The Question of Immortality in HP
Oct. 26th, 2004 06:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
donnaimmaculataSome time ago, I posted a couple of completely random and totally unconnected theories. I said about those that I take them for granted until Rowling proves me wrong. True as this is, it only applies to my personal fiction universe: i.e. I take those theories for granted in my personal perception and my writing. If Rowling decides to point out in book 6 that Remus indeed has scars and that Parvati truly is the silly girl she's considered by the majority of the fans, I shall be mildly disappointed, but it won't change anything about my perception of the series.
There is one thing, however, which I believe in so firmly that it will considerably affect my reading of the novels. I am convinced that the leitmotif of the series, the key to Voldemort's plans and (though I don't know in which way) the climactic turning point is the aspect of immortality.
For me it is obvious that immortality is what Voldemort is really after, and I have discussed this topic at some point or other, most often in passing. It is so obvious to me that I feel rather silly typing this essay, because I think that it must be obvious to everyone else, as well, because, duh! Rowling spelled it out for us.
The most obvious clues are: Voldemort didn't die when hit by the Killing Curse and he's gathered a swell bunch of guy around himself who call themselves Death Eaters. These are the aspects I pointed out before, but I want to do this properly this time and quote some passages from the books to emphasise this theory.
In PS, when Hagrid tells Harry about Voldemort, he says, "Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion. Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die." [PS, Chap. 4] If I'm not mistaken, this is the first indication we get that Voldemort has performed some powerful magic that would make him immortal. Immortality, of course, is the leitmotif on the entire book, here represented in the form of the Philosopher's Stone.
Voldemort also tries other means of, if not achieving immortality, then of delaying death. "The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death [...] all you need is to stay alive long enough to drink something else ... something to bring you back to full strength and power ... something that will mean you can never die." [PS, Chap. 15]
In conclusion of the entire adventure, Dumbledore tells Harry that, "He [Voldemort] is still out there somewhere, perhaps looking for another body to share [...] while you may only have delayed his return to power, it will merely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle next time." [PS, Chap. 17]
Clearly, the first glimpses we get of Voldemort are not those of a racist and anti-Muggle-campaigner, but of a man (and I'm using this word carefully here), whose deepest desire is to not die.
Chamber of Secrets continues right in this vein. Voldemort managed to immortalise his 16-years-old self in his diary. This indicates that he was obsessed with the idea of never passing away already at such an early age. Later, we learn from Dumbledore that "He [Riddle] disappeared after leaving the school ... travelled far and wide ... sank so deeply into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of our kind, underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations, that when he resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognisable." [CoS, Chap. 18] Riddle was driven by the desire of divesting himself from his mortality, and therefore, he abandoned his humanity. I will come back to this point, but first I want to give my explanation of a much-discussed sentence from GoF: "For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes." [GoF, Chap. 36] Poor Albus! How often has he been accused of being the true evil mastermind behind everything because of this sentence! Now, I am convinced that the gleam of triumph is due to Albus' supreme knowledge of how the magic works that Voldemort has used to make himself immortal.
As I said above, abandoning mortality Voldemort has abandoned his humanity, as well. Or vice versa. Being human equals being mortal. In order to become Voldemort, Riddle underwent many magical transformations, the result of which was that he was left with not enough human in him to die.
Now, using Harry's blood, Voldemort let the very essence of human life - lifeblood - back into his system. He got back his body and in a way, his life. By using Harry's blood, he made himself mortal again. (On a side note: I think that using Harry' blood was also the act that strengthened the bound between Voldemort to Harry. The bound was first created when the Killing Curse rebounded, but now, Voldemort made Harry the means of killing him by making him the means of bringing him back to life. But this refers to my idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy, which I might elaborate some other time.)
And now I finally come to the abstract conclusion of my reading. Throughout the history of mankind, there have always been stories and legends of ambitious men who were in search of immortality. The search of immortality has been a driving point for kings and heroes and scientists, and it is a motif found throughout all cultures: take Ahasverus the eternal Jew, or Gigamesh or Faust or Juan Ponce de Leon... The myths and legends are countless.
