Posts 151 to 200

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:52 am

geauxtigers - Jun 18, 2006 5:36 pm (#151 of 1104)
Edited Jun 18, 2006 6:50 pm

Yeah I'm gonna agree with Catherine, Choices and Soli here, Harry has no right to do these curses, but he has a reason. When you get really mad, especailly with some one hate or greatly dislike, you are going to want to deck them punch them ect not sit there and take forever. At some point your going to crack and Harry has, he can't sit back doing expelliarmus and stupefy the rest of his life, hes going to do an unforgivable at some point. That of course doesn't make it right by any stretch, and I don't think JKR is trying to show us that its okay for the good side to do it and not okay for the bad side. Not to mention after all hes been through its no wonder he didn't crack before he did.

EDIT: Die, I agree with you as well, but what I said before no its not apporiate behavoir, but just you don't do whats right, doesn't mean you are a bad person. Harry cases are isolated incedences where as Voldemort and his possy aren't. Harry has only 2 attempted without sucess and unforgivable. Sectumsempra was just completely uncalled for and that was mere sutpidty on Harry's part. But the point is, he still young and he has a whole lot to learn. He needs to make mistakes because he needs to learn, granted it may be the hard way but Harry is very stubborn so he almost always learns the hardway.

Die Zimtzicke - Jun 18, 2006 5:43 pm (#152 of 1104)

That relates to Harry having to learn to control his emotions, and think logically, clearly and maturely to win. He didn't do that in HBP, definitely. His life has been in danger since he was born. At some point he's got to learn to cope with that. Throwing out unforgiveables, or dark curses because he hasn't thought things through is not helping Harry become who he needs to be.

And he is NOT who he needs to be, yet. At least he hasn't accepted who he is and what he has to do, in my opinion.

wynnleaf - Jun 18, 2006 5:59 pm (#153 of 1104)
Edited Jun 18, 2006 7:01 pm

I don't think JKR is trying to show us that its okay for the good side to do it and not okay for the bad side.

I am not saying that I think Harry's use of unforgiveables has no explanation. I, too, can certainly understand why he uses them, and sometimes why he wants to use them. But I am saying that his reasons will not excuse his use of them. Ultimately, I think JKR will show that Harry has to learn to not resort to dark methods to win. If the use of unforgiveables can be excused, you eventually end up like Crouch Sr., which JKR I thought rather clearly showed us was not the way to be.

No, I don't think Harry's going to turn dark. But I think that's because JKR is going to have him realize some of the problems with the way he's been acting. I think that's part of the direction she's going when she acted sort of satisfied that Harry's hate was intensifying. I think she wants to take him to a place where he has to realize that he can't feed his hate and he can't act on hate. Remember, it's not the power fed by Harry's hate that will help him defeat LV. It's the power of his love.

But up to this point, Harry has not realized that. He doesn't understand why love is so powerful against LV. He turns toward dark curses that only work best if you "really mean them." In other words, you have to want to hurt to make cruciatus work. I think JKR will have Harry realize that he can't pursue the feeding of hate that's necessary to use those Dark curses.

But as Harry is now, if JKR did not change him and let him continue on as he is at the end of HBP, he would not understand the power of his love, and he'd continue to feed his hate -- making the use of dark curses more and more likely.

TwinklingBlueEyes - Jun 18, 2006 9:26 pm (#154 of 1104)

But as Harry is now, if JKR did not change him and let him continue on as he is at the end of HBP, he would not understand the power of his love,

Harry is still only 16, and will only be 17 in the next book. He may well die never understanding himself and the power of love within him. We will have to wait to find out. JKR can get her message across in many ways, not just the way we see things needing to happen.

...toddles off...

Weeny Owl - Jun 18, 2006 10:24 pm (#155 of 1104)
Edited Jun 18, 2006 11:25 pm

While he didn't know sectumsempra was a Dark curse when he first used it, he was well aware of it the next two times he used it.

Yes, but against Inferi it's another matter than against a live person. Also, as I said before, when he has used dark spells, it's always been after he's seen someone die. That is an extreme moment and not what he would do under ordinary circumstances.

I'm not saying that because Harry hates the bad guys he's good. I'm saying that his basic character is good, and even the best of us can do things that are wrong. Harry's nature is not hatred, but the Dursleys and Snape have all pushed him and pushed him for years, and have been abusive, and have done their level best to make him suffer. While he didn't have a lot of contact with Bella, he did see her in Dumbledore's Pensieve, he knew she was reponsible (with others, yes) in causing the Longbottoms to be in St. Mungo's, and she was responsible for Sirius dying. Those are all extremes.

Harry was horrified at what he nearly did to Draco, and even if he detests Draco, he had no intention of doing anything fatal.

So you guys don't think JKR is trying to do anything more with Harry's use of unforgiveables than tell us that it's understandable in certain circumstances?

Not that it's understandable, but that people who are in a battle and experience extreme pain often react in a manner they normally wouldn't. History has shown us that people can rise above what they normally are during a war or sink in a way they normally wouldn't.

If Harry were to go home and start using the Cruciatus Curse on the Dursleys, then he's lost it and he's gone over to the dark side, but Harry has never done that regardless of how badly he's treated. Then again, he hasn't watched people die while he's at the Dursleys' either.

The other thing we have to remember is that Harry is growing, both physically and emotionally. Right now he's only sixteen. In England he wouldn't even be able to drive yet. In America he could drive, but he couldn't vote. Much is expected of this boy who isn't really a child but is far from an adult.

He does need to learn that using dark spells isn't the way to go, he needs to learn to control his emotions, and he needs to put aside his hatred before it gets the better of him. However, how many sixteen-year-old boys have seen a godfather killed and the headmaster of a school killed and not been adversely affected?

I won't worry that much about his well-being until he starts using dark spells when he just wants to be entertained by something.

Laura W - Jun 19, 2006 1:56 am (#156 of 1104)
Edited Jun 19, 2006 3:11 am

I'm not sure exactly how this fits into the conversation but, if it doesn't, just ignore it (smile) ...

A few months ago, in a coffee shop, a polite and intelligent woman in her late teens or early twenties was sitting beside a much older woman - not quite as old as our beloved Kip, but ... - who happened to be me. This older woman was (re)reading a Harry Potter book, which took her by surprise. She asked me if I was enjoying the book, which I think was HBP. She then made the comment that she herself enjoyed the first four books in the series, but not the fifth. She hadn't even attempted the sixth to that point, and had no great desire to.

Greatly interested in why she felt as she did, I asked what her problem with OoP was. After a few failed attempts to explain, she finally clarified her thoughts and came up with this: "I had really liked Harry in the first four books, but I did not like him in the fifth book. He was no longer Harry. He had changed too much and become a not-very-nice person; kind of mean even. I just didn't care for him any more, the way he acted, and found it hard to sympathize with him. He was one person in the first four books and another person in the fifth book." (I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the drift I'm sure.)

I assured her that the Harry of the first four books was - in my opinion - also absent in book six. I seriously doubt if that young woman will be reading HBP anytime soon.

Laura

rambkowalczyk - Jun 19, 2006 4:09 am (#157 of 1104)

I think this "dark" side of Harry is a consequence of growing up. It is when adolescents discover that adults aren't perfect that adults can't always save the day. There is alot of anger when they realize that they are responsible for their own lives and can no longer just blame others for mistakes.

In the fifth book Harry is clearly angry at Dumbledore because he can not with a wave of the wand make Umbridge go away, nor can he convince others that Voldemort has truly returned. Dumbledore is able to bear his failure with grace. He appears not to be disturbed when he loses his position in the Wizengamut and is unfailingly polite to Umbridge. Harry reacts like the 15 yr old he is.

Although Harry's reaction are completely understandable and forgivable there are consequence to his anger that are unpredictable. The major one is that he is less sympathetic to the suffering of those who have hurt him or his friends. I don't mean Voldemort but Marietta and Montague. One can argue that these people got what they deserved but consider that Dumbledore rescued Umbridge from the centaurs after threatening Harry with the Cruciatus curse. (I'm sure there was a portrait in the room that told Dumbledore).

It is very easy to treat our friends with compassion but the true measure of a man is how he treats his enemies.

I think this was something that James had to learn which was why he had to save Snape's life. It may even be something that Dumbledore had to learn. Maybe it is a consequence of not learning it that caused the rise of Grindelwald.

TheSaint - Jun 19, 2006 6:06 am (#158 of 1104)

I had really liked Harry in the first four books, but I did not like him in the fifth book. He was no longer Harry. He had changed too much and become a not-very-nice person; kind of mean even. I just didn't care for him any more, the way he acted, and found it hard to sympathize with him. He was one person in the first four books and another person in the fifth book. (I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the drift I'm sure.) "

Don't all parents say this about thier teenagers? Those horrible years when the kids think they know more than anyone else, are arrogant and smart and are trying to establish thier own. I thought all sweet little children became monsters about that age. LOL

haymoni - Jun 19, 2006 6:15 am (#159 of 1104)

Even if I hated OotP Harry, I still would want to finish the books to see how they would end.

Someone on the Forum posted that the connection between Voldy & Harry might have something to do with Harry's emotional state. I like that theory. Not only was he experiencing his own emotions, but those of a lunatic at the same time.

Denise P. - Jun 19, 2006 6:19 am (#160 of 1104)

I found OoP Harry to be believable. I found HBP Harry uninteresting for the most part.

I did like how he finally started acting "normal" again towards the end of HBP so I have high hopes to see the Harry I know again in the next book.

Potter Ace - Jun 19, 2006 9:08 am (#161 of 1104)

I think that JRK is simply showing us that Harry is struggling with being an adult. When you are children and faced with a bully and or a confrontation, your (mine at least) was to strike first, rationalize later. Harry's use of Unforgivable curses is simply a childs reaction to an adult situation. He simply is trying to attach with the most powerful weapon he can think of. He does not have the education or experience of Lupin or other member of the Order so he strike with what he think will work best. In the cave his merely trying to stop an assault and the last spell that was effective for him was the one he used against Draco. He has a limited knowledge of spells that could stop an attacker. I do not think him evil or even leaning towards evil, merely a child trying to fight an adult fight.

Holly T. - Jun 19, 2006 9:18 am (#162 of 1104)

OotP Harry annoyed me the first time I read the book, and probably the second too. Finally after reading and listening to it a few more times I started just feeling so sorry for Harry throughout. No one believes him, he's upset, he's angry, etc. Now when I read it I just want to give him a hug.

Magic Words - Jun 19, 2006 10:53 am (#163 of 1104)

My first read through OotP I was with Harry all the way. Everything the Order refused to tell him was something they weren't telling me, as a reader, and I had no trouble understanding his frustration. Only on rereads did I start to realize why so many other people didn't like his attitude.

geauxtigers - Jun 19, 2006 11:17 am (#164 of 1104)

Weeny, in your post 155, I agree with you completely, Wynnleaf I also agree with your last post I can see both sides of the point.

I think that JRK is simply showing us that Harry is struggling with being an adult. When you are children and faced with a bully and or a confrontation, your (mine at least) was to strike first, rationalize later

This is the point I was trying to make, Harry is not an adult yet he is going to make mistakes just like everyone else. His or anyone for that matter, first insinct isn't to stop and think about the consequences of your actions before you strike, your going to strike before thinking, that whats normal and just because its easier doesn't make it right obviously so you just have to deal with it. Good thoughts though.

I was also on Harry's side on my first reread and never thought about people being angry with him until just now and now I see it completely. He was very annoying , but he had a good reason.

virginiaelizabeth - Jun 19, 2006 11:40 am (#165 of 1104)

When I first read OoP, I really didn't like the mean Harry. But now that I've read it several more times, I can see that he was acting normal. Not only is he 15, at the end of the year he somes back from his first encounter with the "real " Voldemort and he has also watched the death of a classmaste. But then pretty much the entire wizarding world is against him and think he's liar, and that he just wants attention. He is already frustrated and then the person he cares about the most is killed, so I can very easily see his frustration and why he acted the way that he did. I think its very realistic to have him act like that.

haymoni - Jun 19, 2006 11:52 am (#166 of 1104)

When I read OotP, I was on edge like Harry. I expected to find something similar to Chapter 1 in HBP - Voldy starting to attack, Death Eaters rampaging - stuff like that.

Instead, it was all secrets and working covertly.

Voldy must have loved the fact that the ministry didn't believe he was back. It gave him more time to recruit.

We were like Harry - "Why can't these people see what has been happening???"

Mattew Bates - Jun 19, 2006 2:09 pm (#167 of 1104)

Greatly interested in why she felt as she did, I asked what her problem with OoP was. After a few failed attempts to explain, she finally clarified her thoughts and came up with this: "I had really liked Harry in the first four books, but I did not like him in the fifth book. He was no longer Harry. He had changed too much and become a not-very-nice person; kind of mean even. I just didn't care for him any more, the way he acted, and found it hard to sympathize with him. He was one person in the first four books and another person in the fifth book." (I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the drift I'm sure.)

I assured her that the Harry of the first four books was - in my opinion - also absent in book six. I seriously doubt if that young woman will be reading HBP anytime soon.

Laura W, I wouldn't say that the Harry of books 1-4 was ever gone. He had gone through traumatic life-changing events at the end of the fourth book, and book five would have been very unrealistic if Harry had not been truly distraught over what had taken place. Add on top of that Voldemort occlumenting his connection to Harry after book five, and I would say that "Old Harry" is not only back in HBP, but was present in OotP and suffering under an extraordinary burden. When I look at book five in the context of overall story, rather than as an individual novel, I find Harry's behavior to be an understandable response to a trial by fire, and simply how JKR chose to pursue his character development.

Die Zimtzicke - Jun 19, 2006 3:35 pm (#168 of 1104)

Yes, Harry is still struggling to be an adult, but he will still only be seventeen in the last book. He won't really be an adult then, fully formed, either, at the rate he's going, in my opinion.

I have a lot of sympathy for the woman who no longer liked Harry after book five. I didn't like the majority of the characters in book six. There were a lot of people acting in not very nice ways, Harry included.

wynnleaf - Jun 19, 2006 4:28 pm (#169 of 1104)
Edited Jun 19, 2006 5:28 pm

I suppose I sounded earlier like I had a problem with Harry. Actually, what I really am more concerned with is the entire set of "good guy" kids in the series. With the exception of Luna and Neville, they're mostly Gryffindors. While I mention specific actions of Harry, it's more as an example of what I think we see among all the primary Gryffindors.

Basically, the books, written mostly from Harry's point of view, look at an entire quarter of Hogwarts and consider them basically evil because of their House. In GOF, 16 yr olds Fred and George hiss little 11 year old new Slytherins as they go to their table after the Sorting. No one at the Gryffindor table seem to see anything wrong with this. Harry sits and wonders how many of those new Slytherin kids know about the history of their house and Death Eaters. It's almost as though Harry views these new eleven year old Slytherins as having been sorted into Doom.

In GOF, Harry and Co. all get a big laugh out of Moody/Crouch Jr. turning Draco in a ferret. We the readers are encouraged to have a great time with that idea. However, we're told that this action of what is really a truly evil DE, picks up Draco/ferret and lifts him 10 ft in the air and bounces him on the ground repeatedly, while Draco/ferret squeals in pain. Notice that in the movie, the filmmakers decided not to have Draco/ferret ever touch the ground -- I guess they realized that it wouldn't look so funny for HRH to be laughing over it if we actually see Draco/ferret being bounced painfully on the ground and being in obvious pain once he turns back to a human. But in fact, that's the way the book reads. Hermione comments that it's good McGonagall came back in time, because Draco could have been seriously injured, but Harry and Ron continue to think it's really funny. What interests me, is that it's written so that we, the readers, think it's funny, too.

Same thing with Montague. Even though it turns out to be a long term injury, and Ron is "indifferent" and Harry "satisfied," the way it's written, we are lead to think of Montague's predicament as sort of funny and that he deserved it. But if we really look at the situation, he didn't serve that.

Also, the same with Marietta. Regardless what we tell ourselves of the harshness of magical contracts, this was, after all, Hermione's idea. At first, it's funny to think of Hermione making a contract where the snitch gets SNEAK written on her face in what appears to be a painful rash. But when it turns out to be a long-term curse, is it really so funny? Is it really what she deserves? Is Marietta any worse, any "just going through growing up stages," than Harry was when he's done some of the things we've been mentioning lately? Yet the reader is encouraged to forgive Harry his faults, but be satisfied with Marietta's punishment.

I'm actually not criticizing JKR, even though it probably sounds like it. I'm not criticizing her because I think she's doing this purposefully. I'm interested to see where she takes it. Why, for instance, are we told about Marietta in Book 6? Why not just let it drop? Why did JKR want to remind us of Hermione's curse on Marietta?

I don't presume to know exactly what JKR will do with this. I'll admit to being somewhat concerned that she'll do some to reverse a bit of this in the final book, but I wonder if one book is enough to reverse a lot of the attitudes she's developed over 6 books through seeing everything through Harry's point of view.

For instance, even though the 3 unforgiveables are supposed to be really terrible, it's interesting that many view Harry's use of them so mildly -- bad, but not on a really important level. I suppose it partly depends on just how bad any particular reader views the unforgiveables. I thought of the cruciatus as something on the level of a sustained taser -- something I'd be pretty concerned about someone wanting to use repeatedly, particularly when that person had many other forms of defense at his disposal.

When we were told in GOF that Crouch Sr. had approved use of unforgiveables, I'm fairly sure that we were supposed to see from that a person who was willing to use the methods of the really evil people. A sort of "end justifies the means" type of person. So when Harry started trying to use unforgiveables and Dark curses, I've always assumed that was pretty bad. Not just an adolescent stage along the way to maturity.

Choices - Jun 19, 2006 5:24 pm (#170 of 1104)
Edited Jun 19, 2006 6:32 pm

Wynnleaf - "With the exception of Luna and Neville, they're mostly Gryffindors."

Are you speaking of Harry, Hermione, Ron, Neville, Ginny and Luna?Actually, with the exception of Luna, they are all Gryffindors.

Wynnleaf - "Why did JKR want to remind us of Hermione's curse on Marietta?"

Maybe to teach kids that there can be long term effects as a result of their actions.

