Bellatrix Lestrange-kill or keep alive?

[Barb]

Am I the only one who thinks that Bellatrix Lestrange should have survived? Ok, she was a crazy murderer who killed half of our favourite characters. But, don't you think that death was not what she deserved? I mean, wouldn't seeing her only love and great master that she admired and to who she was loyal falling once again? And spending the rest of her life in Azkaban? I think that would be punishment big enough. Seeing that everything what she lived and believed for turning into dust in one short moment... I pity her, to be honest. But that's just my opinion. What do you think?

[Kath]

Well, first of all she escaped from Azkaban once, so that doesn't necessarily guarantee anything.
I'm not exactly one to say that anyone deserves to die, or to wish death upon anyone. However, if there was a death that was deserved in the series...

She and Voldemort were the worst characters. J.K. Rowling actually said that Bellatrix kind of scared her the most, because there was the feeling that Bellatrix had NO boundaries, and would literally do anything, whereas Voldemort had some control. Bellatrix was really, really crazy, and I don't think watching Voldemort fall again would be a good punishment, I think it would only drive her more insane. Probably making her even more dangerous.

[Olanrewaju]

i agree with Kathrine. Bella would have been crazier with her master falling a second time right in front of her. her dying was the best thing to have happened to her.

[Aydin]

She was a good character and added to the story, but

Go Molly! DEATH

[Gabriel]

Bellatrix is like a wasp. Misfire you take out the best best get rid of the wasp, or else your going to get stung

[Nicole]

Katherine wrote: "Well, first of all she escaped from Azkaban once, so that doesn't necessarily guarantee anything.
I'm not exactly one to say that anyone deserves to die, or to wish death upon anyone. However, if ..."

I believe she did deserve to die, just as Voldemort (and the other Death Eaters) deserved to die because of the horrendous crimes they committed. Bella was a woman who took no prisoners, spared no life, felt no mercy for others, so why should she have been given mercy?

If you remember, Harry offered Voldemort a chance at remorse, and he freaked out and refused to accept it. I do not think, if Bella was offered the same chance, she would have taken it. She was a woman who rejoiced in the suffering of others. She didn't even care about her nephew, Draco's, chance of dying at the hands of Dumbledore.

Death, for Bella, would have been 10x worse than life in Azkaban. She probably ended up the same tormented creature that Voldemort was because of her inability to love. In being in Azkaban, she would have had more time to try at a little remorse and change, but I don't think she would have taken it.

My point is: She never chose remorse before. I don't think she would have now. So she deserved to die.
On the other hand, Snape had remorse, and I believe he entered death in peace and went on to live his "next great adventure."
Snape, though he committed similar crimes as Bella and Voldemort, deserved to live and he did because his death brought him into a new, more joyful life.

Over and over Dumbledore explains that death is nothing to be feared. Death is not a punishment for the "well trained mind," it is but the next great adventure. But for those incapable of real love, death is all those awful things and life isn't that splendid either.

Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living, and, above all those who live without love. - Dumbledore

Death is a reward for those who live their lives marked by love.

[Kath]

Nicole L wrote: "Katherine wrote: "Well, first of all she escaped from Azkaban once, so that doesn't necessarily guarantee anything.
I'm not exactly one to say that anyone deserves to die, or to wish death upon an..."

I agree with you. That was well put.

Maybe a more interesting/diverse question would be, did Snape deserve to die? I have such complicated feelings about him.

My answer is no. However, he used to kill people by choice, and we don't know what else. He never went to prison for that, although there could be an argument that he'd paid up by what he did for Dumbledore.
I maintain though that he shouldn't have been teaching kids. He was a terrible, rather cruel teacher.

[Nicole]

Katherine wrote: "Nicole L wrote: "Katherine wrote: "Well, first of all she escaped from Azkaban once, so that doesn't necessarily guarantee anything.
I'm not exactly one to say that anyone deserves to die, or to w..."

Lol. Thank you, Katherine. I probably spend more time than I ought to contemplating these things (I'm a Ravenclaw on Pottermore).

As far as Snape, the key is that he felt remorse and changed. No character (or person) is ever going to be perfect. Harry often deserved punishment for his actions, but Dumbledore had mercy on him. Is there any reason to punish someone who feels remorse and has decided to change? The answer is no, unless the true reason for the punishment is revenge (which is wrong in and of itself).