The point is, all these legends (well, I obviously don't know all legends, but the ones I know) tell us that seeking immortality is not a very healthy thing to do. The protagonists end up either evil or trapped in a bizarre form of non-life, always haunted and never really happy. (On another side note, there is a reason why the undead are traditionally considered evil: humans as a species consider not-dying as the very quintessence of inhumanity and distrust it deeply. Therefore, all creatures of the night who have either willingly forfeited or been forced to give up immortality - vampires, zombies, werewolves and whatnot - have always been evil per definition, even though there has also been the trend to make them tragic, as well. And of course, there's also Terry Pratchett, whose approach to the question of the undead is quite ingenious.)
As to modern interpretations of immortality: I am not perfectly at home in the fantasy genre, but from all that I know immortality is generally considered a burden more than a blessing, if only because it is a means of dehumanisation. Seeing as it is a theme exploited by a considerable number of fantasy writers, I think that Rowling, who plays around with a variety of traditional motifs, uses it, too.
Having said thus much, I need to address the other form of immortality Rowling makes use of: On the one hand, we've got Voldemort and his Death Eaters who want immortality, and on the other hand, the good guys who know that dying is important. However, the good guys also have their own methods of not-dying. There are the ghosts and the paintings, and there is the fact that those whom we have loved will never truly die. But there is also the phoenix, which is the very essence of non-dying. I'm not using the word "immortality" here, because the phoenix is mortal. It dies, but it comes back to life straightaway. It is, in a way, a personification of the immortality proclaimed by many religions: People die only to come back to life again.
Obviously, Voldemort's search of immortality is bad, while the phoenix is an intrinsically good creature. At this point, it all goes a bit mythic, I think. I have no sufficient explanation as to why Voldemort's immortality is evil and the phoenix's is good, apart from the fact that it's rooted in tradition. But why? Maybe because humans feel that one has to truly die, like the phoenix does when it bursts into flames, before one can be reborn?
This also leads to the Nicholas Flamel question. Obviously, he was using the elixir of life, which, traditionally, is something only the evil or the deluded do. However, in spite of the fact that the elixir is said to make the drinker immortal, we know that Nicholas Flamel didn't become immortal. He died when he stopped drinking it. Just an omission on Rowling's part or did she want to tell us something?
There are still many questions left, especially regarding the distinctions between "good" immortality and "evil" immortality. But I really do think that this is what Voldemort is truly after, and that's why he's named his followers Death Eaters. That would also explain the distinction between initiated Death Eaters and normal Dark wizards and Voldemort supporters (such as the Blacks, who, in spite of being nastily Dark, were no Death Eaters).
I would also find it unsatisfying from a literary point of view if killing Muggles and purifying wizardkind was Voldemort's major objective. The ultimate fight has to be between the mortal humans and the inhuman immortal or something equally dramatic.
There is one thing, however, which I believe in so firmly that it will considerably affect my reading of the novels. I am convinced that the leitmotif of the series, the key to Voldemort's plans and (though I don't know in which way) the climactic turning point is the aspect of immortality.
For me it is obvious that immortality is what Voldemort is really after, and I have discussed this topic at some point or other, most often in passing. It is so obvious to me that I feel rather silly typing this essay, because I think that it must be obvious to everyone else, as well, because, duh! Rowling spelled it out for us.
The most obvious clues are: Voldemort didn't die when hit by the Killing Curse and he's gathered a swell bunch of guy around himself who call themselves Death Eaters. These are the aspects I pointed out before, but I want to do this properly this time and quote some passages from the books to emphasise this theory.
In PS, when Hagrid tells Harry about Voldemort, he says, "Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion. Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die." [PS, Chap. 4] If I'm not mistaken, this is the first indication we get that Voldemort has performed some powerful magic that would make him immortal. Immortality, of course, is the leitmotif on the entire book, here represented in the form of the Philosopher's Stone.
Voldemort also tries other means of, if not achieving immortality, then of delaying death. "The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death [...] all you need is to stay alive long enough to drink something else ... something to bring you back to full strength and power ... something that will mean you can never die." [PS, Chap. 15]
In conclusion of the entire adventure, Dumbledore tells Harry that, "He [Voldemort] is still out there somewhere, perhaps looking for another body to share [...] while you may only have delayed his return to power, it will merely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle next time." [PS, Chap. 17]
Clearly, the first glimpses we get of Voldemort are not those of a racist and anti-Muggle-campaigner, but of a man (and I'm using this word carefully here), whose deepest desire is to not die.