Wynnleaf, I tend to think you are taking these books entirely too seriously. They are fiction, aimed at young kids who are into potty humor and sniggering at four letter words and body parts. Look at other kid's literature and see what happens - houses fall on people, princes are turned into frogs, pretty girls eat poisoned apples, queens yell "off with their heads", etc. I just don't think what Harry and company do is any more terrible than what happens in other fiction for kids. Have faith in JKR - I believe it will all turn out fine.

wynnleaf - Jun 19, 2006 5:57 pm (#171 of 1104)

Ah, yes, Choices, I'm sure I take it too seriously! Very Happy

geauxtigers - Jun 19, 2006 5:59 pm (#172 of 1104)
Edited Jun 19, 2006 7:02 pm

Why, for instance, are we told about Marietta in Book 6? Why not just let it drop? Why did JKR want to remind us of Hermione's curse on Marietta?

I think maybe she wanted to show us that how much of an impact things like that can be. It shows us that something that seems so innocent (for lack of better word) can be so cruel because Marietta didn't deserve that and I think HRH all realize that and now its to late. Whats done is done and you can't change the past. It goes along with Harry using unforgivables, he has to learn that there are better ways to solve problems. Hermione, as smart as she is, still has loads to learn. I think that JKR is telling us this for a reason, not to show that its okay for the good side to do wrong things that the bad side does and can't get away with it, shes trying to show us there are better ways to do things and just because thats what Harry is doing, doesn't make it right. I'm probably just made no sense of this I'm scared to read this over. Sorry for any confusion!

edit Cross-post with Choices, I agree with you completly, I think this is a matter of over analyzing things which we are all guilty of! Just read what I said WOW did I overanalyze that!

virginiaelizabeth - Jun 19, 2006 6:32 pm (#173 of 1104)
Edited Jun 19, 2006 7:35 pm

Very well said Choice!I completely agree with you! We need to give our brains a rest!

So when Harry started trying to use unforgiveables and Dark curses, I've always assumed that was pretty bad. Not just an adolescent stage along the way to maturity.-wynnleaf

I see it as just a stage. He will eventually realize that what he is doing is wrong. I see your point but I don;t really agree with it. I think JKR has written it this way to show us that no one is perfect. Harry will never learn just how bad the consequences of his actions will be until he is faced with them. Just like everyone else, he has to learn from his mistakes, and granted he is going to make some mistakes because he's not perfect.Screwing up badly is the best way to learn that what you did was wrong, and sometimes that's the only way to figure it out. I've seen it in a friend of mine, who messed up big time, on a number of occasions,and nothing anyone could say to him could change his mind until he figured it out for himself. As for Montegue and Malfoy, yes it was mean, but I really don't think it was meant to be veiwed that way. It was put there for a bit of comic releif. I don't think Fred and George stopped before shoving Montegue into the vanishing cabinet to stop and say "hey I sure hope he doesn't get stuck in here then end up apparating out into a toilet and getting seriously injured." No they just figured that he would disappear for a few weeks.As for Malfoy...I mean come on you know you were rolling on the floor laughing at "Malfoy the amazing bouncing ferret!"

Solitaire - Jun 19, 2006 7:09 pm (#174 of 1104)

Marietta didn't deserve that and I think HRH all realize that and now its to late

Actually, I think they all believe she got what she deserved for betraying everyone. We know that's how they feel in OotP. I still believe Hermione was surprised when it turned out to be Marietta who betrayed them; I suspect she thought it would be Zacharias Smith who sold them out.

Solitaire

Mrs Brisbee - Jun 19, 2006 7:21 pm (#175 of 1104)

I kind of agree with wynnleaf, and hope Rowling is going somewhere interesting with all this.

wynnleaf - Jun 19, 2006 7:23 pm (#176 of 1104)
Edited Jun 19, 2006 8:28 pm

Thank you, Mrs Brisbee.

virginiaelizabeth said:

As for Malfoy...I mean come on you know you were rolling on the floor laughing at "Malfoy the amazing bouncing ferret!"

Yes, I did. But the further along the books go, the more serious JKR seems to get. If she had written that in OOTP or HBP, I wouldn't have laughed. I enjoyed a lot of what Fred and George did in OOTP, but not all of it. But by HBP, I felt JKR perhaps thought of it all a bit more seriously than she'd been letting on.

Dobby Socks - Jun 20, 2006 1:16 am (#177 of 1104)

Sorry to get in so late on this particular debate, but I’ve been too busy to post and I didn’t want to let this subject drop without a comment.

I’ve always seen Harry’s main strengths as his instincts and his willpower. But if his instincts now include lashing out at people by using dark magic fueled by blind hatred, he has a long way to go (and not much time) to learn how to control that hatred. In fact, the hatred is probably interfering with his natural instincts, which he will sorely need in the final confrontation. I’m not saying he’s walking around filled with hatred all the time, but when it arises he seems to have no control over it. He’s not quite on the “All You Need is Love” path at the moment.

The entire series (through Dumbledore’s words and JKR’s voice) has been leading up to Harry being able to rid the world of LV through means other than hatred and dark magic, and thus not risking possible damage to his soul. Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing him AK Voldemort, but that refutes the philosophy of the series and the lessons it contains. And he doesn’t seem able to pull off the Unforgiveables anyway. I think by the time he faces Voldemort, he’ll have stymied these impulses, but if I didn’t know that the next book is the last one, I’d be pretty concerned.

I don’t buy the excuse that he’s a child. He really isn’t at this point. He unfortunately doesn’t have that luxury any longer. He’ll come of age in approximately a month, is quickly approaching the battle with LV, and he has much more experience in dealing with these matters than anyone else his age (and most WW adults for that matter). I understand his anger (in his position and from his POV, I would’ve done the same to Snape at the end of HBP and I’m 35), but I think if he’s going to succeed, he’s got to learn to control these impulses.

I do agree that this is just a stage in Harry’s maturation process, but although it’s unfair to him, this process is going to have to be accelerated if he’s going to follow the path Dumbledore has advised him to follow. He was obviously horrified by what his sectumsempra did to Draco. That would’ve been a great way to end his flirtation with the Dark Arts, but instead he repeats his mistakes in the closing chapters of HBP.

Regarding JKR’s treatment of Gryffindors and Slytherins: she continues to say in interviews that not all Slytherins are bad, but in fact we haven’t seen an example of this yet (well, I think we have seen one and it’s Snape, but he is still a mean _____ (fill in your word choice) and JKR has left him morality ambiguous up to this point.) To seriously consider “good Slytherins” a possibility, she’s going to have to show us several examples, which is a quite a bit to add to all of the rest of the things she’s promised and which now rely on the content of book 7. Proving that Slytherin house is not inherently evil will take some doing considering what Jo has given us so far through the Harry Filter. I do think we are meant to realize that some things the members of Gryffindor do are unethical, particularly in the later books. We simply have to bypass Harry-Vision. But I wonder if her younger audience will see this (those who are too old to have the book read and/or explained by a parent, but perhaps too young to process the moral ramifications of a situation when they are being mislead by the text.) For those of you who are new, or haven’t noticed it, there is an interesting thread that ran through Oct. 2005 called “What Makes a Good Slytherin.” It’s in the Theories folder near the bottom.

Regarding OotP: This was the hardest book for me to read because of all the anger. There was all of Harry’s adolescent angst, his frustration at being kept out of the loop, and the fact that everyone he trusted most (especially Dumbledore) were unwilling to give him an explanation for their avoidance. We finally did get an explanation, but it was hard to plow through Harry’s sense of betrayal. The second time I read it, it was more palatable, and now it’s one of my favorite books in the series. So far JKR has done a masterful job at capturing the stages of adolescence. I think she’ll work Harry through his anger and Dark Arts issues in #7.

Regarding Marietta: My first thought was how skilled and inventive Hermione was. But once the reality of the situation settled in, I was forced to question it. Although it wouldn’t have benefited the plot, the better ethical choice would have been to inform the students of the ramifications of what would happen if they decided to “snitch,” either before or after they added their name to the list. (Before would be better, but after would be more crafty.)

Choices wrote: Wynnleaf, I tend to think you are taking these books entirely too seriously. Oh noooooo!!! Although I think we do over scrutinize at times, particularly about pet theories, these books do have important moral messages which I would hope would get through to all readers, especially children. Are we helping with this or not? I don’t know. Probably not. I would guess by reading your posts that you feel the same. So in some respects they do deserve close scrutiny. And otherwise, what else do obsessed fans have to do but pick apart the books and try to solve the mysteries JKR has left for us. It’s fun at any rate.

rambkowalczyk - Jun 20, 2006 2:49 am (#178 of 1104)

Just to chime in here, I don't think Wynnleaf is over analyzing either. Except for something I wrote about 20 posts ago,(comparing Dumbledore's reaction to injustice to that of Harry's)I saw no need to comment because she said it all so well.

It would be ironic if,in book 7, it takes a Slytherin to point out to Harry these little hypocracies.

Saracene - Jun 20, 2006 3:41 am (#179 of 1104)

Interesting discussion. I gotta say that, at this point in the story, I am kinda disturbed by how easily Harry resorts to using Unforgiveables and doesn't question it afterwards. It's easy to say that sure, at times we all act rashly when in anger; but while that's true I also think that this statement doesn't acknowledge the fact that some people's rash actions are more disturbing and questionable than others'.

Regarding Slytherins, so far JKR certainly painted them in unrelentingly black colours, to the point where many readers seem to regard Slytherin=bad as a rule. If the best a House can show for itself is someone like Slughorn, there's a definite PR problem there.

wynnleaf - Jun 20, 2006 4:20 am (#180 of 1104)

Dobby Socks, rambkowalczyk, and Saracene,

Thanks for adding your thoughts and I agree with you all. I was starting to feel like an idiot for writing about this so seriously. But I've known people whose world views were shaped by many re-readings of Tolkein or Lewis. Now we've got many, many kids re-reading HP and being very, very into it. So yes, I think the messages it sends are important. As a parent of six kids, several of whom are big HP fans, I do take it fairly seriously.

Weeny Owl - Jun 20, 2006 6:31 am (#181 of 1104)

I think there's a huge difference in casting Unforgivables in anger and losing it totally after watching someone be killed. He isn't casting them at Colin Creevey, for instance. He isn't even casting them at Draco. The Sectumsempra spell may be dark, but it isn't an Unforgivable, and Harry was attacked first.

Harry isn't quite a child, but no one can say he's an adult yet. While he has had to deal with things many of us don't have to, he's already seen three people in three years murdered, and that has to have an impact. If it didn't, and if he didn't react in such an extreme manner, I would be more concerned.

Soul Search - Jun 20, 2006 6:35 am (#182 of 1104)
Edited Jun 20, 2006 7:35 am

I have found the discussion on Harry's increasing use of "dark" spells quite intersting. I, too, wonder where JKR is going with it.

One thought is that if all we had was a "goody-goody" Harry, who suddenly used some darkish magic to fight DEs or defeat Voldemort, we would complain about the sharp character transition.

At the end of HBP we have a Harry who has attempted unforgivables and used, with regret, the nasty sectemsempra spell. We will now better accept Harry using nasty spells to defeat DEs or Voldemort.

Harry using something nasty on someone, say Draco or Snape, then regretting it, is still on my table, but I am less convinced that is where JKR is going.

Magic Words - Jun 20, 2006 7:19 am (#183 of 1104)

I think Dobby Socks put it well. Harry's forays into the Dark Arts can be viewed as a natural reaction to what he's going through (not inevitable, but natural). However, it's not the way he needs to be going if he wants to win this war, so at some point he's going to have to come to his senses.

On Slytherins: Slughorn isn't bad. Snape may not be bad. And we have seen a more sympathetic side to Draco (although this may or may not be elaborated on in the next book). So I would say JKR's already working on reconstructing the Slytherin stereotype.

wynnleaf - Jun 20, 2006 7:19 am (#184 of 1104)
Edited Jun 20, 2006 8:22 am

At the end of HBP we have a Harry who has attempted unforgiveables and used, with regret, the nasty sectemsempra spell. We will now better accept Harry using nasty spells to defeat DEs or Voldemort.

Do we truly expect Harry to defeat LV with dark spells??? DD didn't bother to try and teach Harry any spells for defeating LV. He's said several times that the power that LV knows not of is Love. Harry seems to think that sounds sort of sappy. But I think that's where JKR is going to go. Fan fics usually have things end in some huge battle, where Harry finally gets in an AK on LV. I doubt sincerely that JKR will go in that direction. I have no clue how she'll achieve it, but somehow, I think it will be that power that LV knows not of -- love -- that will defeat him.

Also, I don't think anyone would compare Harry's use of unforgiveables or dark curses to a DE. Certainly not. And it's true that he's using them in extreme anger or hate -- though not necessarily always in self-defence. But having a reason to use those spells doesn't mean that it is right to use those spells. Will Harry be faced with yet another "right versus easy" choice? Will JKR have Harry learn that dark spells are destructive and should never be used?

haymoni - Jun 20, 2006 9:58 am (#185 of 1104)

I'm sure the PETA folks would have had a problem if the ferret actually bounced - CGI or not.

The real value of that scene is at the end when you realize that it wasn't Moody punishing Draco for hurting Harry, but Barty Jr. punishing Draco for his father's lack of loyalty.

In Book 1, Harry already realizes that breaking rules doesn't matter if Voldy is able to come back. In Book 2, he sees the hatred/racism that exists in the Wizarding World. In Book 3, he realizes that Dumbledore can't fix everything. In Book 4, Voldy returns and nobody seems to care. In Book 5, he's on edge waiting for things to happen and STILL nobody seems to care. He sees his godfather killed and his friends injured.

By Book 6, Harry feels the need to take matters into his own hands, especially when nobody believes him. He was right about Malfoy and if someone - anyone - would have listened to him, Malfoy would have been thwarted. Harry was ready to go to war as soon as he was released from that spell. He would have done anything to make them pay for Dumbledore.

The war is on and if Harry is going to be hit with Unforgivables, he's going to dish them right back.

virginiaelizabeth - Jun 20, 2006 10:03 am (#186 of 1104)

Weeny Owl, I totally agree with what you are saying.

I personally feel like Dumbledore's death will play a big role in finally convincing Harry that dark magic will get him only so far. I feel like Harry will literately take Dumbledore's words to heart, and eventually it will come to him that he must defeat Voldemort bying using his power of love. I'm not really sure how this would play out when we find out that Dumbledore isn't dead

but I think it will drive Harry to do the right thing in the end, I trust JKR that Harry will defeat LV without the use of dark magic.

geauxtigers - Jun 20, 2006 10:26 am (#187 of 1104)
Edited Jun 20, 2006 12:23 pm

Haymoni, I agree. That is what all of us I'm sure would do, I know I wouldn't sit back and let that happen, nor was Harry going to let that happen. He has gone through so much and right or wrong, he has a very good reason for his actions. It doesn't mean JKR is teaching kids to behave this way, it showing what can happen when they do behave that way. I don't think she is showing us that just because Harry is doing, that its okay for us to do it. Harry has gone through more than probably most people ever have and hes only 16! Few (or so I hope) people have ever had to expirence such hard life like Harry. It would be highly difficult for anyone to control that kind of anger. Few of us can compare because we aren't in his situation, we don't know exactly how we'd react. I agree with Weeny Owl, I'd be worried if he didn't react the way he did.

EDIT: Magic Words, I know my last post was confusing, thats not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying though it may be wrong, Harry does have a valid reason. I'm not saying that its okay for Harry to do this because of all he has been through, I'm saying that he is doing it because of all he has been through. I don't think JKR's message is to tell us that its okay for this to happen, but to tell us that everything has consequences. I'm sorry if I was unclear, this is starting to confuse me this will probably be my final word on this issue. Once again sorry for the confusing post.

Magic Words - Jun 20, 2006 11:13 am (#188 of 1104)

Geauxtigers, correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds like you're saying that while it would be wrong for other people to do some of the things we're discussing, it's not wrong for Harry because he's suffered more. I don't agree with that. Harry is the hero of the whole saga. From a literary standpoint it's his job to suffer - trial by fire - and come out stronger because of it, not to crack under the pressure, however strong that pressure is. It may not be fair, but no one ever said it was.

Linedhel - Jun 20, 2006 12:48 pm (#189 of 1104)
Edited Jun 20, 2006 1:58 pm

Actually, I find Harry's actions quite understandable. Not only has he seen the death of people who mattered to him, but he is also(mostly in OoTP) kept in the dark about things he has the right to know. Not to mention Umbridge, the fact that he thought he was Voldemort's weapon(maybe even possessed by him) and the increasing hate against Snape(which, from Harry's point of view, is understandable).

He is growing, he is not, never was, an innocent little child(not after all he endured, also the treatment he got from the Dursleys). and, I think it was time he spoke his mind in OoTP. I could completely relate to his feelings.

Yes, in HBP he is different, a bit more difficlut to understand, but, concerning his feelings(except for his feelings towards Snape), he really has grown up. His feelings towards Snape, especially after he killed DD, are, from Harry's point of view understandable. We, readers, of course can be more objective, and we know more than Harry and we can speculate.

Anyway, Harry has no real proof for Snape beeing good, and Snape, though he may be on the right side, always gave Harry the worst time he could. For this, though I find Snape a very interesting and complex character, I hate him too. Concerning Harry using dark curses, he only used Crucio(with not such a big effect) against the murderer of Sirius, Bellatrix. He could have used AK(which, maybe I'd done), but he only crucio-ed her.

Regarding Sectumsempra, this was a mistake, and, after seeing what happened to Malfoy, he feels sorry, although I bet Malfoy didn't feel sorry for trying to crucio Harry.

Harry is not the typical hero, and I personally don't expect him to be the next Dumbledore(he wouldn't probably use dark curses), he still has to learn, and he is definitely drwan towards the Dark Arts just because he used here a Crucio and there a Sectumsempra. He is not a child, nevertheless he knows/sees the consequences of his actions. I also doubt he will attempt to ever use AK, it's just not his style, and he hasn't that much hate and negative energy in him to perform it anyway.

And he's definitely the type of hero I like. Smile

sere35 - Jun 20, 2006 12:48 pm (#190 of 1104) Reply
Edited by Catherine Jun 20, 2006 2:08 pm

Everyone I talk to in real life has a less care bear attitude towards the series.

Are me and my friends and family the only ones who see the characters as alot more tough then you are giving them credit for. You all act Dumbledore and Harry are saints. I am absolutly 1000 percent sure that Dumbledor has done his share of dark magic and killing in his pursitus.

Also whenever Harry gets in a fight the first spell he goes to are the dark arts. He says himself numerous times that I am going to take Voldermort and as many death eaters with him as possible.

I have the feeling Harry is going to fight fire with fire and not feel slightly bad about it what so ever.

