07-24-2007, 10:02 AM
|
#114 (permalink)
|
|
Kick Ass Kunoichi
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
Spoiler: I really dont get why so many people want to defend Dumbledore the Sororicide. Harry was the Good Shepherd, and Dumbledore was the bad shepherd... and Voldemoret is the wolf: isnt that the message? That Dumbledore was not man enough for the job because the ends DONT justify the means? Dumbledore could not protect his people, it took a boy to do the job - because despite the massive advantage he had in terms of the Elder wand, he did not have a pure heart. And there was a way to kill Voldemort and not Harry - the deathly hallows... a secret which Dumbledore at best left vague and unspecific clues to so as to satisfy his own twisted morality without actually helping. How hard would it have been to arrange for the Elder wand to come to Harry? How hard to actually pass on the knowledge he had rather than simply leave Harry in Voldemort's grasp?
|
Spoiler: No, no, no. Dumbldedore's moral ambiguity as a teen is meant to make him more human, and his HUMANITY is what distinguishes him from Voldemort. Yes, he led Harry to the conclusion that he would have to die to separate himself from Voldemort, but Harry made the decision himself. Dumbledore is an illustration of how people change, and how sometimes the greater good requires sacrifice--one Dumbledore himself made, as did Snape, as did Harry in the end. Voldemort was ultimately unprepared for the fact that these men WOULD sacrifice their own lives to defeat him, because Voldemort himself is so lacking in humanity and compassion.
__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau
|
|
|