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: 2004-10-27 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)