You all seem to think that Harry and the Order members are all going to get in a line, and like the care bears shoot beams of love at them unill they melt. Because Jk wouldnt do that because it sets a bad exaple blah blah.

I am sorry to say that if Harry wins by love I am going to burn all of my books. All the time have spent on the series will have been a complete waste of my time.

I edited out a word that was not forum friendly. I also took out a sentence that I believed crossed the line in terms of polite debate. Please direct any questions to me in email at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] --Catherine

TwinklingBlueEyes - Jun 20, 2006 12:57 pm (#191 of 1104)
Edited Jun 20, 2006 2:25 pm

One of the greatest things about this forum is that all can post their thoughts even if they go against the general line of thinking. And Harry Potter is such a great subject to do that with.

...toddles off chuckling...aka one who posts on the internet...

I took out a sentence that referred to a quote that is no longer on this thread. I apologize for any disruption!--Catherine

Edited edit: But I liked that sentence!

virginiaelizabeth - Jun 20, 2006 1:16 pm (#192 of 1104)
Edited Jun 20, 2006 2:18 pm

I am sorry to say that if Harry wins by love I am going to burn all of my books. All the time have spent on the series will have been a complete waste of my time.

Well, you might as well burn them now because that's what's going to happen. If it goes down to Harry using a bunch of dark magic to bring down LV, then I think that would completely destroy the biggest theme that JKR has set for us and the is love. She's not writing all this about love being the most powerful force in nature, to blow shunshine at us, she's writing it because that's what message she wants to send to her readers. If she has spent all this time writing about how love is the "power the Dark Lord knows not" and that it can be used to defeat him(you may want to read the prophecy again) then in the end, it doesn't defeat Voldemort, then she will have gone and completely contradicted herself by saying that Harry will defeat LV with love and then have him brutally murder LV. I don't think that's going to happen.

And no I don't think that we are all taking a "care bear" attitude towards the series, in fact I'd say we are looking at in from a much more realistic(and canon) point of view. No one here is trying to proclaim Harry a saint, we are merely discussing Harry's character, and trying to provide ourselves with explainations for why Harry has done certain things, and how we think those things will come into play in the last book. I don't think anyone here is trying to provide an out for any of Harry's actions, we are just trying to break down his complexity so that maube we can find a reason for why he acts the way he does.

Dumbledore has done some Dark Magic, I'm sure of that, but as we have never seen him doing anything of the sort, I think it's safe to say that he doesn't use them unless it is absolutely neccessary.

So no, We aren't looking at the story with, "care bear" attitudes, but with "realistic" attitudes.

EDIT: I see Catherine has already taken the time to fix it for us! I'll delete that last sentence!

wynnleaf - Jun 20, 2006 1:27 pm (#193 of 1104)

To add to what virginiaelizabeth said, not only is no one saying Harry is a saint, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Harry should be a saint. Nor is anyone saying that there aren't reasons for why Harry has acted in the way he has. However, it does seem clear that JKR is growing and maturing Harry. Part of that growth and maturity will very likely move him toward being a person who can use love to defeat LV.

Hollywand - Jun 20, 2006 1:48 pm (#194 of 1104)

One powerful subtext, to my mind, in the series is that compassion in not the purview of the mamby-pamby weak, but a useful tool for understanding how to approach those who are both friend and foe.

Rowling shows Harry's inexperienced weakness when he reacts in anger. I think this will surely change in book seven as Harry breaks the cycle.

Compassion as power and the idea that, when one fashions an evil tool, it can always be used against the person who initially made the weapon.

Soul Search - Jun 20, 2006 2:33 pm (#195 of 1104)
Edited Jun 20, 2006 3:34 pm

haymoni, good summation in your #185 post.

I agree, Harry has accepted his fate ... and declared war. He will do anything to win, as one must in a war.

TheSaint - Jun 20, 2006 5:19 pm (#196 of 1104)

I am sorry, but the saint job has been filled, thank you very much! I think Jo, that clever little minx, has put in enough to hint at several possible solutions...Harmonious elements - ala Fifth Element...Quintessense if you will...Alchemcy - death and rebirth as Philosophers stone. But I have to go with Love. DD says that is how it will be, and he supposedly speaks for Jo, so that is my pet theory at the moment. (I am sure some other clue will attract my attention two minutes from now, but hey..that is half the fun).

sere35 - Jun 20, 2006 5:21 pm (#197 of 1104)

Soul search is write it is war and Harry will do anything to win.

While I might I have to accept that Harry may use love in some way to defeat Voldermort. Why cant Harry use love to fuel a spell that Brutally murders Voldermort.

TheSaint - Jun 20, 2006 5:26 pm (#198 of 1104)

Why cant Harry use love to fuel a spell that Brutally murders Voldermort.

Because his soul would also be torn, justified or not.

sere35 - Jun 20, 2006 5:31 pm (#199 of 1104)

I only think it tears if you murder a innocent or someone in cold blood not if you are defending yourself.

TheSaint - Jun 20, 2006 5:35 pm (#200 of 1104)
Edited Jun 20, 2006 6:37 pm

I do not agree. Canon does not support it. There is no designation on different types. Only a clear statement.

Harry is planning, Harry is hunting, Harry is out to murder...not to defend. Malice and fore-thought. Should he commit the act, then I think murder is the word that applies. Just because the 'victim' is vile, does not make the definition any less so.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:54 am

Catherine - Jun 20, 2006 5:48 pm (#201 of 1104)
Edited Jun 20, 2006 6:48 pm

I do not agree. Canon does not support it. There is no designation on different types. Only a clear statement.--The Saint

Canon says that murder tears the soul.

Do you think you could elaborate? Is there a situation where killing someone would not result in a soul tear? I'm debating this myself...

Hollywand - Jun 20, 2006 6:07 pm (#202 of 1104)
Edited Jun 20, 2006 7:08 pm

I think Harry will turn Voldemort's weapon back on him to destroy him; Wormtail's hand, for example. I don't think Harry's going to love Voldy into submission. I think love unites Harry's friends, and unifies them. This gives them, as community, a power the Dark Lord and his Death Eaters know not. I think Voldy's going to get his just desserts----worse than the bouncing ferret.

virginiaelizabeth - Jun 20, 2006 7:18 pm (#203 of 1104)

I only think it tears if you murder a innocent or someone in cold blood not if you are defending yourself.

The only problem with that is that I don't think your soul knows the difference between murdering for the greater good and murdering for evil purposes. Murder is murder, no matter which way you look at it. The way I look at it, Harry murdering Voldemort will have the same effects on Harry as they would have on LV if he murdered Harry.

The Saint, I completely agree with your post.

Do you think you could elaborate? Is there a situation where killing someone would not result in a soul tear? I'm debating this myself... -Catherine

I really don't think that there is a situation where that wouldn't happen. It just seems like there is just one way to tear your soul, and that is by murdering someone. I think we are complicating matters by saying, what if this is what happened, then would it be ok? I feel like murder tears, the soul, and it doesn't matter what kind of murder it is.

geauxtigers - Jun 20, 2006 7:34 pm (#204 of 1104)
Edited Jun 20, 2006 8:36 pm

The debate between what is consider murder and what isn't is a toughy. I cannot decide, I would consider murder in self defense not ripping the soul, but canon says all murder rips the soul. When it comes down to the basics, if you kill someone it is murder. But then if a doctor accidentally messes up in surgery and the patient dies, I would never condsider that murder. Accidents happen and I think only the person responsible would be able to decide for themselves. Its a very difficult thing to think of and I think in the end if Harry can over come Vold without murder then thats what he will do. DD says that Love is the power the Dark Lord knows not, so shouldn't that be what ends Voldemort for good? Technically, destroying all the Horcruxes is killing, but its killing for the better because horcruxes are evil. Grr its just so confusing and it frustrates me!

Mostly just random thoughts from my random brain though...

I agree, Harry has accepted his fate ... and declared war. He will do anything to win, as one must in a war.

I also agree with this.

EDIT: Ginny I agree with you! Though what you said probably contradicted what I've said, I agree. You've said more or less what I think.....

Mediwitch - Jun 20, 2006 7:47 pm (#205 of 1104)
Edited Jun 20, 2006 8:48 pm

All this talk of love and hate reminds me that these two emotions are considered to be actually very close, rather than polar opposites as some people think. (The opposite of love is actually apathy...an absolute lack of caring.) Love and hate are both very strong, powerful emotions.

I don't think Harry is going to give Voldemort a big hug and cause Voldemort to vanish in a puff of smoke and fairy dust, but I do strongly believe that love is the key for Harry to "vanquish" Big V.

virginiaelizabeth - Jun 20, 2006 9:05 pm (#206 of 1104)

I don't think Harry is going to give Voldemort a big hug and cause Voldemort to vanish in a puff of smoke and fairy dust, but I do strongly believe that love is the key for Harry to "vanquish" Big V.- Mediwitch

I agree, it's not going to be something that simple. It's going to take several, long planned, and hard thought actions to bring down LV. No idea as to how Jo will do this, but I am confident she will and that it will shock the you know what out of all of us!

Weeny Owl - Jun 20, 2006 11:27 pm (#207 of 1104)
Edited Jun 21, 2006 12:28 am

Do you think you could elaborate? Is there a situation where killing someone would not result in a soul tear? I'm debating this myself...

Ahhh, Catherine... this is one of my favorite topics. :::waving:::

I have given an example of where killing isn't murder, and it's through the movie, "Last of the Mohicans." Duncan is in the process of being burned alive, Hawkeye can't save him but can ease his suffering, and to do so, kills him. There was no way Duncan could have lived, and while he was in the process of dying, it would have been a most horrible and extremely painful death. Hawkeye realized that it was hopeless and did the only thing he could that would have been of any help to Duncan at all. I've seen similar scenarios in other movies. In order not to kill someone should Hawkeye have let Duncan burn to death? I don't think so, and if I were being roasted alive, I would prefer someone put me out of my misery.

In our world, at least in a lot of countries, there are technical definitions of murder. One dictionary definition is: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice and without justification or excuse. Premeditated murder is definitely murder, but vehicular manslaughter isn't murder. You deliberately and with malice aforethought shoot someone in cold blood, it's murder. Someone darts out in front of your car when you're going the speed limit or lower and are not under the influence of any controlled substance, and it's not considered murder, although there can be a term that needs to be served in prison. Various states have sub categories such as being the accomplice during a crime where a murder takes place, and some states have special circumstances that can boost a murder charge from second degree to first degree. No one, not even the fifty states of America will always agree.

Harry will defeat Voldemort, but loving Voldemort may not matter. What might matter more is the other people in Harry's life he loves. Voldemort couldn't possess Harry when Sirius came to mind and Harry thought he might be seeing Sirius soon. It wasn't his love of Voldemort but his love of Sirius that mattered, and him loving so many people may matter more than whatever he feels for Voldemort or anyone else.

Even if he does deliberately kill Voldemort and his soul is ripped, that doesn't mean Harry will no longer be Harry. It would be something he probably wouldn't forget, and he might even feel guilty for having killed another living being, but at the same time, with his friends helping him and loving him back, he could eventually realize that what he actually did was save the world, especially the ones he loves, and that not doing anything was worse than what he did.

Dobby Socks - Jun 20, 2006 11:29 pm (#208 of 1104)
Edited Jun 21, 2006 12:49 am

Mediwitch: All this talk of love and hate reminds me that these two emotions are considered to be actually very close, rather than polar opposites as some people think. (The opposite of love is actually apathy...an absolute lack of caring.) Love and hate are both very strong, powerful emotions.

I agree with this 100%. I don’t know if it was something I picked up when I was a Psychology & Sociology major eons ago, but I certainly remember my mother telling me this… and moms often tend to be right. I don’t know if it fits JKR’s train of thought on the subject, though. What would this say about Harry’s “quest”? As you said, he’s got to use love specifically to bring about LV’s downfall. (I think I just answered my own question at the end of the next to the last paragraph.)

When DD first stated this idea, I was initially very skeptical, and thinking along the same lines your idea parodied: “What’s he going to do – hug him to death?” (followed by a big scoff.) But it didn’t take me very long to come around.

I agree with the people who have stated that this most likely refers to Harry’s love for his friends. Love will bond them all together and create a truly united front that Voldemort will have to face. And it will empower Harry. Other thoughts: 1.) the love that runs through Harry (and now Voldemort’s) veins – LV definitely can’t possess him, which may be helpful 2.) This is way out there, but if Harry’s scar is a horcrux, which was literally caused by LV’s AK, but essentially caused by Lily’s sacrifice, and if it is removed, maybe physical blood would be affected… Harry would retain some either because he had a living body before Lily’s sacrifice or because the blood protection is gone (although I think this might simply apply to the magic DD used with the Dursleys). LV however took all his blood for his bodily regeneration from Harry. If Lily’s blood protection is intrinsically connected to the scar, and the scar is zapped, maybe LV will literally lose his blood, shrivel up, and die. LOL – well, I told you it was far out. But I think Lily’s blood (Harry’s blood) may also play a part in getting rid of Voldemort. (Especially considering the gleam in DD’s eye from GoF.)

Two ways I can see Harry getting rid of DD which may be more excusable than a plain AK: 1.) Harry’s love attracts Dementors. They are running loose and breeding. One of them shows up to feast on Harry, but Harry is able to somehow trick it into sucking Voldemort’s soul. Not very feasible, and I’m not sure how the “trick” would work logistically, but it’s worth consideration. 2.) DOM: Harry pushes LV through the veil while trying to stop LV’s attack on one of his friends. (And hopefully doesn’t go through it himself!) He could use a stunner spell or something close to what Bella used, and not have to get into the Unforgiveables. Maybe he sustains injuries because he decides to help someone he loves instead of himself. This includes love and sacrifice and LV’s demise, so it’s the one that appeals to me the most. He could also put a strong force of love/caring/concern behind his curse, which would make it even stronger – perhaps even so strong that if LV tried to counter, he would be both overwhelmed and confused at the origins of the power and lose some control due to distraction.

How many of these options would encompass direct murder, though, and thus damage the soul? I personally suspect that because there are degrees of murder/killing, a lesser offense such as self defense, or killing to save the lives of many, would probably damage the soul, but the soul would be able to heal (unlike murdering for evil purposes.) And, BTW, would a Dementor’s kiss qualify as murder? It essentially is, even though one is left with his body.

EDIT: Relevant cross post with Weeny Owl. I love your example from Last of the Mohicans . I completely agree that in this situation, or one like it, the person who alleviates the suffering is acting ethically, and there's no way this should be construed as murder. The vehicular manslaughter example is also a good one. I think we have to differentiate, and do. I would hope the "soul splitting" magic of the Wizarding World would do the same.

EDIT 2: There seems to be so much interest in this topic that I'm suddenly thinking I should submit a question on it to Jo at Radio City Music Hall. I don't see it as something she would avoid answering.

Laura W - Jun 21, 2006 12:42 am (#209 of 1104)
Edited Jun 21, 2006 1:54 am

Your post (#192) was beautifully written and very maturely thought out, Ginny. Grace - yours - in the midst of building-up pressure - this whole discussion -, if I may say so.

The Saint wrote: "I am sorry, but the saint job has been filled, thank you very much." (Hee, hee.)

Laura

Linedhel - Jun 21, 2006 1:04 am (#210 of 1104)

Firstly, I'd like to correct something I wrote: it should be "Harry isn't drawn towards the Dark Arts", sorry about that.

I'd also like to add that I(along with others on this forum) don't think Harry is a saint, nor are we trying to defend his every action. He is growing and developing(and other characters too), and he makes mistakes and learns from them.

I never thought of Harry vanquishing Voldemort like the care bears do, it's just not JKR style. Love is very important, but also friendship and trust(those good qualities any hero should have). Nevertheless, the books aren't written in the style that Harry, with all his love will vanquish Voldemort, they're books about magic and growing magical abilities too, so Harry will definitely use some advanced magic against Voldemort(not necessarily dark curses, but surely advanced defensive spells). JKR will make sure Harry won't defeat Voldemort too easily, and it will definitely a very realistic ending, in this matter I trust her completely, she won't disappoint us.

The expert - Jun 21, 2006 2:02 am (#211 of 1104)

Nevertheless, the books aren't written in the style that Harry, with all his love will vanquish Voldemort, they're books about magic and growing magical abilities too, so Harry will definitely use some advanced magic against Voldemort(not necessarily dark curses, but surely advanced defensive spells).

This reminds me a bit of the what happens when Hary tells Hermione and Ron that Dumbledore is to give him private lessons.

They all expect the classes to be about advanced spells and DADA tricks, but as we all know, it was not. Dumbledore tried to teach Harry to understand Voldemort, by giving his background story. So far, it has not been spectacular spells that have saved the day. There has been a fair amount of these spells, that is true, but in the final showdown with LV, it is Harry's heart, love, loyalty or whatever that saves the day.

Why should that change in the last day.

Also note that in PoA, Harry is given the opportunity to kill Sirius, that he hated at this point. But he backs of.

In OotP he tries to cast a crucio at Bella, but he doesn't have it in him to do it.

Are we to believe that Harrys wandering towards enlightenment involves learnig to hate enough to kill or torture?

Isn't it far more likely that his journey towards enlightement involves learning to control the dark sides of himself? That he will not develop in a direction that will make his dark spells work, but in a direction that will make him refrain from trying to use them?

As for what kind of murder tears the soul. I think Jo intended for all killing of fellow humans to be a bad thing that will tear the soul. Even in the cases where you can argue that killing it better than the alternative, also those performing justifiable killings will have to pay the price.

rambkowalczyk - Jun 21, 2006 3:17 am (#212 of 1104)

As for what kind of murder tears the soul. I think Jo intended for all killing of fellow humans to be a bad thing that will tear the soul. Even in the cases where you can argue that killing it better than the alternative, also those performing justifiable killings will have to pay the price. The expert

I agree. People who accidentally kill in self defense, or by manslaughter (say car accident) will still feel guilt for what they have done. I have never read the Last of the Mohicans but I would suspect that although the character felt justified killing his friend, he probably felt guilt about not being able to do more for him.

I also agree that Harry sparing Wormtail is significant. It is also significant that Dumbledore went to the trouble to save Umbridge. I'm sure he could have found other pressing matters to attend to. Remember that Dumbledore was willing to give his life to save Draco. All three of these people were clearly "unworthy" of being saved.

TheSaint - Jun 21, 2006 3:33 am (#213 of 1104)

'Isn't it far more likely that his journey towards enlightement involves learning to control the dark sides of himself?' The Expert

Beautifully put. I agree completely.