Chamber of Secrets continues right in this vein. Voldemort managed to immortalise his 16-years-old self in his diary. This indicates that he was obsessed with the idea of never passing away already at such an early age. Later, we learn from Dumbledore that "He [Riddle] disappeared after leaving the school ... travelled far and wide ... sank so deeply into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of our kind, underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations, that when he resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognisable." [CoS, Chap. 18] Riddle was driven by the desire of divesting himself from his mortality, and therefore, he abandoned his humanity. I will come back to this point, but first I want to give my explanation of a much-discussed sentence from GoF: "For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes." [GoF, Chap. 36] Poor Albus! How often has he been accused of being the true evil mastermind behind everything because of this sentence! Now, I am convinced that the gleam of triumph is due to Albus' supreme knowledge of how the magic works that Voldemort has used to make himself immortal.
As I said above, abandoning mortality Voldemort has abandoned his humanity, as well. Or vice versa. Being human equals being mortal. In order to become Voldemort, Riddle underwent many magical transformations, the result of which was that he was left with not enough human in him to die.
Now, using Harry's blood, Voldemort let the very essence of human life - lifeblood - back into his system. He got back his body and in a way, his life. By using Harry's blood, he made himself mortal again. (On a side note: I think that using Harry' blood was also the act that strengthened the bound between Voldemort to Harry. The bound was first created when the Killing Curse rebounded, but now, Voldemort made Harry the means of killing him by making him the means of bringing him back to life. But this refers to my idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy, which I might elaborate some other time.)
And now I finally come to the abstract conclusion of my reading. Throughout the history of mankind, there have always been stories and legends of ambitious men who were in search of immortality. The search of immortality has been a driving point for kings and heroes and scientists, and it is a motif found throughout all cultures: take Ahasverus the eternal Jew, or Gigamesh or Faust or Juan Ponce de Leon... The myths and legends are countless.
The point is, all these legends (well, I obviously don't know all legends, but the ones I know) tell us that seeking immortality is not a very healthy thing to do. The protagonists end up either evil or trapped in a bizarre form of non-life, always haunted and never really happy. (On another side note, there is a reason why the undead are traditionally considered evil: humans as a species consider not-dying as the very quintessence of inhumanity and distrust it deeply. Therefore, all creatures of the night who have either willingly forfeited or been forced to give up immortality - vampires, zombies, werewolves and whatnot - have always been evil per definition, even though there has also been the trend to make them tragic, as well. And of course, there's also Terry Pratchett, whose approach to the question of the undead is quite ingenious.)
As to modern interpretations of immortality: I am not perfectly at home in the fantasy genre, but from all that I know immortality is generally considered a burden more than a blessing, if only because it is a means of dehumanisation. Seeing as it is a theme exploited by a considerable number of fantasy writers, I think that Rowling, who plays around with a variety of traditional motifs, uses it, too.
Having said thus much, I need to address the other form of immortality Rowling makes use of: On the one hand, we've got Voldemort and his Death Eaters who want immortality, and on the other hand, the good guys who know that dying is important. However, the good guys also have their own methods of not-dying. There are the ghosts and the paintings, and there is the fact that those whom we have loved will never truly die. But there is also the phoenix, which is the very essence of non-dying. I'm not using the word "immortality" here, because the phoenix is mortal. It dies, but it comes back to life straightaway. It is, in a way, a personification of the immortality proclaimed by many religions: People die only to come back to life again.
Obviously, Voldemort's search of immortality is bad, while the phoenix is an intrinsically good creature. At this point, it all goes a bit mythic, I think. I have no sufficient explanation as to why Voldemort's immortality is evil and the phoenix's is good, apart from the fact that it's rooted in tradition. But why? Maybe because humans feel that one has to truly die, like the phoenix does when it bursts into flames, before one can be reborn?
This also leads to the Nicholas Flamel question. Obviously, he was using the elixir of life, which, traditionally, is something only the evil or the deluded do. However, in spite of the fact that the elixir is said to make the drinker immortal, we know that Nicholas Flamel didn't become immortal. He died when he stopped drinking it. Just an omission on Rowling's part or did she want to tell us something?
