill Voldemort, as happened in the book, but actually to save someone else. Harry might or might not survive this exercise. I don't think there would be any need for him to actually die provided the alien soul fragment was driven out of him.(3) Then Snape would kill what remained of Voldemort.
To me, this is more satisfying than what Rowling did do. As it is, Dumbledore looks highly culpable because of his lying and manipulation. And Snape, like Harry, looks trapped - by Dumbledore far more than by Voldemort.
Just my two cents.
In addition Dumbledore sort of brainwashed him to mistrust his own judgement and common sense. Whenever he disagrees, his objections are dismissed, ridiculed or attributed to selfishness. He is made to feel guilty about his doubts, seeing them as the fruits of his thoroughly wicked Slytherin mind which cannot understand the requirements of the greater good. In his idealised concept of Lily she has always been right, therefore he must have been wrong. When his own experience, morals and rational mind tell him otherwise, this is only confirmation of his own lack of inner goodness. His only choice is to follow Dumbledore's guidance, because Dumbledore claims to fully understand what Lily would have wanted. Psychologically this amounts to a spiral of vice; the more his own judgement tells him that Dumbledore's orders are wrong, the more they must be right, because Dumbledore and Lily are good and he is evil by default. Dumbledore sees to it that Severus cannot escape this trap.