I also think justifiable homicide does in fact leave its mark on your soul, as it does on your psyche.

wynnleaf - Jun 21, 2006 4:03 am (#214 of 1104)
Edited Jun 21, 2006 5:04 am

'Isn't it far more likely that his journey towards enlightement involves learning to control the dark sides of himself?' The Expert

I also agree with this. And once again, like others, I don't see Harry either "loving" LV to death, or his love sort of accidently creating a situation where LV dies. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him use some sort of advanced spells within the context of bringing down LV.

But I think that it will be incompatible within the framework of JKR's themes to have Harry use an unforgiveable to bring down LV.

My expectation, in particularly because she seemed in interviews rather satisfied with having intensified Harry's hatred (even while telling us in the books that love is his great power),is that he's going to have to overcome his hatred before killing LV. Not that it will be directly related in the plot (for instance, Harry's hate prevents him from using a particular spell necessary to kill LV, so he has to overcome it). No, I mean that I don't think JKR will allow his character to destroy LV until he's already grown past his hatreds.

Steve Newton - Jun 21, 2006 5:16 am (#215 of 1104)

JKR was pretty specific when she said that murder tears the soul. I can't see any way that this would mean any killing of another person. Self defense is not murder. Whether going out of your way to kill someone who is trying to kill you is self defense, I don't know. (I think that any intelligent species would count as a person. Centaurs and such.)

haymoni - Jun 21, 2006 6:17 am (#216 of 1104)

What if your intention was to murder someone and it didn't work?

I think your soul would at least be perforated!

i.e. - Harry used "Sectumsempra" knowing full well that Snape would be bleeding all over the place and that Harry would have no way to help him - unless of course, Snape could "sing" himself well.

I think there have been a number of Forum members who have wanted Harry to remain, not necessarily a saint, but pure - that he will never use an Unforgiveable, that he will find some way to rid the world of Voldy without actually murdering him and that they are shocked and appalled at Harry's use of "Crucio" on Bella and "Sectumsempra" on Draco and Snape.

I find this approach very unrealistic. The kid has been to Hades & back and he is determined to go on alone and do what he has to, now matter what it takes.

JKR herself has apologized for what she has to put Harry through, so I'm guessin' it ain't gonna be pretty.

Magic Words - Jun 21, 2006 6:23 am (#217 of 1104)
Edited Jun 21, 2006 7:27 am

What makes most sense to me is that any killing tears the soul, but some circumstances make it easier for the soul to heal (if you didn't want to do it but had to for the greater good, or if you feel true remorse afterwards). Horcruxes are so evil that there was no information on them in the Hogwarts library, even in the restricted section, and yet the school hardly refuses to discuss death and killing at all (they learn about the AK in DADA even though there's no defense against it). So Horcruxes are especially evil not because they require splitting the soul, but because they take away the soul's chance to recover.

Edit: I'd also like to weigh in on the care-bear debate. I have no idea how she's going to do it, but I'm confident that JKR will make the whole love-conquers-LV thing work without making it too sappy. She's shown she can pull it off: let's say before you read PS/SS someone told you that a woman's love for her son defeated an evil wizard and forced him into hiding for 13 years. How silly does that sound? But it works.

wynnleaf - Jun 21, 2006 8:49 am (#218 of 1104)

I think there have been a number of Forum members who have wanted Harry to remain, not necessarily a saint, but pure - that he will never use an Unforgiveable, that he will find some way to rid the world of Voldy without actually murdering him and that they are shocked and appalled at Harry's use of "Crucio" on Bella and "Sectumsempra" on Draco and Snape.

Haymoni,

While you could easily be referring to other forum members, I thought I'd state my position hopefully a bit more clearly than usual.

If JKR wants to write Harry and other of the "good guys" as doing any number of unfortunate things, that's okay with me. I'm not hoping they'll stay "pure." Whether or not Harry's use of unforgiveables is wrong is actually a separate point for me.

My greater concern is that Harry and the other "good guy" students have regularly done a number of cruel things, or had a number of quite cruel or highly biased attitudes, and the wrongness of these actions or attitudes gets little or no notice. The primary reason is probably because of almost everything being written from Harry's point of view, even if it's not first person. So unless another character actually comments in Harry's hearing about a particular action or attitude being questionable, we the readers get no sign that it is, other than our own ability to discern it. Often it isn't solely that the reader is given no clues to the wrongness of an action or attitude. Often we get the exact opposite as the reader is encouraged to enjoy, along with the characters involved, the actions or attitudes that they're indulging in.

If it turns out, in the context of JKR's understanding of unforgiveables, that it's acceptable for Harry to use them in extreme circumstances, than the fact that we've been given no written cues to be concerned about Harry's use of unforgiveables will not be a problem. Many readers obviously feel that it was acceptable given Harry's circumstances, and if JKR is in agreement with that, then there's no question about whether or not JKR has prepared her readers with the correct "mindset" about unforgiveables. On the other hand, since so many readers are comfortable with Harry's use of them given those circumstances, if it turns out that it's not okay for Harry to have used them (in JKR's world), then I would be concerned that she has not really prepared readers to believe it is unacceptable.

The same applies to many of the other questionable (in my opinion) actions and attitudes which Harry and Co. have which readers by and large seem mostly comfortable with. That's not a judgement of readers, by the way. I was mostly comfortable with most of Harry and Co.'s actions and attitudes until I started to very consciously look at some of them more objectively.

Weeny Owl - Jun 21, 2006 8:59 am (#219 of 1104)
Edited Jun 21, 2006 10:02 am

When I mentioned the movie, "The Last of the Mohicans," and Hawkeye killing Duncan, I wasn't saying that killing someone won't leave a mark on your soul or that you wouldn't feel guilt in the same situation.

It was more of an "evil versus not evil" thing as far as how dark someone would get. For me, Death Eaters torturing someone into insanity (the Longbottoms) or torturing children (Bella casting the Cruciatus Curse on Neville) is many times worse than Hawkeye putting Duncan out of his misery.

I can see Harry killing (I don't mean using an Avada Kedavra but by using any other means necessary) Voldemort to keep the rest of the Wizarding World from being tortured or dying, but I could never see Harry torturing someone in a cold-blooded manner. When he's used Unforgivable Curses, it's always been after witnessing someone he cares about being killed, and even then his spells are directed only at the culprit and not anyone else. Harry used a non-dark spell on the Death Eater in the tower, and during the chase to get Snape, he still didn't use anything but non-dark spells. It was only Snape he tried to use an Unforgivable on during that chase.

I don't believe that there is anyone who doesn't have a dark side of some sort, but the dark side most of us have isn't Death Eater calibre. Most of us couldn't even imagine torturing someone or aiming a wand at a baby and trying to kill him. Harry doesn't have a Death Eater dark side, but what he does have is something he'll have to learn to control just as we all learn to control our bad sides.

haymoni - Jun 21, 2006 9:50 am (#220 of 1104)
Edited Jun 21, 2006 10:51 am

I don't remember any names specifically, wynnleaf, but I do recall a number of Forum members being very upset with Harry for "Crucio"ing Bella when OotP first came out.

Frankly, I think if anyone deserves to be "Crucio"'d, it's Bella.

Others disagreed. They felt Harry was being just as bad as a Death Eater by attacking Bella in that way.

Harry had just watched Sirius fall through the veil and went after the person who caused it. I don't think a Jelly-Legs curse was the first thing that came to mind. Harry needed something more and knew that she would fire back with something even worse. He did hurt her, even though it didn't last.

If it was unacceptable for Harry to use an Unforgiveable, JKR is a little late. I think we would have heard about it at the end of Book 5 or sometime in Book 6. A Hermione comment about Harry being lucky he hadn't been chucked in Azkaban would have covered it.

Instead we heard nothing, so I'm guessing she's cutting Harry some slack.

virginiaelizabeth - Jun 21, 2006 10:07 am (#221 of 1104)

As for what kind of murder tears the soul. I think Jo intended for all killing of fellow humans to be a bad thing that will tear the soul. Even in the cases where you can argue that killing it better than the alternative, also those performing justifiable killings will have to pay the price. The expert

I agree, if your intent is to kill the person, even if it's a mercy killing, then it is considered murder and your soul will still be damaged. There are situations of course where people kill someone and it's not murder, such as the car example we've been discussing. But this still leaves a mark on your soul, but I feel like in a situation like this, it is given the chance to repair.

I have been thinking about this qoute that Dumbledore says to Harry in chapter 37 in OoP:

There is a room in the Department of Mysteries, intterupted Dumbledore, "that is kept locked at all times. It contains a force that is at once more powerful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than forces of nature. It is also, prehaps, the most mysterious of the many subjects for study that reside there. It is the power held within that room that you possess in such quantities and which Voldemort has not at all. That power took you to save Sirius tonight. That power also saved you from possession by Voldemort, because he could not bear to reside in a body so full of the force he detests. In the end, it mattered not that you could close your mind. It was your heart that saved you."(843-844)

I have often thought that this room may play a role in LV's downfall. I'm not really sure how, maybe Harry will push LV into this room, haha I doubt that but I just wondered if anyone else had any ideas of what role the "love room" will play, if any in Voldemort's downfall. Just curious,not really sure if this could work.

Mattew Bates - Jun 21, 2006 10:42 am (#222 of 1104)

To chime in on a few things:

Care Bear love is an immature view of love. A mature view of love recognizes its terrible side, its potential power. Case in point: the unyielding nature of Lily's refusal to step aside that sidelined the Dark Lord for 13 years. Harry will exercise something similar, and I expect the cost to be similarly high.

nthdavid - Jun 21, 2006 11:38 am (#223 of 1104)

This bit about murder splitting the soul isn't new. I have been looking but can't find the book or movie that I have seen it in before. (I've read lots of SF and mythology so it isn't surprising I can't find it.) The 'theory' was that there is good and evil in all of us and that committing a murder causes a physical (or meta-physical) break. And if the two parts are somehow put back together, they destroy each other and the person dies. I don't think Harry will have to kill LV, but can use a simple switching spell to give him back the piece of soul in his scar. The prophecy did say that he would be 'marked' and have the ability to destroy LV. As was demonstrated in the end of HBP he didn't seem to have the ability to even hurt Snape.

[JKR has done a great job taking bits and pieces from folklore, myths, and legends and making a fairly consistent magical world. It would only make sense that evil can be defeated by love.]

Dobby Socks - Jun 21, 2006 1:05 pm (#224 of 1104)

Magic Words: What makes most sense to me is that any killing tears the soul, but some circumstances make it easier for the soul to heal. This is what makes the most sense to me also.

And, to all who mentioned it, I find it likely that having your soul split manifests itself mostly in guilt (if, say, you’re a normal person and not an evil overlord). That corresponds best to real life actualities. For instance, many soldiers go through post traumatic stress disorder, and I imagine some if not much of that is from having to kill.

Haymoni, Harry has yet to use an Unforgiveable successfully, though. The only time he was able to use a dark curse was the sectumsempra against Draco, and that was before he knew what it did. Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m thinking of the MOM battle and the end of HBP. And these attempts occurred after the deaths of Sirius and Dumbledore, which were the points he was most angry and emotional, so it would seem if the Unforgiveables were going to work for him it would be then. Maybe he is unable to do them for some reason. If he really intends to use them in the end, perhaps he could get training from someone else… maybe Moody. Harry’s conscience or Superego, may be subconsciously interfering just enough to stop him from using them. Of course in HBP, Snape simply blocked them, so we don’t know if they would’ve been effective.

Also you wrote I think there have been a number of Forum members who have wanted Harry to remain, not necessarily a saint, but pure - that he will never use an Unforgiveable, that he will find some way to rid the world of Voldy without actually murdering him and that they are shocked and appalled at Harry's use of "Crucio" on Bella and "Sectumsempra" on Draco and Snape.

I don’t want him to “remain” pure. That’s unrealistic, especially considering what he’s been through. I don’t think he is pure now, simply because the older you get, the more complex issues and emotions you have to deal with. Plus, he hasn’t always been sterling in the past. I realize this is fiction, but I think that remaining pure is an impossible goal for anyone who is going to transition into adulthood. I guess it depends on one’s definition of purity (you can certainly remain kind or good), and I think one point the books are working towards are all the shades of gray in between purity and evil. I think almost every character falls somewhere in between. They all have flaws; they have all done regrettable things at one time or another. In my mind real purity can exist only in very young children. (Or maybe saints.)

Anyway, I think many Forum members are expecting Harry to avoid Unforgiveables and murder because that’s what we’ve been set up for with the love premise. So a lot of readers are trying to figure out how he’s going to pull this off. We’ll have to wait to see what JKR’s intentions are concerning his use of the Unforgiveables. I can’t remember anyone chiding him for his Crucio against Bella either. If anyone would have, DD would… but then he’s often a “hands off, let the situation play out” kind of mentor. I think he trusts Harry’s instincts and trusts that they will lead in the right direction (whatever that may be.) However, I think that as the hero of the story, it would be better if Harry could find an alternate way to dispose of Voldemort rather than a simple AK. I would also view an AK as anticlimactic and unworthy of a Rowling plot.

Also the comment JKR herself has apologized for what she has to put Harry through, so I'm guessin' it ain't gonna be pretty. I agree. But that doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll be throwing Unforgiveables left and right. If she’s referring to mental or spiritual anguish suffered by using the Unforgiveables on LV, then I can see where you’re coming from. But if she’s referring to entering an unconventional battle with unconventional weapons, and suffering because Voldemort and the DEs have cruelty and sadism on their side, I can imagine that would be pretty horrible too. And we can’t forget to include the possibility of the deaths and injuries of friends. How much longer do we have till book 7?

I also want to second that if anyone deserves to be crucioed, it’s Bella. But, to me, the Cruciatus Curse is the worst of the bunch. I’d much rather suddenly drop dead than be tortured into insanity (or for that matter lose my will from an Imperious). I wish Harry (and yes, even Draco) would put a stop to the Crucio attempts. Maybe someone whose soul is already damaged could crucio her.

Dobby Socks - Jun 21, 2006 1:10 pm (#225 of 1104)

Part Two... OK, I'm definitely getting too wordy...

The Expert: Isn't it far more likely that his journey towards enlightement involves learning to control the dark sides of himself? Yes. I agree completely.

Weeny Owl: When I mentioned the movie, "The Last of the Mohicans," and Hawkeye killing Duncan, I wasn't saying that killing someone won't leave a mark on your soul or that you wouldn't feel guilt in the same situation. I’d think it would certainly plague the character whatever choice he made. But I believe that “mercy killing” is far more moral than many activities that take place daily and have nothing to do with killing. Still, it’s an awful choice to have to make because there is no truly good alternative.

Virginia, I was wondering about the “Love Room” too. I can’t even begin to imagine how that part of the plot would transpire! Maybe if they shut him in there it would weaken him?

Weeny Owl - Jun 21, 2006 1:27 pm (#226 of 1104)

While the movie didn't get into Hawkeye's feelings about killing Duncan, I would have to agree with you, Dobby Socks, in that it would be a awful choice regardless.

Post-traumatic stress in regards to soldiers is another good point. Harry is basically a soldier in a war. He may have to be the one who makes the difficult choice, but that might be where the love he has in him comes into play. He won't kill anyone in cold blood, but if he has to kill Voldemort, he will do it. That may be part of his Gryffindor courage... making the tough decisions for the good of all.

haymoni - Jun 21, 2006 3:45 pm (#227 of 1104)

Harry did cause Bella some pain. It didn't go on and on and on, like when she was torturing Neville, but it made her stop.

It was Harry's first attempt at Crucio - I'm guessing his inital emotion made it hurt her, but as he had never done it before, he probably didn't know that he had to sustain the emotion behind the curse.

I certainly don't want Harry to become like Bella, but I could see him becoming like Moody - only using the Unforgivables when he absolutely has to.

Choices - Jun 21, 2006 5:23 pm (#228 of 1104)
Edited Jun 21, 2006 6:25 pm

I was rereading HBP last night and was reading the part where Harry begins trying some of the spells jotted in the margins of the Potion's book. One made a person's toenails grow rapidly, another glued the tongue to the roof of the mouth, one made a buzzing sound in the ears so people couldn't listen to your private conversation, another lifted the unwary into the air by their ankle. All pretty innocuous little spells. It is no surprise to me that Harry had no reservations about trying the Sectumsempra spell since all the other were relatively harmless. Harry is fairly innocent when it comes to everyday knowledge of the darker side of the wizarding world - he wasn't raised in it like Ron or hasn't read as much about it as Hermione, so no wonder it doesn't occur to him that the Sectumsempra might do what it did to Draco.

wynnleaf - Jun 21, 2006 8:30 pm (#229 of 1104)

I agree that Harry probably thought sectumsempra was another of the relatively harmless spells the HBP seemed to usually be focused on. But that is not the only time he used it. And by the next time he used it, he'd been told by Snape that it was dark magic.

I don't particularly think Harry knew what he was doing to Draco. I find that whole incident far more interesting for how everyone else reacts, since Harry didn't tell anyone involved (Draco, Snape or McGonagall) that he he had no idea what the spell would do, and he didn't tell Snape or McGonagall that Draco had tried to use cruciatus on him.

Solitaire - Jun 21, 2006 9:11 pm (#230 of 1104)

he didn't tell Snape or McGonagall that Draco had tried to use cruciatus on him

Past experience probably told Harry that it wouldn't have done any good to tell Snape. He'd never responded fairly in past Harry/Draco confrontations; there was no reason to suspect he would suddenly change in this more serious instance. McGonagall is more fair, and she is also more appropriate. She would probably have given Harry a royal lecture about using a spell whose effects he did not know on a person ... and let the detention stand.

Solitaire

wynnleaf - Jun 21, 2006 10:18 pm (#231 of 1104)
Edited Jun 21, 2006 11:21 pm

Past experience probably told Harry that it wouldn't have done any good to tell Snape. He'd never responded fairly in past Harry/Draco confrontations; there was no reason to suspect he would suddenly change in this more serious instance.

Though in fact, he did. I agree that Harry's expectations would naturally be an unfair response from Snape, but while the response was unfair, it was unfair in just the opposite way as usual.

Considering that Snape didn't know anything about what led up to the incident, what did he see when he entered the bathroom? After hearing Myrtle yelling about murder being committed (everyone is bound to know she overreacts, but still...), Snape rushes into the room to find it practically awash in blood. Draco was bleeding quite freely from chest and head wounds and, mixed with the water on the floor, the effect would be rather gruesome. (I know this for a fact, having seen a kitchen with 1 gallon of vinegar mixed with the blood of one bad cut on an ankle, poured on the floor and it looked like the psycho murderer had been there. Draco's case would have been a lot more blood and a lot more water.)