There are still many questions left, especially regarding the distinctions between "good" immortality and "evil" immortality. But I really do think that this is what Voldemort is truly after, and that's why he's named his followers Death Eaters. That would also explain the distinction between initiated Death Eaters and normal Dark wizards and Voldemort supporters (such as the Blacks, who, in spite of being nastily Dark, were no Death Eaters).
I would also find it unsatisfying from a literary point of view if killing Muggles and purifying wizardkind was Voldemort's major objective. The ultimate fight has to be between the mortal humans and the inhuman immortal or something equally dramatic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-26 05:49 pm (UTC)There's one fact that fits in it, too: Harrys and Voldemorts wand share the Phoenix feather core. The phoenix out of the ashes means immortality as well, and - like you - I am convinced that it has a special meaning for the book series. I hope I am making sense... I am very tired so my english is a bit difficult to understand tonight.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 02:00 am (UTC)There's one fact that fits in it, too: Harrys and Voldemorts wand share the Phoenix feather core. The phoenix out of the ashes means immortality as well, and - like you - I am convinced that it has a special meaning for the book series.
The woods in Harry's and Voldemort's wands are also associated, traditionally, with themes of rebirth and immortality--holly in a positive sense (it was once strongly associated with Christ, and with similar ideas before his time), and yew in a a negative sense. (Interestingly, both the phoenix and the unicorn have also been symbolically associated with Christ, which to me puts a whole new spin on their use in the books.)
My thought on why Fawkes and Flaumel's immortality themes are treated as non-evil, as opposed to Voldemort's: Voldemort consistently attempts to seize immortality, without regards to the cost to others (sort of echoing Tolkien's treatment of the subject, now that I think of it); whereas Fawkes possesses it as a natural gift, and Flaumel (as far as we know) created the Stone legitimately, harming no one--and also knew when to let it go.
Both Flamel and Dumbledore (who is, if I'm not mistaken, the second-oldest living person we know of in the books) are presented as good and decent men: one who devotes his life to teaching and to fighting evil, and one who is willing to give up immortality to protect others from his own creation. Maybe if there's a message behind it all, it's that long life is attainable and worth seeking only if one is willing to do something worthwhile with it.
Or, to put it another way: "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." (John 3:15)
(Not a practicing Christian myself, but I do see some very noticeable Christian undercurrents to the series.)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 11:24 am (UTC)As to the phoenix and the unicorn, aren't they older than Christianity? I agree that they are associated with Christ, but they existed without the Christian frame and were adapted to fit into Christian beliefs, weren't they? (My knowledge on this is a bit fuzzy, admittedly.)
I agree that Fawkes possesses immortality as a natural gift. However, I think that Flamel's actions move in a sort of grey area. Obviously, he seems to be one of the good guys and he knows when to let go. But by creating the Philosopher's Stone, he acts in exactly the same way as all the misguided scientists and alchemists I mentioned have. Apparently, he has caused no harm. However, we don't know any background details on the whole Philosopher's Stone story, and we will never know, because I doubt that Rowling will come back to it. Now that I'm typing it, it occurs to me how likely it is that Flamel didn't want to give up the stone. He didn't, after all, destroy it when it became apparent that Voldemort was after it. He continued clinging to life month after month throughout PS. And it was only after a talk with Dumbledore that he decided to destroy it. I don't remember off the top of my head what Dumbledore told Harry about his discussion with Flamel, but I don't think it matters anyway, because Dumbledore would not have told Harry the whole truth.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 09:08 pm (UTC)I believe so, yes. I seem to recall reading that the Phoenix originated in either the Orient or Central America--or maybe they both had their own versions of the myths; I was reading about a whole bunch of mythological creatures, and it's all a bit muddled now. But yes, it was adopted by Christians later on, as was the Unicorn. Still, I can't escape the symbolism of drinking the blood of the latter as a means to everlasting life...
I think the fact that the PS was, in fact, destroyed in the end with Flamel's blessing pretty much redeems him of any shadiness, at least in my eyes. (Assuming, of course, that DD didn't omit the part where he and Flamel battled to the death for control of the Stone!) And I prefer to imagine that, if he did protest the destruction of the stone, it would have been less out of greed for immortality (I think after six hundred years he must have been getting rather tired,) than of not wanting his greatest work to pass away.