Ultimately, Snape fought for Harry's good. He changed in many ways, even protecting Hermione and Flitwick in book 6 by ensuring they were out of the fight. Was he perfect? No. Did he still harbor pain and anger from his youth? Yes. (Remember that James was not perfect either. He was often cruel, but he changed for Lily.)

Though Snape was unfair, he was a good teacher. Most of his pupils did exceedingly well. Whether he deserved the position or not, I don't know.

As far as whether he deserved to die, I believe it all goes back to whether or not death is seen as the next great adventure or as a thing to be feared. I think that Snape would have been happier in death than he was in life. He would have been with Lily again.

[Elizabeth]

Also, after DH there weren't any more Dementors in Azkaban, so the punishments were a little less harsh, if that sways anyone's opinion.
I'm glad that what happened to her did, though. Molly Weasley defeating her shows the triumph of maternal love over obsessive love, and I think that's cool.

[Kath]

Were there any "bad" characters who died, who deserved to live? What do you guys think?

[Anna]

Hmmm let me see Bellatrix killed Sirus, Tonks and Dobby. 3 amazing characters. And lets not forget what she did to Neville's parents. In my opinion she deserved to die. And Molly Weasley killing her was the greatest way for her to go I think. Despite all Bellatrix was my favourite Death Eater!

[Anna]

Katherine wrote: "Were there any "bad" characters who died, who deserved to live? What do you guys think?"

I know this would defeat the whole purpose of the series and I don't think this should have actually happened, but I think it would be cool to see what Voldemort could have been if he hadn't gone so much to the Dark side. It would been cool to see someone to help him out of his troubled and lonely childhood.

[Brianna]

Anna wrote: "Katherine wrote: "Were there any "bad" characters who died, who deserved to live? What do you guys think?"

I know this would defeat the whole purpose of the series and I don't think this should ha..."

It would have been cool, but honestly, I don't think anyone could have done that. The environment in which he grew up, and just how Tom Riddle was, kept him from becoming any other way.

[Kath]

Anna, I definitely know what you mean. I think that Tom Riddle was a pretty interesting character. When he became Voldemort, he really wasn't dynamic at all, in that he was just pure evil and there was no ambiguity at all.

I do agree with you though, Brianna. He wasn't exactly a "young boy who was led astray," (as in the arguable cases of Draco and Snape.) It was pretty clear he was very cruel and evil-minded even as a little boy. There wasn't any saving him.

[Elizabeth]

I think that early on Tom/Voldemort had a "point of no return", but before that he could've turned away from his destructive path if someone helped him. It was his choices that made him who he was - he had choices that he could plausibly have taken besides being the Dark Lord.

[Kath]

Ellie wrote: "I think that early on Tom/Voldemort had a "point of no return", but before that he could've turned away from his destructive path if someone helped him. It was his choices that made him who he was ..."

I agree that it was his choices - I just don't think anyone could have made him choose differently.
Unless, perhaps, he'd been raised by his mother?

[Elizabeth]

Katherine wrote: "Ellie wrote: "I think that early on Tom/Voldemort had a "point of no return", but before that he could've turned away from his destructive path if someone helped him. It was his choices that made h..."

I wonder if Dumbledore could've done so as well, if he treated Tom like Harry.
Maybe it was a progressive learning experience for Dumbledore in a way - first he had Voldemort, who was an orphan. He saw through Voldemort's facade, but he didn't help him much. Voldemort turned out to be a dark, genocidal wizard.
Then Snape, he sheltered but only after Lily's death, and because of it, Snape agreed to help fight Voldemort.
Lastly, Harry. Perhaps Dumbledore realized that he needed to care about these "lost children" of Hogwarts in order to help them make better choices. So he gave Harry much more special treatment, and that contributed to Harry's choices.
All three grew up in a household without much love, and made very different life choices.

[Kath]

Ellie wrote: "Katherine wrote: "Ellie wrote: "I think that early on Tom/Voldemort had a "point of no return", but before that he could've turned away from his destructive path if someone helped him. It was his c..."

That's a fascinating theory. I'd never thought about it before. I think there could be something there.
However, Dumbledore largely paid Harry so much attention because he knew/suspected from the beginning that Harry is a horcrux, and key to ending Voldemort.
And I don't think Dumbledore had any more reason to pay attention to Snape as a kid/teenager, than he did all the other students who turned into Death Eaters, you know? There were a lot of them. There was nothing to make Snape stand out from anyone until the Lily thing.
And then there was Tom Riddle... I think Dumbledore would have helped him, if he could. But Tom knew that Dumbledore watched him too closely and saw through him a little, and stayed distant. It was all evident from the beginning, when Dumbledore tried to accompany Tom to Diagon Alley and Tom insisted on going alone. I think that Tom was more a lost case than anyone.