So Snape comes in to find Draco looking like someone about to die. In fact, he may have been. And Harry basically just looking scared, but never offering any excuses or explanations, other than that he was clearly the person responsible.

And how does Snape punish Harry for what looks like an attempted manslaughter? Saturday detentions. And not even doing anything dangerous (like the forbidden forest detention), or physically difficult, just organizing old detention reports. And of course Harry had to miss Quidditch.

Even McGonagall told Harry that he was lucky not to be expelled. And that does sound like the just punishment for what seemed to have occurred.

Yet notice that Snape never tried to have him expelled. Snape decided on the punishment himself.

By the way, regardless of what McGonagall said, I doubt it expelling Harry would have ever been considered -- there not being any real safe places for Harry other than Hogwarts and the relative safety of Privet Dr.

I also wonder how this looked to Draco. Draco knew he tried cruciatus, but he didn't know that Harry didn't intend exactly the result that he got with the sectumsempra. And he knew that nobody else had heard about his own cruciatus. In Draco's eyes, wouldn't it look like an attempted murder earned Harry only some Saturday detentions?

Oh, and last, we know that Snape told the whole faculty. But Dumbledore never even mentioned it to Harry, even though he probably couldn't have known that Harry had no clue what the sectumsempra spell would do, or that Draco had used cruciatus.

As I said, everyone else's reactions (or lack thereof) are a lot more interesting to me than Harry's.

TheSaint - Jun 22, 2006 4:12 am (#232 of 1104)

I am sure that Snape considered the circumstances in Harry's absence. Had he pressed for expulsion, I am sure there would have been some sort of hearing. One visit to the pensieve (God forbid another)would have proved Harry's use of the spell to be self-defense against an Unforgivable. This I am sure would have resulted in Draco's suspension as well, thus ruining any plans that may have already been in the works, on both sides.

Steve Newton - Jun 22, 2006 4:57 am (#233 of 1104)

The detention that Snape gave Harry for using the Sectumsempra spell is one of the things that hint, to me, that he is on the good side. Harry's punishment is to file, refurbish, cards with information about past punishments. Many of them, apparently, had information about James and Sirius. Maybe Lupin and Peter. Snape was trying to tell Harry something about Harry's father and the marauders. Not that it seemed to do any good.

Soul Search - Jun 22, 2006 5:26 am (#234 of 1104)

I was a bit disappointed that we didn't learn anything interesting from Harry's detention with the punishment records. Maybe Harry did, and we will learn of it later.

We did learn some names of students contemporary with the marauders. They could come up later.

wynnleaf - Jun 22, 2006 5:48 am (#235 of 1104)

I am sure that Snape considered the circumstances in Harry's absence. Had he pressed for expulsion, I am sure there would have been some sort of hearing. One visit to the pensieve (God forbid another)would have proved Harry's use of the spell to be self-defense against an Unforgivable.

As far as we're told in the chapter, Snape didn't know about what Draco had done. Draco didn't look like he was feeling up to explaining the situation when Snape took him to Pomfrey (not that he'd have confessed to the crucio anyway), so it sounds like Snape had no idea that Harry was using the sectumsempra against a crucio. For all he would know, and probably assume since unforgiveable were obvious not in general use, Harry was using that curse against a more typical hex or jinx.

Magic Words - Jun 22, 2006 7:08 am (#236 of 1104)

On the other hand, it would be a safe bet that Harry truly didn't know what Sectumsempra would do, since Snape may well have been the only one who did know (I'm sure it was never in vogue like Levicorpus).

haymoni - Jun 22, 2006 7:15 am (#237 of 1104)

Not for long anyway!

wynnleaf - Jun 22, 2006 9:00 am (#238 of 1104)
Edited Jun 22, 2006 10:01 am

On the other hand, it would be a safe bet that Harry truly didn't know what Sectumsempra would do, since Snape may well have been the only one who did know (I'm sure it was never in vogue like Levicorpus).

Or Snape could have assumed that Harry would have tried out the spell first and found out what it did prior to using it. On the other hand, my guess is that Snape's first reaction may have been that Harry used the spell knowingly and on purpose (I think most people would assume it at first, especially if you didn't like Harry particularly), but on reconsidering while Harry was off getting his book bag, realized that Harry probably didn't know what he was doing.

Still, I wonder about it also from Draco's perspective. I'd think he'd assume Harry used that spell knowingly with intent to kill or at least severely injure. Sure, Draco was using a very cruel curse, too, but I'd bet Draco wouldn't think too long about that one.

virginiaelizabeth - Jun 22, 2006 9:52 am (#239 of 1104)

But Harry did tell Snape that he didn't know what the spell was:

'"I didn't mean it to happen," said Harry at once. His voice echoed on the cold, watery space. "I didn't know what that spell did."

But Snape ignored this."Apparently I underestimated you Potter," he said quietly. "Who would have thought you knew such Dark Magic? Who taught you that spell?"'

wynnleaf - Jun 22, 2006 10:17 am (#240 of 1104)
Edited Jun 22, 2006 11:18 am

virginiaelizabeth,

Thanks for putting the quotes in. I was going on memory and forgot. And of course Snape ignores the "I didn't know" comment, which is still basically understandable, since it's the common excuse of many people when they've done something really Bad. But I do think Snape decided that was the truth in the end which may explain in part the more lenient punishment. Plus he obviously figured out where Harry found the spell.

haymoni - Jun 22, 2006 10:27 am (#241 of 1104)
Edited Jun 22, 2006 11:27 am

Perhaps Snape never used it to the extent that Harry did and was a bit embarrassed at the damage his spell caused.

I wonder how he developed that spell?

Were those flies the lucky guinea pigs???

wynnleaf - Jun 22, 2006 10:29 am (#242 of 1104)

It may be that the spell works on all sorts of things, not just living things. What is it, "always cutting?" Something like that. I could see the spell being developed on all sorts of objects, not just living creatures.

haymoni - Jun 22, 2006 10:32 am (#243 of 1104)

Someone had suggested that it was used to give James the cut on his cheek in the Pensieve scene.

Perhaps Snape never waived his wand as wildly as Harry did.

TheSaint - Jun 22, 2006 2:22 pm (#244 of 1104)

Snape had no idea that Harry was using the sectumsempra against a crucio. For all he would know, and probably assume since unforgiveable were obvious not in general use, Harry was using that curse against a more typical hex or jinx.

I think that whatever the circumstance, shether he knew what the spell did or not, he knew that Harry would not be attacking Draco without just cause, and he could not risk Draco being expelled also.

wynnleaf - Jun 22, 2006 3:02 pm (#245 of 1104)
Edited Jun 22, 2006 4:04 pm

I think that whatever the circumstance, shether he knew what the spell did or not, he knew that Harry would not be attacking Draco without just cause, and he could not risk Draco being expelled also.

Really? Here's a quote from a little earlier in the same chapter:

Harry was about to put his book away again when he noticed the corner of a page folded down; turning to it, he saw the Sectumsempra spell, captioned, "For Enemies," that he had marked a few weeks previously. He had still not found out what it did, mainly because he did not want to test it around Hermione, but he was considering trying it out on McLaggen next time he came up behind him unawares.

Do you think if Snape had come across McLaggen bleeding from multiple wounds on the floor, he should have assumed that Harry had a "just cause?"

No, I don't think Snape should have assumed that Harry wouldn't do anything to Draco without provocation.

haymoni - Jun 22, 2006 5:10 pm (#246 of 1104)

I'm guessing during the "sweep" of Harry's brain, he saw not only the potions book, but a little bit more.

I just wonder if Draco caught any grief for his "Crucio!"

rambkowalczyk - Jun 22, 2006 7:16 pm (#247 of 1104)

If Snape didn't know What Draco's Task was, it is possible that he wondered if Draco's task was to kill Harry and not Dumbledore. But as Wynnleaf pointed out the reaction of the teachers are very interesting.

Soul Search - Jun 23, 2006 5:59 am (#248 of 1104)

I wonder if most of the staff had be warned that Draco was up to something, but to not interfere.

wynnleaf - Jun 23, 2006 6:01 am (#249 of 1104) Reply
Edited by Catherine Jun 23, 2006 8:24 am

As we've been discussing recently Harry's use or misuse of dark magic, I thought I'd write about an essay I've just read that brought a very fascinating question to mind. First, I'm going to post where the essay is on livejournal, but if the link needs to be removed, I'd suggest anyone interested to look this up. It is an essay by lunar_music on livejournal, Dec. 28, 05 entry. It's titled "Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain."

I removed the link to the live journal. It's fine to discuss the essay, but in general, we discourage those kinds of links. It is a fine essay and there is nothing "problematic' on that page, but I removed it in the spirit of consistency. Any questions, email me at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] --Catherine

Further down the page, after the essay, the replies from swythyv are of great interest.

The essay's focus starts with the question of the Sorting Hat and dark magic. I'm not interested in that part, for this post, as the hat's been in use for centuries under the supervision of all the Hogwarts headmasters and headmistresses -- so it couldn't be that bad.

But the other topic in the essay, and in swythyv's response, is the Marauder's Map and whether it really is dark magic, and if so, the degree to which it could be influencing Harry.

When Harry first gets the map, he thinks about Arthur's comment about not trusting "anything that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain." But Harry discards that idea.

This map was one of those dangerous magical objects Mr. Weasley had been warning against.... Aids for Magical Mischief Makers....but then, Harry reasoned, he only wanted to use it to get into Hogsmeade, it wasn't as though he wanted to steal anything or attack anyone...and Fred and George had been using it for years without anything horrible happening...

Harry traced the secret passage to Honeydukes with his finger. Then, quite suddenly, as though following orders, he rolled up the map, stuffed it inside his robes, and hurried to the door of the classroom."

When Snape first sees the parchment, he says that it is clearly Dark Magic. Why? Most likely because the Map's comments to Snape show that the map can "think for itself." These aren't just programmed responses from the orginal makers. JKR said that Sirius (or presumably the other Marauders) didn't write the responses to Snape that the Map gave. The map knew Snape was a professor, although Sirius at the end of POA did not. And it knew how he looked (nose and hair). So Snape calls it Dark Magic for a reason.

Fred and George get the Map from Filch's office in their first year. I used to think that it showed their ingenuity that they figured out the Map at such a young age. But now I wonder, the Map does talk to Snape after all. Did it tell Fred and George the password and how to use the Map? Did it lure them into using it?

Here's some quotes from the swythyv at the link above:

Snape holds the Map and says that "this parchment is plainly full of dark magic." He may be easily aggravated, but this is his area of expertise. In book six, we discover that Argus Filch has a "Secrecy Sensor" which, it is thought, would have detected the Opal Necklace. He conficated something that looked like plain, fresh parchment and put it in a drawer marked "Confiscated and Highly Dangerous." For all that he's made mock of, we should perhaps assume Argus is competent, too.

Am I the only person who flinches when the words "I solemnly swear" are considered meaningless in real life? Should we really take those words so lightly in the story when they are said while holding your wand?

Remus confirms to Harry that the "manufacturers" of the Map would have wanted to lure him out of the school. "You said they would have thought it was funny." To which Lupin replied "And so we would have." Did it in fact do so?

Note above where Harry, as though following orders, rolled up the map and went to Hogsmeade.

Lupin originally rebuked Harry for his extremely thoughtless behavior. But after Lupin had had the map for a while, he "forgets" to come down for his potion. In fact, with the map open on his desk, he goes running outside at the full moon without taking his potion. And, to top it off, he admits its capacity for dangerous influence and returns it to Harry. Looks like it works on everyone.

I thought this was an extremely interesting essay and response. To what degree has Harry unknowingly placed himself under the influence of Dark Magic? I looked up Harry's uses of the Map in HBP. It's interesting the number of times, even in that book where we all remember the password to the Map, that JKR writes out Harry repeating the password -- which is also a vow. "I solemnly swear I am up to no good." And each time Harry holds his wand and incants this over the Map.

Are there ways in which the Map has truly helped Harry? In POA, Harry uses the Map to go to Hogsmeade which was, if Sirius had been a murderer, very bad judgement. The Map is also what sends Lupin to follow HRH and Sirius into the tunnel, and subsequently for Snape to follow. But if Lupin and Snape had never entered the tunnel, the entire evening might have ended quite well (assuming Harry would have still listened to Sirius).

For all he saw in GOF, I don't recall that the Map did anything other than add to Harry's confusion, since he didn't understand what he was seeing when "Barty Crouch" appeared on the Map. However, Crouch, Jr. was able to take a big advantage out of the Map and used it to kill his father.

In HBP, Harry consults the map frequently to spy on Draco. But does this really get him anywhere? He is affirmed in his belief that Draco is up to something Bad, but he still never knows what Draco is doing until the Tower events.

I'm likely forgetting some uses of the Map, but I'm trying to remember if it ever actually helps Harry. It has certainly caused a few big problems. And then there's that oft repeated vow that Harry, nor we readers, seem to think about.

What do you think?

Weeny Owl - Jun 23, 2006 7:40 am (#250 of 1104)

JKR was asked about the insults and answered on her website.

When the Marauder's Map is insulting Snape, how did Prongs write his insult as he's dead?

Wizards have ways of making sure their voices are heard after their death - think of Bertha Jorkins rising out of the Pensieve in 'Goblet of Fire', the Sorting Hat continuing to spout the wisdom of the Founders hundreds of years after their deaths, the ghosts walking around Hogwarts, the portraits of dead headmasters and mistresses in Dumbledore's office, not to mention Mrs. Black's portrait in number twelve, Grimmauld Place... there are other examples, too, of which the Marauder's Map is merely one. It is not really Prongs writing the insult to Snape, it is as though he left a magical recording of his voice within the map.

That doesn't sound to me as if there's anything dark about the map.

When I read that section with Snape mentioning dark magic and calling Lupin, I felt that Snape had a fairly good idea what was going on and wanted to confront Lupin over it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:57 am

wynnleaf - Jun 23, 2006 7:54 am (#251 of 1104)
Edited Jun 23, 2006 9:35 am

I am interested that many, many readers assume that when Snape makes the unbreakable vow, even if he didn't know what Draco's mission was, he's still probably bound to it anyway. Not that I think that, of course.

But in the case of the Map, users repeat over, and over, and over, "I solemnly swear that I am up to no good," all the while holding their wand and incanting that phrase over the map. And this means nothing? Granted, I never thought of it meaning much of anything. But in the WW, vows and magical contracts are binding it appears. So what about this one? Is there any way that this would affect Harry and his actions, to repeat this vow so many times?

Edit: I see that Catherine had to remove the lj link on my previous post (I had thought she might have to do that). You can still find it by looking up the original poster on livejournal of that essay (I left the name in my last post). But if you don't want to bother to look it up, most of the pertinent info is repeated in my post.

Solitaire - Jun 23, 2006 8:35 am (#252 of 1104)

But after Lupin had had the map for a while, he "forgets" to come down for his potion. In fact, with the map open on his desk, he goes running outside at the full moon without taking his potion. And, to top it off, he admits its capacity for dangerous influence and returns it to Harry. Looks like it works on everyone.

First of all, Remus helped create the map, so I doubt it would have had any specific effect on him. He also had a very specific reason for looking at the map that particular night. He knew that the Trio would probably head out to Hagrid's hut to be with him at Buckbeak's execution, and he knew Sirius was probably still in the vicinity ... as at that time he was still suspicious of him. He'd have wanted to protect the kids, if necessary. But he was shocked when he saw Wormtail's name appear on the map. THAT is what startled him and caused him to forget everything else and take off. Once he realized Wormtail was still alive, he knew Sirius hadn't murdered him. On his way to the Shack he probably started wondering what other mistakes had been made about that night ...

Solitaire

haymoni - Jun 23, 2006 9:09 am (#253 of 1104)
Edited Jun 23, 2006 10:09 am

I wonder when the map was made. Obviously it had to be in their 5th year or later - they wouldn't have known much about Hogwarts until they got the animagus thing down pat.

They WERE up to no good when they were out and about, so I think it is pretty natural that this became the "Open Sesame" to the map.

Mmm... something about Harry - this is his thread after all!

TwinklingBlueEyes - Jun 23, 2006 9:18 am (#254 of 1104)
Edited Jun 23, 2006 10:18 am

That was an interesting essay, but I agree completely with Soli's assessment. Many theories look good at first sight, but held up to the light of reason and canon become as full of holes as Swiss cheese, some even bordering on the edge of, dare I say it, fan-fiction.

I think even Harry would laugh at the thought of being led by an almost everyday expression.

...toddles off elsewhere...

wynnleaf - Jun 23, 2006 10:01 am (#255 of 1104)
Edited Jun 23, 2006 11:10 am

Well, as I said, up until yesterday I never thought anything of the Map.

But I long ceased to think JKR ever "just happened" to write down something, or "just happened" to word things in particular ways.

I do think it's interesting that the very first time Harry gets the map JKR has him consider Arthur's comments. Harry doesn't so much think Arthur's comments don't apply to the Map, as he thinks that because his intentions are okay, he needn't worry -- and because Fred and George seem to have had no problem with the Map, still everything's okay. Further, in the first book JKR has Snape say it's Dark Magic.

But even more fascinating is that immediately after Harry considers whether or not the Map is dangerous, JKR says that Harry's first action after looking at the map is as though "following orders." That's an interesting turn of phrase - quite peculiar actually. Why did she use it? I never think JKR just by chance comes up with these phrases, especially when it appears to relate directly to Harry's earlier thoughts.

Solitaire, as regards your comment, I agree that Lupin's decision to follow along to the Shrieking Shack was his own decision. But I don't think the writers of the essay and response would disagree with that. As I understand it, the idea is that the Map might affect someone's actions similarly to the way the curse on the DADA position affects people's actions. Mostly everyone related to the various DADA professor's leaving their posts made their own decisions and acted upon them out of their own responsibility (Snape, for instance, makes his own decision to "out" Lupin.) But regardless of everyone making their own decisions, the DADA curse seems to be having an effect by somehow influencing the decisions that cause each professor, year after year to leave. Similarly, the Map, if it was truly Dark, could affect the users decisions, too.

And, yes, this does have to do with Harry, as the entire question is whether or not his decisions could be affected by frequent use of a dark object, and in particular frequent repetitions of the "I solemnly swear that I am up to no good," statement while incanting said statement with his wand.