Hm. I wonder if anyone's ever written a Flamel fanfic? [Ponders]
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 03:31 pm (UTC)And I prefer to imagine that, if he did protest the destruction of the stone, it would have been less out of greed for immortality (I think after six hundred years he must have been getting rather tired,)
Ah, see, this is something I am rather sceptic about. Of course, since we know nothing about Flamel, it's all subject to conjectures, but my impression about the whole immortality issue (as traditionally presented) is that it makes you sort of addicted. Even though you know that it's not good for you, you still carry on. This has nothing to do with Rowling's canon, however, and is merely my disilussion with regard to immortality.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 10:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 11:07 am (UTC)And you're making perfect sense, my dear ;-)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-26 06:24 pm (UTC)Immortality in fantasy: yes, it's seen as a burden. I can't remember which one, but I know there's a series in which the man who asked and received immortality went mad after a few thousand years.
On the difference between the immortality of Fawkes and Voldemort: Fawkes is only doing what is natural for him, Voldemort is going against nature (transforming huimself from being human to being, well, Voldemort).
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 11:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 02:53 pm (UTC)Personally, I wouldn't want to live forever. Just imagine not to be able to end things and get away from yourself, or at least have the hope of it.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 03:07 pm (UTC)Immortality is scary. It's like everlasting insomnia. What a terrible, terrible concept.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-26 06:42 pm (UTC)Much more interesting than a story that is little more than an allegorical presentation about Nazis.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 11:48 am (UTC)I wonder about the significance of Sirius' death. As deaths go, the whole falling-through-the-veil thing is a bit fuzzy. He has to make another appearance, because there is no point writing a mysterious death without coming back to it. (Not that I believe he will come back to life, but Rowling really must show what happened to him.) And I absolutely agree that There's something about the nature of life, death, mortality and immortality that she wants to illustrate.
I don't deny that the Death Eaters show the same behaviour patterns as Nazis in many respects. But that doesn't mean that getting rid of half-bloods and Muggles is their main objective. It's only a bit of fun to keep the minions happy and entertained. Plus, it is always important in any kind of political scheme to create a clearly defined concept of the enemy. Using Muggles and Mudbloods is the obvious solution, as they are not particularly liked by the wizarding community anyway.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 01:46 am (UTC)On the one hand, we've got Voldemort and his Death Eaters who want immortality
Actually, I think the DEs are real racists, and were seduced into Voldemort's circle through his propaganda of purifying the wizarding race (even though I don't he cared about that much at all). They're not all that interested in immortality... or at least, I don't believe Lucius Malfoy is. Tom Riddle was a very intelligent man with eccentric (to put it mildly) interests. Not everyone is going to be interested in this - he's like one of those scholars in pursuit of something everyone else things is mad or stupid. He uses the populist propaganda of a Muggle vs wizard conflict and the unrest that was already there to win supporters.
I think Malfoy will betray Voldemort when it comes down to it, because he has never seemed very loyal to me. IIRC, he lied to Voldemort in GoF about not knowing he was back, and Voldy doesn't seem to trust him that much either, what with the 'slippery friend' designation. I think a core of the DEs actually realises that following Voldemort will not achieve THEIR ends and will conspire against him (if they aren't already). It also makes sense that Peter might betray Voldemort as well, since he has that life-debt to repay. Their conflicting goals are what will eventually motivate this: Voldy wants Harry and immortality while Malfoy and co want something else - to 'purify' their race.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 12:56 pm (UTC)As I said in my post, there is a distinction between initiated Death Eaters and 'normal' Dark wizards and Voldemort supporters. Seeing as the Black family were as Dark as it gets, what with their pureblood mania, their love for Dark artefacts, the beheaded house-elves... According to Harry, the house looks as though belonging to the Darkest of wizards. However, apart from Regulus Sirius' family were no Death Eaters. This leads to the conclusion that there must be another level beyond the 'normal' Dark. And the name Death Eaters is sort of a giveaway.