I wonder how concerned Dumbledore was about how Harry would turn out. The whole "was almost in slytherin" thing... The possibilities for Harry going another way were there from the beginning.

[Anna]

I realise that it was difficult to save Tom and I don't think it was Dumbledore's responsibility. But Tom had such a similar personality to Harry and was brought up so similarly to Harry. I just always wonder what Voldemort could have done if he made the right choices. I always remember what Ollivander said when Harry bought his first wand "He Who Must Not Be Named did great things, terrible yes, but great." I think Ollivander was right, Voldemort was a brilliant wizard- intelligent and powerful, however he used his magic in the wrong way.

Harry was able to make friends and so many cared people who cared about him including Dumbledore, Hagrid, Ron, Hermione even Snape cared about him to an extent. But Voldemort didn't really have anyone. His closest thing he had to a friend was Nagini. Imagine how different Tom's life could have been if he had parents or friends who loved him.

I don't know, maybe nothing could have changed him. I've just always been so interested in the similarities between Harry Potter and Tom Riddle :)

[Elizabeth]

Yeah, I'm not blaming Dumbledore specifically. It's just an interesting thought of what anyone could have done. I mean, in Voldemort's generation Hagrid had a rough life but turned out okay.
And in the next generation, Snape and Wormtail sort of switched between the Order and the Death Eaters at about the same points in their lives (contrasting Snape's courage with Wormtail's cowardice?). And we know Snape's reasoning, but could anything have been done to stop Wormtail?
Is there a crucial point in their lives that people need love, to sustain them through times when they have much less?
Neville (granted, he had his grandmother) and Harry both had parent less childhoods, and both found people who loved them.

[Kath]

Oh, Wormtail. I particularly dislike him.
I think he could've been stopped. I imagine he had good intentions as a kid, but only felt powerful and needed as a Death Eater.
I wonder what would have happened if Sirius and James and everybody had caught inklings that Wormtail was beginning to think about the Dark Side. I think that if they'd realized early on (probably still at school), they might've been successful at knocking some sense into him.
I'm not casting any blame though - I don't think it's necessarily anyone's responsibility to somehow make sure everyone around you hasn't become a secretly evil person.

I would LOVE to have more details on that time, though. Pettigrew turning traitor, James and Lily going into hiding, all of it.

[Elizabeth]

I'd love to know more, too!
I think if anyone saw the signs for Pettigrew, it would have been Remus - he was probably the most observant of the three. And he probably looks back with regret on what Pettegrew became.
It isn't anyone's responsibility, but that could be the problem - no one assumes responsibility. It's like the time the woman was shot in New York with forty-something people watching, but because it was a crowd, no one assumed responsibility and called the police.
It raises interesting questions of nature versus nurture (Pettigrew wouldn't have been a hero, maybe, but he could've stayed with the Order).

[Ella]

Think of how much th story would have change

[Belle ~carry on my wayward son~]

i dont really know. this is a hard question. I probably would say dead. I mean, Bellatrix was a bi- female dog- who deserved to die. I am not,like, a hateful person, but Bellatrix seriously had it coming. I mean, there is the question of if they had kept her alive, she could have suffered without Voldemort and hopefully been tortured or something, but i don't think anyone would have touched her with a ten foot pole. I actually think i hated Bellatrix more than anyone else-even Voldemort- because she was so phsychotic and cruel. Yah, so was Voldie but Bellatrix was literally a whole new type of crazy. Its amazing how much passionate hate I have against a dead fictional character. Bellatrix was a really twisted and interesting character in the book, and in that aspect, I would probably have kept her alive. But yah, overall, good riddance!

[Kath]

I hated HER but loved her as a character

[Lisa]

I loved her character but I agree it is proper to her died. She was just as insane as Voldemort. She tortured and escaped azkaban, and was the follower to stand up and fight for Voldemort. She was another representation of evil and should have gone to bring peace.

[Malavika]

I particularly loved her wild streak ..Yes, while it is true that keeping her a live would have been a grave mistake, who doesn't love a bit of madness..,AND Bella certainly provided oodles of that.