I don't know any way to prove or disprove this idea. However, so far I can't think of any use that Harry has made of the Map that has ultimately lead to good -- even if Harry's intentions were good (for instance, finding out what Draco was up to.) I may very well be forgetting something. Did he use it in OOTP?

Weeny Owl - Jun 23, 2006 10:38 am (#256 of 1104)

Yes, he used it in OotP to help members of the DA get back to their common rooms without running into anyone who would give them grief such as Filch or Mrs. Norris.

Solitaire - Jun 23, 2006 10:49 am (#257 of 1104)

Considering the makers of the map, I do not believe it was crafted and enchanted with the intent of being a dark object. Of course, Wormtail had a part in it (we do not know how much)--and we really don't know how early he began his descent into Voldemort's evil business--so I suppose he could have done something to it that was not the intent of the other three ... and possibly without their knowledge. Somehow, though, I tend to doubt it. I'd almost bet the map was usually in the possession of the two main mischief-makers--James and Sirius. Also, Wormtail seems more like someone who would have gone to Voldemort only after he was no longer the constant companion of the other three.

As for the map affecting others' decisions ... wouldn't that take the element of choice out of one's hands? That pretty much contradicts one of the main themes of the book, if you ask me. JM2K, of course ...

Solitaire

Weeny Owl - Jun 23, 2006 11:11 am (#258 of 1104)

A few reasons I don't believe the map is really dark magic are, first of all, that the password includes "up to no good" and not "up to evil." Sneaking around the castle, sneaking into the kitchens, going to Hogsmeade when you're not supposed to... definitely not good for a student to be doing, but not dark.

Secondly is that to blank out the map, it's "mischief managed" and not "I've done my evil deed."

Last, but what I consider really one of the most important things, is that we know James, Sirius, and Lupin were/are good guys, even if things they did at fifteen weren't really the best. They were teenagers and had a lot of growing up to do, but they weren't into dark magic, and Sirius (or was it Lupin?) said that one thing James couldn't tolerate was dark magic.

wynnleaf - Jun 23, 2006 1:23 pm (#259 of 1104)
Edited Jun 23, 2006 2:24 pm

Solitaire,

I agree that the Marauders wouldn't have intended anything dark, but I suppose one could possibly stumble into it. As for this comment:

As for the map affecting others' decisions ... wouldn't that take the element of choice out of one's hands? That pretty much contradicts one of the main themes of the book, if you ask me.

I don't think so. Otherwise the DADA curse sets up an either/or situation. Either those DADA professors and others involved in their leaving were not responsible because the curse took over and they couldn't help their decisions or they were responsible for their choices and the DADA curse is a pointless non-curse -- which it isn't. So I think the DADA curse tells us that some magic can affect outcomes that are also brought about by the choices of individuals.

Weeny Owl, I think you're probably right. The "up to no good" probably provides an "out" for the problem of what appears to be a repeated magical oath. It can still be a magical oath, but without an evil result -- just "up to no good."

Still, it was an interesting thought. I'd never paid the slightest attention to what Harry was doing every time he picked up his wand and opened the map.

Die Zimtzicke - Jun 23, 2006 4:16 pm (#260 of 1104)

Jo "just happened" to call Mark by the last name Evans, and paid dearly for it. Such nice theories got sunk when she had to admit that, so I don't know what is meaningful and what isn't anymore.

I'm not sure, either, if the map coudl affect any of Harry's or anyone elses, decisions.

The problem with the DADA curse is that Quirrell apparently taught at Hogwarts, left for a year or so, and then came back after Voldemort got to him. I wish Harry had noticed that and questioned Dumbledore about it.

rambkowalczyk - Jun 23, 2006 6:29 pm (#261 of 1104)

Dark Magic really isn't all that defined in these books. The Unforgivables, and Horcruxes are clearly dark but what is the criteria.

Lupin taught defenses against magical creatures that wished to harm people: bogarts, hinky pinks etc. Ironically Werewolves were to be taught later on. Lupin clearly isn't evil, but the werewolf side of him is dangerous.

So a working definition seems to be Dark Magic is anything that can harm someone regardless of intent.

Snape may have concluded that the map was dark magic because he thought it could think for itself. That would imply that portraits are dark magic for the same reason. Therefore Snape's conclusion wasn't logical but emotional.

Ponine - Jun 23, 2006 6:40 pm (#262 of 1104)
Edited Jun 23, 2006 7:45 pm

Die Zimtzicke said: The problem with the DADA curse is that Quirrell apparently taught at Hogwarts, left for a year or so, and then came back after Voldemort got to him. I wish Harry had noticed that and questioned Dumbledore about it.

-- Not entirely the case, Zim! It may be induced from the conversation (I lent my book out, so I can't quote (turning the world in to potterheads, one person at a time), but Hagrid says something to the effect of Quirrell doing fine as long as he was working/studying/reading out of books, but after the year he set out to get some experience in the real world, he was never the same. Now, that can also mean that he up unitl that point was studying himself, either in school/ higher education, or working with the Ministry, or something. He could also have been working or teaching at Hogwarts, but not as a DADA instructor. When Dumbledore says none of them has lasted more than a year, I believe that over anything Hagrid shares, which at times may be a little off the mark...

Edit: Ramb -- I always figured that Snape really wanted to get his hands on the map, and out of Harry's, and the surest way to do so was turning it into something Harry shouldn't have. He had just been put down and slighted in front of *Harry*, and, for all we know, could have recognized the rude comments made from his past. I don't for a minute think Snape really considered it dark magic as much as something obnoxius and frustrating that he wanted to examine.

Solitaire - Jun 23, 2006 7:13 pm (#263 of 1104)
Edited Jun 23, 2006 8:16 pm

It is my belief that Remus would have behaved the same way had there been no DADA curse. I don't think his choices were affected one way or the other by the curse. In his case, I think the Map prevented what could have been a much worse scenario with regard to Peter, Sirius and the kids. Remus relinquished his job because Snape outted him. Snape would have been just as vindictive had there been no curse--because that is how Snape is--and I believe Remus would have quit anyway, for the same reasons.

Personally, I feel the others' choices and actions would have had the same results had there been no curse. Quirrell made a stupid choice to let Voldy take up residence on the back of his head. Lockhart was selfish and foolish. His selfishness sealed his fate. Moody never really even took up the post, because he was ambushed before he left home. Barty's choice (before even arriving at Hogwarts) to work with Voldemort sealed his fate. Umbridge was power-hungry, cold-blooded, and prejudiced even before she came to Hogwarts. Her choices--and their consequences--were all reflections of evil and ugliness that lay within her.

I don't know how I feel about the curse. Maybe it is like what Dumbledore said about the Prophecy--it only has meaning if people buy into it and act on it. JM2K ...

Solitaire

Ponine - Jun 23, 2006 9:38 pm (#264 of 1104)

Solitaire -- Do you think that all the DADA teachers knew about the alleged curse, or even more so, believed in it?

Solitaire - Jun 23, 2006 9:48 pm (#265 of 1104)

I don't know, Ponine.

TheSaint - Jun 24, 2006 8:41 am (#266 of 1104)

The problem with the DADA curse is that Quirrell apparently taught at Hogwarts, left for a year or so, and then came back after Voldemort got to him. I wish Harry had noticed that and questioned Dumbledore about it.

Well really, in essence, the curse did not apply. Volde was inside Quirrell all year, so he sort of had the job.

Saracene - Jun 24, 2006 8:25 pm (#267 of 1104)

Does the book actually say though that Quirrell taught -DADA- the previous year?

Ponine - Jun 24, 2006 10:04 pm (#268 of 1104)

No it doesn't, Saracene

Regan of Gong - Jun 27, 2006 12:07 am (#269 of 1104)

I thought it implied he taught previously, before going off to hunt vampires in Albania.

Die Zimtzicke - Jun 27, 2006 1:25 pm (#270 of 1104)
Edited Jun 27, 2006 2:27 pm

So did I. He wouldn't need practical, experience in vampire hunting if he were teaching potions, or something like that.

Choices - Jun 27, 2006 5:21 pm (#271 of 1104)
Edited Jun 27, 2006 6:32 pm

Oh, yeah. Poor bloke. Brilliant mind. He was fine while he was studin' outta books but then he took a year off ter get some first-hand experience.....They say he met some vampires in the Black Forest, and there was a nasty bit o'trouble with a hag---never been the same since. Scared of the students, scared of his own subject-- Hagrid

I don't think he hunted vampires, just studied them. It appears he taught and then took a year off and then came back as the DADA teacher.

Soul Search - Jun 27, 2006 5:27 pm (#272 of 1104)

I can't recall any canon that says Quirrel taught anything before Harry's first year.

Madame Pomfrey - Jun 27, 2006 5:51 pm (#273 of 1104)

I think Percy making the comment about Snape being after Quirrell's job for years may have led some to believe that Quirrell held that job for years.

TheSaint - Jun 27, 2006 8:33 pm (#274 of 1104)
Edited Jun 27, 2006 9:35 pm

He was fine while he was studin' outta books but then he took a year off ter get some first-hand experience...

It does suggest he was at Hogwarts in some capacity. The studying would make you think he was still a student, but DD would not hire a DADA teacher with no experience, would he? It is like Volde asking for the job before he graduated.

Ohh..but this is the HP thread so....

The info about killing off a main charater so no one could pick them up after her death was most disheartening, well for some I guess, I have rather expected it.

Magic Words - Jun 28, 2006 6:01 am (#275 of 1104)

DD would not hire a DADA teacher with no experience, would he?

He would if he'd gone through thirty teachers in as many years and was already getting desperate. Besides, that was why Quirrel traveled for a year--to gain experience.

Soul Search - Jun 28, 2006 6:09 am (#276 of 1104)
Edited Jun 28, 2006 7:09 am

It occurred to me that Voldemort was possessing Quirrel while Quirrel was teaching DADA for a school year. Harry Potter was in the class.

What restraint Voldemort showed, not having Quirrel doing Harry in.

haymoni - Jun 28, 2006 6:53 am (#277 of 1104)

He wasn't going to risk another rebounded AK until he had "THE STONE".

Solitaire - Jun 28, 2006 8:33 am (#278 of 1104)

What restraint Voldemort showed, not having Quirrel doing Harry in.

I don't really think it was restraint. I think Voldemort wanted to kill Harry himself, before witnesses, to prove that Harry was not a more powerful Wizard than he. It was not until he realized that Quirrell could not touch Harry that Voldemort screeched, "Then kill him, fool, and be done!" and later, "KILL HIM! KILL HIM!"

Voldemort likes to toy with his victims, I think--particularly Harry--although the incident in the graveyard may have cured him of that propensity. Remember his comments to Harry in the DoM: "I have nothing more to say to you, Potter," he said quietly. "You have irked me too often, for too long. AVADA KEDAVRA!"

Of course, that could have been in the anger of the moment over the lost prophecy. Perhaps, though, he has realized that if he wants to kill Harry, he is going to have to seize the moment when it presents itself and not wait for a perfectly choreographed show before his DEs. JM2K ...

Solitaire

Angie - Jun 30, 2006 1:23 am (#279 of 1104)

I agree cmpletely Solitaire, LV defintely wanted witnesses if he was going to attempt to kill Harry but he also didn't want to take any risks.

I also agree with the earlier point about Quirrel , DD may have hired him for the DADA job in desperation and also as DD seems aware of the curse on the position, he could rationalise that even if Quirrell is inexperienced he would only be there for a year anyway.

cindysuewho45 - Jul 3, 2006 10:41 am (#280 of 1104)

Hi all, Did LV tell Quirrel to kill Harry when Herry did not give him the stone? Or was that just in the movie?????

Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 3, 2006 10:54 am (#281 of 1104)

Then Kill him, fool, and be done! SS p. 295 Scholastic Hardbound. Yes LV told Quirrell. to kill Harry. LPO

cindysuewho45 - Jul 4, 2006 12:22 am (#282 of 1104)

Hi all, Thank you for the info. I thought so, I just could not remember. Yes, I do not think that LV will want to play with Harry any more. After all that has happened between them. I feel that LV would want kill Harry on the spot if he could get the chance. No more long talks. As far as DD not hiring a teacher with experience, I sometimes feel that the hole, only teaching DADA for one year, came into play after book one. I may be wrong!!!But that could be why it seems a little different. But I like where it has gone so far!! I would love to see JKR give Harry all of his powers, that he needs to get the jobs done, at lest half way into book 7. It seems that she has been leading up to Harry having more power. I would love to see it, and he will be needing it. Although I am not sure if Harry will have to duel with LV, to do him in. It may be that, the info. he gets from Lily, could be about a charm or potion that will help Harry kill off LV. Or something that will weaken him if they do duel.

Regan of Gong - Jul 11, 2006 12:52 am (#283 of 1104)

LOL, my mum just asked who dies in HBP, I told her to read for herself. My Dad told her that Harry dies, and Book 7 is just Ron and Hermione going through his personal effects.

Phelim Mcintyre - Jul 11, 2006 2:01 am (#284 of 1104)

Regan - how nasty (but funny).

Dobby Socks - Jul 11, 2006 3:52 am (#285 of 1104)

ROFL, Regan! What a great sense of humor.

Die Zimtzicke - Jul 11, 2006 7:37 am (#286 of 1104)

Oh, that's funny! That's almost as good as my one friend's idea that Harry winds up being 45 in the epilogue, and marrying an 18 year old girl he met on the Internet.

Madame Pomfrey - Jul 20, 2006 8:53 am (#287 of 1104)

Have we ever seen anyone besides Harry that is able to do emotional magic? We are told that this happens when a wizards magical abilities are bottled up,so to speak. If this is true,why did we not hear of it happening to anyone else such as muggleborns like Hermione or Dean or even Prisoners of Azkaban whose wands have been confiscated.I would like to think that some of the things Harry has done like blowing up Aunt Marge,growing his hair,apparating to the roof etc.are special.Maybe this emotional magic is a clue to what we can expect from Harry in the future,I'm thinking of nonverbal,wandless magic here. Is Harry going to be the next Dumbledore?

haymoni - Jul 20, 2006 9:01 am (#288 of 1104)

Maybe their parents weren't mean, cruel, doofuses like the Dursleys.

They may not have experienced the kinds of emotions that Harry does.

Choices - Jul 20, 2006 11:20 am (#289 of 1104)
Edited Jul 20, 2006 12:21 pm

Tom Riddle certainly did emotional magic at the orphanage. Probably most wizard kids do to a greater or lesser extent.

haymoni - Jul 20, 2006 11:38 am (#290 of 1104)

Tom's magic didn't seem very emotional to me. He had control.

He might not have known what it was, but he had control over it.

Harry's seemed to be just bizarre, weird stuff that happened.

Tommy Boy was actually USING it.

Choices - Jul 20, 2006 11:41 am (#291 of 1104)

Yes, but the first time it happened had to be emotional. I agree that later he began to learn how to control it and use it as he saw fit.

Solitaire - Jul 20, 2006 11:49 am (#292 of 1104)

I think you are right, Choices. Once he realized he had this "power," he certainly harnessed it and used it to bend others to his will.

If this is true,why did we not hear of it happening to anyone else

Well, it is Harry's story. I think we would hear these things about others only if they are important to the story line. I can't remember if Hermione mentions anything or not in PS/SS.

Solitaire

Belladonna - Jul 20, 2006 12:22 pm (#293 of 1104)

I've wondered whether or not the "other" may be the piece of soul that resides in Harry, that is if you follow that theory like I do.

Catherine - Jul 20, 2006 1:31 pm (#294 of 1104)

Colin Creevey mentions to Harry that finding out about being a wizard explained the unusual things he was able to do, so perhaps Colin engaged in emotional magic like Harry.

Ron's experience of his teddy bear changing into a spider sounds like one of the twins engaged in emotional magic, also.

I think Harry does have very strong emotions, AND great provocation as well, so it is no surprise that we have several examples from Harry.

Madame Pomfrey - Jul 20, 2006 3:25 pm (#295 of 1104)
Edited Jul 20, 2006 4:28 pm

I forgot about Tom Riddle and the twins. Hmm..I wonder what Hermione did that made her realize she was different? Harry still is able to things that other kids and even some adult wizards can't do such as patronuses and fighting off the imperious curse.By instinct,he knew to stab the diary with the fang.I can't wait to see what he will do in book 7.

Ohh,Colin and the twins,also.I quess there has been plenty of others that experienced emotional magic only we aren't given too much detail.

timrew - Jul 20, 2006 8:00 pm (#296 of 1104)
Edited Jul 20, 2006 9:00 pm

Die Zimtzicke:- Oh, that's funny! That's almost as good as my one friend's idea that Harry winds up being 45 in the epilogue, and marrying an 18 year old girl he met on the Internet.

For one, Die Zimtzicke, I refuse to believe you have only one friend.

And for two, Harry would have to be on the 'wizard' internet, a sad loser who surfs all day long in the hope of finding another young, sad loser to hook up with.

I don't see it, myself.

haymoni - Jul 21, 2006 5:24 am (#297 of 1104)

Maybe Harry just comes to a Forum to talk about a book he likes.

timrew - Jul 21, 2006 3:17 pm (#298 of 1104)

LOL, haymoni......you're not 18, by any chance.............?

Oh, and I'm a sight older than 45!

Anoriell - Jul 27, 2006 5:54 am (#299 of 1104)

I've been wondering about something (which I'll also post on Lily & James thread)...

Upon re-watching the first HP movie this week, one specific question came to mind: where does all of Harry's inheritance come from?

In the movie, there's A LOT of money in his name (vault at Gringott's), apparently left for him by his parents. Now I haven't read book 1 in years so don't quite remember if it was such a huge sum in Rowling's description as well. If so, I just don't understand how the Potters got their hands on such a sum of money? Did James come from a wealthy family (like the Malfoys)? Surely Lily and Petunia's family weren't so well off; at least, it's not an impression I get throughout the story. And I doubt it has anything to do with the Potters' life insurance. Also, I've a hard time believing it's the result of their life savings, especially considering that they died so young.

Maybe Rowling explains it and I just don't remember?

Any details or theories?

Thanks!

Marie E. - Jul 27, 2006 5:57 am (#300 of 1104)

JKR said that James got the money from his family. Apparently the Potters were well off. I believe this information came from an interview but I don't have the time to chase it down. I hope this helps you.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:01 am

Anoriell - Jul 27, 2006 6:04 am (#301 of 1104)

Any info helps. Surprised

)

Thanks Marie E. !