In my opinion, canon Lucius is characterised by two traits: pragmatism and the hunger for power. He is a racist, but I think Voldemort is a racist also - though in a different way. Voldemort hates Muggles because of his Muggle father and his upbringing in the orphanage. His hate is immediate and personal. It was triggered by very concrete occurances (his father's behaviour and the orphanage), and he extrapolated it from there. Lucius also hates Muggles and Mudbloods, but he, most likely, has never really been in company with any. He hates them coldly and impassionately. Muggles and Mudbloods must go so that wizardkind (and he himself) can achieve greater power.
It seems therefore quite in character for Lucius to seek immortality (though my theory that he is is not so much based on his character as on the aforementioned aspects of nomenclature and rank distinctions among Dark wizards). Or rather: to have been tempted to seek it. Whether or not he's still with Voldemort, I don't know, am I tend to agree that Lucius has realised that Voldemort has lost his marbles and is no longer safe to associate with. But I don't think that Lucius would betray Voldemort because of remorse of any kind. He much rather would want to outsmart him and gain profit from Voldemort's fall.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 02:06 am (UTC)Fawkes still goes through a life cycles of maturation and dying. When he immolates, he comes back as a helpless chick, and must develope back into a mature adult--but that maturation will eventually take him into old age and infirmity, and back to the flames. In fact, I question to what extent the chick in the ashes could even be considered the same individual that burned itself--in a sense, the phoenix recreates itself with each burning, rather than just rejuvenating. If that's true, then the metaphorical implication is the stated theme that those who die are never truly gone, even with the termination of their physical existance on Earth.
There's a definate parallel between baby Harry in the blasted house in Godric's Hollow and baby Fawkes in the ashes of his previous incarnation. The significance of that, I'm not certain.
Now, Voldemort. Voldemort doesn't just want eternal life, I think, he wants eternal youth in the bargain--no Tithonian gotchas. Immortal!Voldie would continue to accrue power and knowledge without mortal fading or mortal failings. In a cosmic sense, he's cheating--he gets all the benefits of maturity with none of the negative effects of aging. He transcends "death" as well, but in a literal way, as his essence continues beyond the destruction of the physical body.
Which makes me wonder about the workings of the Philosopher's Stone. Technically, I suppose, the Flamels were prolonging their lives, not making themselves immortal--did they also prolong their youth as well? And what are the side effects of the Elixer of Life? Perhaps Dumbledore wasn't so much Flamel's partner in alchemical research as the aide and assistant to a physically frail genius with the mind, but no the means, to experiment upon his theories...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 01:46 pm (UTC)There's a definate parallel between baby Harry in the blasted house in Godric's Hollow and baby Fawkes in the ashes of his previous incarnation.
If the reborn phoenix is a new phoenix, it logically follows that the dying phoenix is its parent. Rowling makes a point of stressing how much Harry resembles his parents. His father's spirit lives in him and shows itself in the form of the Patronus, and we know that the fact that Harry's got Lily's eyes is of greatest significance. This is not a particularly well thought-out argument, but maybe it's a key to the Harry-phoenix parallel?
Immortal!Voldie would continue to accrue power and knowledge without mortal fading or mortal failings.
That is true. Failings and fading are crucial aspects of human life. As are pain and suffering, which are connected to the physical body. Throughout their growing and maturing process, humans experience trials and drawbacks and, in final consequence, death. Death is the ultimate boundary of human life, a conclusion, which Voldemort lacks. His existance doesn't end but is merely suspended when his body is destroyed. The dichotomy of body and soul, another crucial characterisic of everything living, does not apply here.
Throughout PS, Rowling kept saying that the Elixir of Life would make the drinker immortal. Apparently, this is not true. Immortal implies that they would never die - one-time drinking of the Elixir should be sufficient. However, the Flamels didn't become immortal, they merely prolonged their lives.
did they also prolong their youth as well? You are right, this is an interesting question. The implications of longevity are entirely different if it refers to eternal youth or if the person in question continues ageing. Eternal youth would mean that Flamel and Perenella's (?) ageing process stopped at some point. They did not develop further, because their bodies remained the same. The body-soul dichotomy was disrupted (an example that leaps to mind is Claudia from Interview with a Vampire: a grown woman trapped in the body of a child). If, however, the process wasn't disrupted but merely slowed down, the quintessentially human aspect of ageing and, ultimately, dying was still there.
