The American Spectator

p> Euthanasia???? Funk & Wagnalls defines it as “1. painless, peaceful death.” Dumbledore’s death doesn’t meet that criterion. Or, 2. “The deliberate putting to death, in an easy and painless way, of a person suffering from an incurable and agonizing disease: also called mercy killing.” Again, Dumbledore’s death doesn’t fit. How about giving your life for a principle, or to save others? That’s what Dumbledore did, as we find out when we discover that Voldemort can’t use the Elder Wand’s full power because he wasn’t the one who took it from Dumbledore’s lifeless hands. Because of that, Harry Potter is able to overcome Voldemort and good triumphs. Under Haddon’s sloppy definition McCoy can be charged with Euthanizing Spock in Star Trek because he let Spock into the radiation chamber so Spock could save the ship and crew. Only a fundamentalist jackass could describe heroic sacrifice of one’s life as euthanasia. br> — John Gridley /p> p> Haddon’s article is the kind of dumbass commentary that keeps alive the common view of evangelical Christianity as intellectually shallow; it is also an analog to the kind of left-wing paranoia expressed in places like the Daily Kos. Or maybe it’s just the ramblings of a “writer and activist” in desperate need of a day job. br> — David Light br> Maynard, Massachusetts /p>

I respectfully beg to differ, at least on this point. Whether JKR realized it or not, she was endorsing (retelling) JC’s sacrifice on the cross for others. Snape’s “murder” of Dumbledore was not merely to save him pain/humiliation, but also to break the strength of the greatest “deathly hallow,” a magical wand that defeated all others IF it was taken from the previous owner by force. By willingly surrendering the wand to Snape, the power of the wand was defeated.

p>Again, not particularly sure if JKR intended this point or any of the points attributed to her. Can’t we all just read a book? br> — DK