donnaimmaculata (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
donnaimmaculata) wrote2004-10-26 06:50 pm
donnaimmaculata) wrote2004-10-26 06:50 pm
Entry tags:
The Question of Immortality in HP
Some 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.
no subject
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)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
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)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Much more interesting than a story that is little more than an allegorical presentation about Nazis.
(no subject)
no subject
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)
no subject
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)
no subject
I like your take on the importance of harry's blood.
(no subject)
no subject
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)
here from the Snitch
Re: here from the Snitch
no subject
(no subject)