I said in a comment above that Flamel seemed to cling to life until the last minute. He gave up the Philosopher's Stone only after it had become more than apparent how dangerous it was keeping it around. Instead of having the Stone destroyed the moment they knew that Voldemort was after it, Flamel rather had it hidden in order to buy himself a few more months. I never really though about it (and I doubt Rowling will go back to this), but it indicates that the lure of immortality must be very strong indeed. Dumbledore made it sound at the end of PS as though Flamel was happy enough to give up the Stone, but Dumbledore tends to not give Harry all the background information in his concluding speeches.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 03:14 am (UTC)I like your take on the importance of harry's blood.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 02:03 pm (UTC)I like your take on the importance of harry's blood.
Seeing as traditionally blood is important in all sorts of magic, it is reasonable to assume that Harry's blood is for Voldemort. Harry gave Voldemort life, and he will be the one to take it. Conviniently, one of the other people used in the ritual was Voldemort's father, who gave Voldemort life in the first place. Interesting to see the Peter was made the third one.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 06:26 am (UTC)Death is an important theme in the books – the death of Harry's parents; Nicholas Flamel and the Stone; the ghosts in CoS; the phoenix; Cedric's death – although nowhere does it become so significant as in OotP. It quite fits that the main antagonist in the books would be after immortality.
I have no sufficient explanation as to why Voldemort's immortality is evil and the phoenix's is good, apart from the fact that it's rooted in tradition. But why? Maybe because humans feel that one has to truly die, like the phoenix does when it bursts into flames, before one can be reborn?
For me it's very simple: the phoenix's immortality is 'good', because for the phoenix, it is natural to die and then to be reborn from its ashes. Apart from going through all the cycles of life, it is also not overstepping Nature in any manner when it is being born again. Whereas Voldemort, who is mortal, is trying to over-reach and over-step Nature in his pursuit of immortality, and therefore, acting unnaturally. By some philosophies – although I'm not sure if that is JKR's intention - Voldemort is also committing a heinous sin in trying to cling on to his mortal body (he is also of a fixed mind, and quite refuses to see things any other way – another flaw), when death is a gift given to mortals, an opportunity to free themselves from the mortal frame.
This also leads to the Nicholas Flamel question. Obviously, he was using the elixir of life, which, traditionally, is something only the evil or the deluded do.
Yes, but didn't Dumbledore also mention something about some work that Flamel had to finish? Perhaps intent matters too? (We know it matters in HPverse – many of the so-called double standards rise from the question of intent) Voldemort wanted the elixir for his own selfish purpose.
However, in spite of the fact that the elixir is said to make the drinker immortal, we know that Nicholas Flamel didn't become immortal. He died when he stopped drinking it.
I'm not very well-versed in this myth – does drinking it make someone immortal, or does it just keep postponing death as long as you keep drinking it?
And now I'm wondering what Dumbledore meant when he said that there are things worse than death.
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 03:46 pm (UTC)I think this is true for most philosophies/religions, isn't it? I can't say I did a lot of research, but from what I gathered when looking for Immortality Seekers throughout the Ages(TM), they were all acting against the established moral frames within their societies.
I completely forgot about the work Flamel had to finish. Makes me wonder whether it will play a greater role in future books or whether it was only a throw-away line. If the matter of mortality and immortality is indeed an important issue, we might see more of Flamel's work in future.
does drinking it make someone immortal, or does it just keep postponing death as long as you keep drinking it?
I am not very well-versed in the myth, either, but the phrasing suggests that the drinker will never die. You know? 'Immortal' means 'not subject to death'. 'Immortality' is 'exemption from death and annihilation; unending existance'. Becoming immortal results in not dying, ever, not in merely postponing one's death. Just like 'eternal' goes forever and ever and can't be stopped by external influences.
And now I'm wondering what Dumbledore meant when he said that there are things worse than death.
Eternal perdition? The conversation between Firenze and Harry in the Forbidden Forest in PS suggests that Rowling might have something like that in mind. It is better to die than to be cursed forever, Firenze says when talking about Voldemort slaying the unicorn and drinking its blood.
here from the Snitch
Date: 2004-10-29 04:28 am (UTC)Re: here from the Snitch
Date: 2004-10-29 10:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-01 04:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-01 07:46 pm (UTC)