Choices - Jul 31, 2006 10:01 am (#302 of 1104)

# *HAPPY BIRTHDAY HARRY!!**

Stringer - Jul 31, 2006 12:10 pm (#303 of 1104)

Happy Birthday Harry! Hope all is well with Ginny and the kids!

Mattew Bates - Aug 1, 2006 2:12 pm (#304 of 1104)

Harry has some high profile friends in Stephen King and John Irving.

TheSaint - Aug 1, 2006 3:40 pm (#305 of 1104)

When fans accuse me of sadism, which doesn't happen that often, I feel I'm toughening them up to go on and read John and Stephen's books, she said. "I think they've got to be toughened up somehow. It's a cruel literary world out there."

ROFL! Isn't that the truth! I still have horrible thoughts about a certain young woman and a pair of handcuffs.

Harry lives or Harry dies...I will take whatever Jo decides is right.

Madame Pomfrey - Aug 1, 2006 4:04 pm (#306 of 1104)

Well..if the title of book 7 reads Harry Potter and the Next Great Adventure--We'll know for sure. Or will we?

Pamzter - Aug 1, 2006 4:13 pm (#307 of 1104)

If she's toughening people up in prep for those other books, she'll have to kill off every single HP character. Those other books freak me out!

Actually killing off everyone is not that bad of an idea -- the wizarding world implodes and one small child escapes to tell the story of "once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that as known as Potter-lot". (Did I just age myself referring to a decades old Broadway musical?)

nthdavid - Aug 2, 2006 12:00 am (#308 of 1104)

Well I dreamed I was reading a Harry Potter book with an orange cover. I didn't look at the title but flipped through the chapter names. Unfortunately I was too concerned with how I had gotten the book because I know I didn't order it from Amazon and didn't remember standing out in a line at Borders or Barnes and Noble in the middle of the night. Once I figured out that the book hadn't been released yet I got excited and woke up. Next time I'll pay more attention to the chapter titles and see if I can read a bit of the book. Smile

Die Zimtzicke - Aug 2, 2006 7:03 am (#309 of 1104)

I've always thought Harry would have to die to win, and the way Jo keeps teasing about that makes me wonder if I'm right, or being conned. I still think the next great adventure thing would make it a good ending. If any series of books gives hope for a better life in the world to come, HP does. Harry's next life would HAVE to be better than this one.

wynnleaf - Aug 13, 2006 4:26 pm (#310 of 1104)
Edited Aug 13, 2006 5:30 pm

I have noticed that occasionally fans will assert that there is no canon evidence that Harry was ever actually hit by the Dursleys, other than Dudley. But I was looking up something (completely different) in OOTP today and ran across two pieces of evidence.

1. In Career Advice, Harry, Ron, Hermione and others are discussing requirements for various careers. Harry sees a flyer about careers in muggle relations and says, "darkly" that the main thing you have to know around Uncle Vernon is how to duck. Why would Harry have to know how to duck, unless Vernon actually hit him?

2. In the beginning of OOTP, the popping of apparition while Harry lies under the window, startles Vernon and Petunia. Vernon sees Harry at the window and puts both hands around his neck and literally is strangling Harry. While Harry is struggling to get away, he finally experiences a bit of accidental magic as a sort of electric shock goes through his body and jolts Vernon away from him. Later, when Vernon tries to get Harry to come close again, we're told that Harry didn't want to get close enough for Vernon to strangle him again. Apparently Harry expected that Vernon would try it again.

If Vernon was willing to put two hands around Harry's neck and strangle him simply due to the annoyance of the popping noise of apparition and discovering Harry in the bushes, then it would be almost expected that Vernon would have been willing to hit Harry all along, for similarly trivial offenses, and certainly for somewhat worse offenses.

This, of course, is in addition to not only having him sleep in a closet, but locking him in the closet for often days at a time or periodically practically starving him.

Solitaire - Aug 13, 2006 4:49 pm (#311 of 1104)

I don't know if it is evidence of hitting, but there is certainly evidence of some unpleasant touching in "Will and Won't." Uncle Vernon has just answered the door to Dumbledore:

Harry ran down the stairs two and a time, coming to an abrupt halt several steps from the bottom, as long experience had taught him to remain out of arm's reach of his uncle whenever possible.

That sounds to me like Uncle Vernon has probably grabbed, backhanded, or otherwise manhandled Harry plenty.

Solitaire

Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 13, 2006 6:33 pm (#312 of 1104)

In PP/SS Uncle Vernon says this about Harry being a Wizard: "swore we'd stamp it out of him! Wizard indeed." Later he says "I accept there's something strange about you, probably nothing a good beating wouldn't have cured..." So I don't think Vernon beat Harry as much as he would have liked. I do think there were episodes of physical abuse. LPO

Die Zimtzicke - Aug 13, 2006 6:55 pm (#313 of 1104)

If there were episodes of physical abuse, that were actually dangerous, I think Harry's accidental magic would have kicked in. If he could grow his hair back just after a bad haircut, I doubt if anyone would have been able to beat him too hard. Marge says he needs caning, too, but we hav no evidence she ever did it. Of course for people of Vernon and Marge's age, corporal punishment was commonplace at school. It probably was in the wizarding world, too. A spank or a slap does not an abusive parent prove. It more likely proves a parent is way too edgy. We know that the Weasleys spanked the twins. They got spanked, I believe, for the unbreakable vow thing with Ron, but I haven't got a book with me to provide an exact quote.

Vernon probably grabbed Harry, gave him a spank or a slap now and then, or threw him around some, and that is a terrible thing, but I doubt if he beat him or raped him or did some of the other bizarre things you see in fan fic. We know Dudley took a few swings at Harry, but that's not an unusual thing for siblings growing up togeher, and the relationship between Harry and Dudley was even more tenuous than that of siblings.

painting sheila - Aug 13, 2006 7:12 pm (#314 of 1104)

Emotional abuse can be just a painful as physical abuse.

And the threat of getting hit is enough to make a person stay out of arms reach.

The feud between Dudley. and Harry has to play out some how in book 7 - don't you think?

wynnleaf - Aug 13, 2006 7:14 pm (#315 of 1104)
Edited Aug 13, 2006 8:16 pm

Vernon said in PS/SS: "I accept there's something strange about you, probably nothing a good beating wouldn't have cured..."

This makes it sound like probably Harry wasn't beaten. But who knows what Vernon would consider a "beating."

As I mentioned earlier, we read in the opening of OOTP that Vernon literally strangles Harry over nothing more than an annoying apparition sound and Harry's hiding in the bushes. Then in Career Advice, Harry "darkly" comments on needing to know how to duck around Vernon.

Then in HBP Will and Won't Harry ran down the stairs two and a time, coming to an abrupt halt several steps from the bottom, as long experience had taught him to remain out of arm's reach of his uncle whenever possible.

I agree with Solitaire that the above line, together with the Career Advice chapter about having to know how to duck, makes it sound like Harry knew to stay physically away from Vernon.

But the biggest thing is the strangling. That's just not something any normal parent who occasionally spanks a child would ever do. I'd think that anyone who ever put their hands around a child's neck and strangled them could be practically guaranteed to have done a fair amount of hitting, slapping, etc. in the past. But for someone who would strangle a kid over practically nothing, what would a "beating" constitute? Get my drift? If Vernon is willing to strangle Harry, I have little confidence that his, "probably nothing a good beating wouldn't have cured..." means he never really hit Harry often. Vernon may not think he ever beat Harry, but what, after all, would he consider a beating if he thinks strangling is acceptable?

Anyway, I had forgotten about the strangling episode during past discussions about possible abuse from the Dursleys.

My guess is that JKR didn't want to show much actual physical abuse -- hitting, etc. -- because that would be just too much for her story and would take her story down avenues that she didn't want to get into. However, I think she probably does see Harry as physically abused. She hints at it with the comments showing that Harry has to stay physically out of Vernon's way, and the strangling scene was too strong and clear to be anything other than physical abuse. So I think that JKR does think of Harry as physically abused, but chooses not to show much more than hints and the one strangling scene actually in the text.

Die Zimtzick said: Vernon probably grabbed Harry, gave him a spank or a slap now and then, or threw him around some, and that is a terrible thing, but I doubt if he beat him or raped him or did some of the other bizarre things you see in fan fic.

Well, I think he probably did more than a spank or slap or throwing him around -- the strangling just came to easy for him. But like you, I don't think Harry was abused to the severe physical extent of some fan fic stories.

Still, on top of what almost certainly must include hitting, confining in the cupboard for long periods of time is pretty bad abuse as well.

Emotional abuse can be just a painful as physical abuse.

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me, is such a amazingly huge lie, isn't it?

Solitaire - Aug 13, 2006 8:44 pm (#316 of 1104)
Edited Aug 13, 2006 9:50 pm

I think there was a lot more abuse perpetrated on Harry than we may ever know. Perhaps Jo has been deliberately vague about just exactly what happened. I am willing to bet, though, that Harry was frequently "slapped upside the head," if you know that expression and what it means. I also figure Uncle Vernon would not consider that kind of "hitting" to be abuse. I, on the other hand, think any kind of blow to the head is not only dangerous but a gesture of complete disrespect ... and if the slapper gets flattened in return, IMO, he deserves it.

I'm willing to bet Uncle Vernon was a head-slapper. I figure he was also an ear-puller and probably an arm-wringer. Wynnleaf is right ... the hands around the neck came far too easily to him. He also encouraged the Dud, I believe, to hit Harry with his Smeltings Stick, didn't he? I bet he encouraged the Dud to beat up on Harry and laughed each time he did it. I think Uncle Vernon needs a bit of comeuppance in Book 7 ... I only hope he gets it!

Solitaire

Ice Princess - Aug 13, 2006 8:55 pm (#317 of 1104)

I agree word for word with post #314. Enotional abuse can be just as powerful as physical abuse. This will have to play out somewhere in book 7.

shepherdess - Aug 13, 2006 9:17 pm (#318 of 1104)

Solitaire: "I think Uncle Vernon needs a bit of comeuppance in Book 7 ... I only hope he gets it!"

Ditto for Umbridge!

Solitaire - Aug 13, 2006 10:05 pm (#319 of 1104)

Umbridge ... I'd like to see her and Uncle Vernon share a cell!

darien - Aug 14, 2006 3:30 am (#320 of 1104)

For some reason I dont see a meeting between Vernon and Dolores that strange. They are really wizarding and muggle versions of the other in my opinion; that could explain why Harry immedeately disliked her

Vulture - Aug 14, 2006 7:13 am (#321 of 1104)
Edited Aug 14, 2006 8:22 am

I have noticed that occasionally fans will assert that there is no canon evidence that Harry was ever actually hit by the Dursleys, other than Dudley. But I was looking up something (completely different) in OOTP today and ran across two pieces of evidence. ... (wynnleaf - Aug 13, 2006 5:26 pm (#310))

Hi, wynnleaf: In addition to your two pieces, there's something Uncle Vernon says in Book 3 when Harry is making the deal to get him to sign the Hogsmeade permission form. Harry (to pressure his uncle) raises the (to Vernon) frightening possibility that he (Harry) might blurt out something about magic to Aunt Marge. Vernon's first, knee-jerk reaction is to say "You'll get the stuffing knocked out of you !!".

Mind you, I feel that a lot of the last few posts on this thread may be missing the point somewhat when denouncing the Dursleys. It's true that JKR sometimes writes as if she wants us to take Harry's "ten miserable years" (Book 1) before Hogwarts very seriously indeed. Thus, in Book 4, the normally placid and kind Mrs. Weasley's eyes flash with indignation at his treatment _ though (from the best motives) she has always refrained from criticising the Dursleys openly. Again, in Book 6, Dumbledore, though quiet-spoken and polite, communicates a burning anger at what Harry has endured.

But when the Dursleys are actually present on the page, JKR invariably writes about them in an over-the-top and amusing way. Lines like "A man who could look at Harry and say 'Excellent' was a man with whom Uncle Vernon would never see eye to eye" (Book 6) sound like something from P.G. Wodehouse. Also, the Muggle world as described in the books is not our world, either past or present _ not exactly. It's a world made up of bits of our own, from past and present, which (I think) makes us look at our own in new ways _ but it is manifestly not the real London, UK, of 2006, the 1990s, the 1960s, or any other era. The Muggle world has personal computers and gadgets recognisable from now, but a social structure and agreed morality drawn largely from the 1960s (and not the swinging '60s !!) or before. It also has (so far) no racism _ the only racism we've seen is in the wizard world. The Muggle world's Prime Minister is a largely comic character, and if you read carefully enough, it becomes clear that he cannot be based on any one real UK Prime Minister. (My hunch is that he's most similar to Jim Hacker, the fictional P.M. from the BBC comedy "Yes Prime Minister".)

So where am I going with all this ? I'm not 100% sure. Here we have a comic world with comic villains, and we have in Harry someone who can fit into the comic action, yet in Harry we also have someone we like, take seriously, and whose suffering we feel strongly about.

I think that perhaps JKR wants us to take cruelty and bullying very seriously, and in Harry, has given us (particularly kids) someone to identify with who has endured them. But I don't think she wants us to take the Durlseys seriously, or to spend all our time enjoying ourselves dreaming up punishments for them. I've seen posts likening Uncle Vernon to Umbridge _ and maybe their personalities are the same; I don't know. But I do know that JKR's writing of Uncle Vernon makes me feel amused, whereas her writing of Umbridge makes me feel visceral hatred (much more, incidentally, than Voldemort does _ despite his having committed far more crimes).

wynnleaf - Aug 14, 2006 7:48 am (#322 of 1104)
Edited Aug 14, 2006 8:48 am

Vuture, excellent post!

I agree with you completely. But you bring up a quandary that I often find in JKR's books -- that you never know what to take seriously and what to take in a "comic world" way. Kids hex each other in the hallways and we take it in a comic world way. But then Draco and Harry use dark curses and it's suddenly much more serious.

On the one hand, I sometimes think JKR is playing both worlds just for fun. Other times, I wonder if she's writing under the guise of a comic world, but with an ultimately serious intent. That is, I wonder if we're drawn in to the "comic" feel of her world, but are then intentionally fooled into thinking serious things are funny, only to be shown later that they weren't funny.

For instance, we think that it's funny when Barty Jr/Moody turns Draco into a ferret and bounces him painfully off the pavement from 10 ft high. Most readers continue to think this is funny even when Hermione comments on how dangerous it was and that it was good McGonagall stopped it. But later, we discover that Moody was really the evil Barty, Jr., which makes his earlier actions of turning Draco into a ferret much more nasty as he is a DE taking advantage of the opportunity to abuse the son of another DE he deems less loyal to LV than himself.

While you may not agree with me on the above example, I hope you can see by it what I'm suspecting about what JKR's really doing. Is she just writing these violent or nasty events from a comic view just for the fun of it, or does she have a deeper motive to cause us to take events less seriously than we should?

Maybe I analyze it too much, and think of JKR as even more devious than she really is. But it makes me want to be careful not to discount some of the violent or otherwise nasty events simply because they are written in that lighter comic vein.

But honestly, I don't know whether to take them seriously or not.

Die Zimtzicke - Aug 14, 2006 9:46 am (#323 of 1104)

The strangling thing reminded me so much of Homer Simpson I wanted to scream. It was very cartoonish.

Soul Search - Aug 14, 2006 10:13 am (#324 of 1104)

I think the "strangling incident" in OotP had a deeper meaning. My first assumption that the "electric shock" that Vernon received was from Harry, but then I got to wondering about Dumbledore's protections for Harry. I am now thinking the "electric shock" was an example of Dumbledore's protections kicking in, and a foreshadow of a book seven event.

I have been alert in rereads for additional examples of Dumbledore's protections, but nothing even hints at it. I guess the "strangling" was the first physical abuse of Harry that the protections thought could cause real harm (dead Harry.)

haymoni - Aug 14, 2006 10:17 am (#325 of 1104)

Perhaps the Dursleys had tried physical punishments - spanking, etc. - early on with Harry and were unsucessful because they truly did hurt them more than Harry.

Putting Harry in the cupboard - out of sight, out of mind - was about all they could do.

darien - Aug 14, 2006 10:41 am (#326 of 1104)

That sounds right,...taking Vernon as a conservative person, who went to a school where students carried sticks for violent reasons and a sister who has openly declared approval of caning he most probably has used physical punishemnt as a form of education.

What bothers me is how the Dursleys reacted to Dumbledore suggesting they had hit Dudley; so maybe its not a form of punishemnt but he strangles Harry only because he hates him

haymoni - Aug 14, 2006 10:55 am (#327 of 1104)

Dumbledore didn't actually say that they had hit Dudley - he said something like "the abuse" - which I took to mean the indulging of every whim the child had and not disciplining him at all.

All Vernon knew was that Harry had made some sort of noise and that's why he strangled him.

A bit of an overreaction if you ask me!

wynnleaf - Aug 14, 2006 11:00 am (#328 of 1104)

haymoni said

Dumbledore didn't actually say that they had hit Dudley - he said something like "the abuse" - which I took to mean the indulging of every whim the child had and not disciplining him at all.

This is the way I took it as well. Their abuse of Dudley is that they don't discipline him at all.

All Vernon knew was that Harry had made some sort of noise and that's why he strangled him. A bit of an overreaction if you ask me!

It's such a huge overreaction that I think he wouldn't have had that reaction without having already done other physically violent things to Harry -- hitting for instance.

haymoni - Aug 14, 2006 11:54 am (#329 of 1104)

Oh, I'm sure Vernon smacked Harry around - even a good swat on the butt as a toddler.

But I'm also sure that he was zapped at that time too.

Harry was so young, he might not remember.

wynnleaf - Aug 14, 2006 12:12 pm (#330 of 1104)

Perhaps it was just unrealistic writing by JKR. But in reality, I doubt sincerely that anyone who would strangle a teenager over a trivial annoyance, had just leapt to that point from swats on the behind. In reality, the violence that we are willing to inflict on others takes a certain amount of moving through various social and personal boundaries. Abuse generally moves through a series of increasingly violent actions -- shouts to slaps and pinches, moving gradually up to punches, moving on to hitting someone with other objects (I don't mean a paddle), and finally to something like strangling. That's the kind of progression I mean, not necessarily exactly as I described of course. But there's no way a person just leaps from the more common swats on the backside, or even arm twisting, to suddenly strangling someone for little or nothing.

About the electric jolt...

Harry is not protected at Privet Drive, as far as we know, from anyone other than Voldemort and presumably his followers. This gets us back to the confusion of exactly what spell -- his mother's sacrifice, living where her blood dwells, etc. -- actually protects him at Privet Dr. But it's quite clear that the spell doesn't protect him from being hit by his family members. And if Dudley and his friends can hit Harry, I doubt if protections distinguish between Dudley and Vernon. Further, he is not apparently protected from the Dementor near to #4 Privet Dr -- although, granted, he's not right at his house at the time.

We don't have any canon evidence that Harry is protected from Vernon while at Privet Dr. other than the electrical jolt of magic that flows through Harry. Harry can actually feel it going through him, as I recall (no book here). We do have canon evidence that Harry can do accidental magic to protect himself (getting up on top of the school building for instance). We don't have canon evidence that protections on Privet Dr. protect Harry from his own family.

haymoni - Aug 14, 2006 12:33 pm (#331 of 1104)

I just assumed that Harry was protected from Death Eaters as well, so I figured it extended to everyone.

Perhaps it didn't - he was Dudley's favorite punching bag.

Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 14, 2006 3:15 pm (#332 of 1104)

Since Dumbledore made such a point to visit the Dursleys and ask them to allow Harry to come back before he turns 17 I think there is more to the protection. What I'm wondering is if the Charm Dumbledore placed on Harry will change when Harry becomes an adult. Or perhaps Dumbledore visited the Dursleys because he knew he would not be around to enforce Harry going back to #4. I always thought the protection was more against Voldemort than anyone else. Sure sets up some interesting possibilities for book 7.

I think Vernon strangled Harry because that was all he could get a hold of at the moment. LPO

TheSaint - Aug 14, 2006 7:13 pm (#333 of 1104)

I think the abuse takes on a comic element the longer it goes on..as in.."I can't believe this." Much as being spanked as children ended the day you laughed as they did it. An ironic kind of humor.

cindysuewho45 - Aug 15, 2006 8:12 am (#334 of 1104)
Edited Aug 15, 2006 9:34 am

Hi all, Yes Harry was abused. Verbal, emotional, and from what I can see in the story, he knew when to get out of the way or he would be hit, etc.. You do not know or learn to get out of the way. Unless someone has been hitting you. So yes, Harry was ABUSED! As for the people who do not understand this, this makes me happy for them. It would seem to mean that they never were abused, or talked to someone that was. And yes as for a spanking, I believe Eddie Murphy did a comic thing on it that was funny and almost all could relate to. But I feel that Harry's abuse goes a little deeper than that. Thank goodness for Harry that before he got older, his Aunt and Uncle became scared of what the wizards knew. And was given warnings by Mad-eye, Arther, Lupin etc.. So as Harry got older the abuse was less and not more.

Laura W - Aug 15, 2006 12:15 pm (#335 of 1104)

There is obviously going to be some disagreement here, but I have always taken exception to those who call the Dursley's treatment of Harry "neglect" or some other more benign term. What they did to him is - from my viewpoint - child abuse, plain and simple.

Making a child sleep in a tiny closet inhabited by spiders is not mere neglect. Allowing one's son to use his cousin as a punching bag while the cousin's best friend holds his arms constitutes physical abuse. "He wore round glasses held together with a lot of Sellotape because of all the times Dudley had punched him on the nose." (PS, Chapter Two) Allowing one's son to bully all the other children into not befriending his cousin, not choosing him for sports teams, not letting him in clubs, etc. is to force the cousin into a physical and psychological state of isolation which is very difficult for an adult to keep sane in - let alone a child. "At school, Harry had no one. Everybody knew that Dudley's gang hated that odd Harry Potter ... and nobody liked to disagree with Dudley's gang." (PS, Chapter Two) Referring to a child as "boy" instead of his name is reminiscent of how slaves were demeaned until they had no sense of self. Never acknowledging - let alone celebrating - a child's birthday is akin to telling that child you do not acknowledge he exists. That goes far beyond not-very-nice behavior towards him. Continually badmouthing a child's dead parents and saying they were "abnormal" and "weirdos" and "freaks" is an emotional whipping of huge proportions.

There are many kinds of torture - and, yes, I have had occasion to personally talk with and listen to a number of people from repressive countries who have experienced one or more of its forms -, and in every way possible treating a child between the age of one and 11 as if their very birth, their very existence, is an event to be regretted and mourned certainly qualifies as same!

And then there's the summers when Harry comes home. CoS, Chapter Two, "Uncle Vernon was as bad as his word. The following morning, he paid a man to fit bars on Harry's window. He himself fitted the cat-flap in the bedroom door, so that *small amounts* of food could be pushed inside three times a day. They let Harry out to use the bathroom morning and evening. Otherwise, he was locked in his room around the clock." Sounds like more than a time-out to me. If a dog, cat or ferret in the Muggle world was being treated that way for days at a time, the Humane Society would be at the door pronto.

Having Aunt Marge and all the neighbours think that Harry is a juvenile delinquent so that they don't even want to associate with him in PoA is like saying, "You don't even deserve to be seen in or to have contact with human society" to the 13-year-old. That message, when repeated over and over in both word and action - as it has been whenever Harry is at 4PD -, is one which professional torturers all over the world (and Dementors, of course) ultimately try to firmly instill in their victims. When it takes, they have done what they set out to do.

Laura

legolas returns - Aug 15, 2006 12:24 pm (#336 of 1104)
Edited Aug 15, 2006 1:24 pm

LPO I had not previously thought why Dumbledore said to the Dursleys that the protection would only last till 17. Why did he not just tell Harry? The Dursleys would be glad to get rid of Harry and would not think twice about it-they would not question it. Vernon was all for chucking Harry out at the end of OOP.

I agree with you Laura that the Harry was abused. I am surprised that Harry is able to feel love and make friends after 10 years long years.

haymoni - Aug 15, 2006 12:29 pm (#337 of 1104)

Harry is OK because he was rescued.

He can stomach being with the Dursleys because he knows that he will be in a better place soon enough.

I shudder to think what would have happened if Hagrid hadn't come along.

Steve Newton - Aug 15, 2006 12:38 pm (#338 of 1104)

he knows that he will be in a better place soon enough.

Are you suggesting death?

cindysuewho45 - Aug 15, 2006 2:02 pm (#339 of 1104)

Hi all, I feel that "he knows that he will be in a better place soon enough." Is anywhere but the Dursleys! It could be Hogwarts or Ron's house. It could be his own house one day. But it will be in the wizarding world. Harry was rescued, from a sad life. He is happy at Hogwarts, and there most of the year. He now, or sense the age of 11 only has to go to the Dursley's 2 or 3 m. out of the year. He now also knows why they acted the way they did and that may help him. He also knows that his Dad and Mom were good people! Harry has become very well adjusted over the years for all that he has been through.

Choices - Aug 15, 2006 4:42 pm (#340 of 1104)

My gosh, Steve, that was what came to my mind too. I hope we are both wrong.

TheSaint - Aug 16, 2006 3:05 am (#341 of 1104)

There is method to the madness I believe. The Dursleys inadvertently (or maybe not, still think this was part of DD's plan) prepared Harry for the journey he was to take in the future. A spiritual journey toward the stone must begin with a pure base.

The Dursley's physical abuse, while horrid, created a Harry that had no need for the touch of another. Their refusal to buy him anything made a Harry who had no need for possessions. Their withholding of food as a punishment and the sparse meals they fed him made a Harry that did not crave anything. High morals are easy to develop when they are never challenged, but Harry developed them despite his abuse. This is what makes Harry amazing. Unlike Tom, who when faced with a similar challenge, embraced the abuse and made it his own.

Harry was a pure element at the beginning of his journey. His only desire being his family, which DD is quick to squash. He meets his guides and so it begins. DD knew what he needed to develop his ultimate weapon.

Potter Ace - Aug 16, 2006 8:47 am (#342 of 1104)

Saint,

You summed the "abuse" angle very well as did DD at the end of OotP. Despite all the abuse and attempts to kill him, Harry still have the ability to feel love and compassion to those that wish him unwell (LV and even Draco near the end of HBP) and the ability care for others above himself.

JKR has taken a two characters (Harry & LV) and given them similar hiustorys to show us that it is not our environment but rather our choices and our reaction to our environment that makes us who we are.

haymoni - Aug 16, 2006 9:33 am (#343 of 1104)

No I did not mean death.

As soon as I typed it, I knew I should go back and edit.

Any place is better than the Dursleys.

But because he had a better place - and what a cool, better place it is! - Harry is OK.

Lana - Aug 16, 2006 9:56 am (#344 of 1104)

I totally agree with everyone who said that Harry took his unfortunate past and made the best of it, whereas Tom pittied himself and let his past get the best of him.

Dumbledore told Harry that it's our choices that make us who we are. Harry always makes the right decision and Voldemort always makes the decision that benefits himself.

So because of this I think that maybe in the end Harry WON'T become a killer. I mean, Voldemort chose to kill everyone, and it isn't really fair that he should also get to choose that Harry will kill too.

I read someone's theory that Voldemort will unintentionally kill himself when trying to kill Harry in book 7, and personally I hope that happens because up until now Harry has been such a good guy and I'd hate to see him become a murderer like VD.

Choices - Aug 16, 2006 10:30 am (#345 of 1104)

The Saint - post #341 - I really, really like what you said. Harry definitely had his trials and was found worthy by Dumbledore. The minute he arrives at Hogwarts in SS/PS, he is put through another test - The Sorting Ceremony - and once again he meets Dumbledore's standards. Dumbledore has indeed found his "Hero" in Harry.

TheSaint - Aug 16, 2006 4:58 pm (#346 of 1104)

Thanks Choices! That is my favorite aspect of this tale. His journey begins shortly after the ceremony and I have loved every stage of it.

I have always wondered if Tom himself was a first attempt at creating his 'Alchemic Hero,' but that little experiment failed miserably. No heart.

Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 16, 2006 6:32 pm (#347 of 1104)

TheSaint over a year ago I tried to follow the alchemy thread. It was too much for me. You explained Harry's journey very well. What else can you predict from it? I too hope Harry does not become a killer. I don't want to see his soul damaged. LPO

TheSaint - Aug 16, 2006 7:00 pm (#348 of 1104)

Thanks LPO. I loved the alchemic aspects of HP, though i must admit, the thread is above my head as well. I started at Flamel, of course, and read everything I could get my hands on. I chased through the heavens with the angels and the Watchers to Revelations through Kabbalah to the Pilgrimmage of the Masons from Spain to Rosslyn (and a million more). Not really Trelawny, so predictions i will leave to the pros. I only deal in correlations..LOL.

cindysuewho45 - Aug 16, 2006 9:59 pm (#349 of 1104)

Hi all, Potter Ace, I agree 100% with you about how JKR set LV and Harry's life up almost the same at the start. And that it has been there choices, not there environment that has made them who they are today. I liked the way you put it, good job.

painting sheila - Aug 17, 2006 11:04 pm (#350 of 1104)

Dumbledore knew what kind of place he was sending Harry when he left him on the doorstep. McGonagall questioned him and he still stood by his decision.

The true test for Harry will be if he can forgive the Dursley's. I think there will come a time in the next book when he will need to protect them - and he will.

Killing Voldemort is something the whole wizarding world is trying to do. The personal battle for Harry will be with the Dursley's.

Forgiving someone of abuse takes a lot of maturity and more heart than most people have.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:05 am

Die Zimtzicke - Aug 18, 2006 9:45 am (#351 of 1104)

Harry has a saving people thing, and the Death Eaters know it. They can go after anyone, and be pretty much assured Harry will not stand idly by.

Steve Newton - Aug 18, 2006 9:52 am (#352 of 1104)

That's the way I see it, too. In OOTP it did not have to be Sirius to make Harry come to the MOM. Any Weasley, even Percy, perhaps, Hermione, Dumbledore, Neville, Dean, Seamus, Lupin, Hagrid, probably McGonagall. I had better stop.

Die Zimtzicke - Aug 18, 2006 10:08 am (#353 of 1104)

If the protection lifts and the DURSLEYS get attacked, I don't even think Harry would stand by and watch them die.

haymoni - Aug 18, 2006 10:23 am (#354 of 1104)

Harry would't watch them die - especially Petunia.

His thoughts when he saw the fear in Pet's eyes at hearing the news that Voldy was back made him remember that she was his mother's sister.

Didn't change her behavior any, but just as Harry remembers Draco lowering his wand, he'll remember that Pet did take him in.

However, if there is no attack, I would like Harry to at least mess up her kitchen before he leaves.

legolas returns - Aug 18, 2006 10:36 am (#355 of 1104)

Yeah trail mud in and put grubby hand prints over her windows and sparkiling tiles.

He found it funny when Dudley ate the Tounge toffee but that could easily be put right. But I honestly believe that he would not stand by and let people torture his "family".

painting sheila - Aug 18, 2006 1:26 pm (#356 of 1104)

If the protection lifts and the DURSLEYS get attacked, I don't even think Harry would stand by and watch them die.

Does it say any where that he protection at the Dursley's extends to them?

I think Petunia has some sort of important information to share. What are the odds that she knows - inadvertently - where one of the horcruxes is hidden?

Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 18, 2006 3:53 pm (#357 of 1104)

I hope there is some resolution between Harry and Pet. Pet seems to be like Snape. She carries her grudges on to the next generation.

Hee Hee I would love to see Harry mess up the house. LPO

Fawkes Egg - Aug 18, 2006 6:01 pm (#358 of 1104)
Edited Aug 18, 2006 7:01 pm

Plus, Harry could have left Dudley lying in the alley after getting rid of the Dementors in OotP, but instead he dragged him home.

I don't think the protection extends to the Dursleys as the charm relates to the fact that Lily died for Harry. I guess they're protected by association while he's living there and under the protection, but not actually directly subject to the magic involved...does that make sense?

Personally, I'm holding out for Harry summoning Kreacher and Dobby into Petunia's kitchen, then standing back and watching them have a huge fight that includes using the Weasley twins' fireworks as weapons!

cindysuewho45 - Aug 18, 2006 8:57 pm (#359 of 1104)

Hi all, I do not feel that DD knew what all would happen to Harry at the Dursley's. It was just that they were his only blood relation, and DD needed that for the charm or spell to work, that would keep Harry safe until he turns 17. DD said that he was not happy about how Harry was treated. I think that Harry has forgiven them to some point, he under stands why they are or were the way they were. That dose not make it right, but he knows he he will be gone from there soon. And that thought makes him happy. You know that, I feel Harry would help them too, if the DE's came to call. And they just may show up at the Dursley's in book 7. Snape knows that Harry's protection will end when he turns 17, doesn't he?

Steve Newton - Aug 19, 2006 4:39 am (#360 of 1104)

I tend to agree. Dumbledore was interested in protecting the baby above all else. I do wonder why he never intervened after things started to go sour at Privet Drive.

legolas returns - Aug 19, 2006 5:01 am (#361 of 1104)
Edited Aug 19, 2006 6:01 am

I think that things started to go sour from the begining. Why would he have written petunia a letter hoping that they would treat Harry as a son?

painting sheila - Aug 19, 2006 5:30 am (#362 of 1104)

Snape knows that Harry's protection will end when he turns 17, doesn't he?

I don't know if he does or not. He doesn't seem to be in on the "let's care for Harry" band wagon. I think McGonagall and Hagrid and Lupin - I don't know of all the Order members do or not.

I see Vernon getting killed and Harry having to remove Petunia and Dudley to Hogwarts or Order headquarters.

Petunia would go nuts in that house! I can see her yelling at Sirius' mother's portrait - it would be interesting to see who wins that fight!

Choices - Aug 19, 2006 9:10 am (#363 of 1104)
Edited Aug 19, 2006 10:12 am

If nothing else, 12 Grimmauld Place would be spotless after Petunia gets through with it. LOL Harry will have a clean house to live in.

Solitaire - Aug 19, 2006 2:39 pm (#364 of 1104)

LOL Choices. The thing is, I do not believe the dirt at 12GP is ordinary dirt. Molly isn't exactly a slacker in the cleaning department--and she had magic at her disposal--yet GP seems not only a "grim old place" but a grimy one, as well! A lot of the stuff that was infesting things was magical. I'm not sure Pet's cleaning supplies would work on it.

Solitaire

Choices - Aug 19, 2006 5:07 pm (#365 of 1104)

Alas, perhaps not. Maybe the answer is to have Molly and Petunia team up to defeat the grimy old place. I bet they could each teach the other a trick or two.

Honour - Aug 20, 2006 1:30 am (#366 of 1104)

I'm with you Steve Newton I couldn't understand why Dumbledore didn't keep a closer eye on Harry - If Harry is so important to the cause why abandon him. I understand that JKR said it was because of the "blood protection thing" but even that doesn't totally fly, why no follow up? Dumbledore didn't want Harry to grow up with a "fat head" (my er... paraphrasing) so to ensure that didn't happen he left Harry with an abusive family?

Phelim Mcintyre - Aug 20, 2006 3:18 am (#367 of 1104)

Steve, Honour - I think Dumbledore realised that the Death Eaters would be a threat to Harry's security. Mrs Figg kept her Squib status very quiet. The ministry officials who knew where Harry was living kept a very close watch on magical folk who lived in the area. We know that the Order kept an eye on Harry as it was Daedalus Diggle who bowed to Harry in a shop. Only those who could be trusted knew where Harry was. An discreat eye was kept to protect Harry but not to interfere as this would have been a give away to the otherside. I know that Petunia hates magic but I think the way she dragged Harry out of the shop after his meeting with Diggle could have been more than just her prejudice - did the letter contain warnings?

Soul Search - Aug 20, 2006 5:06 am (#368 of 1104)

It has been suggested before that there was more to the Dursley's not wanting the neighbors to find out about Harry. Petunia, especially, is afraid of the wizarding world finding out that Harry lives there and endangering them all.

More related to that dratted letter!

wynnleaf - Aug 20, 2006 8:22 am (#369 of 1104)

Is it just me, or do others get the impression that Petunia doesn't have a lot of contacts with muggles either? I mean, Vernon has his job and his business contacts. But I don't recall any mention of Petunia having friends, clubs, etc., certainly not a job. And her attitude toward the neighbors suggests, to me, that she doesn't really know them well -- not as friends, that is.

I have this sense of Petunia being afraid of any real contact with others -- any really getting to know someone outside her immediate family. She seems like the kind of fearful person who is keeping safe (and clean) within the walls of her home.

I wonder if she has a much greater knowledge of the dangers facing Harry, and therefore perhaps her whole family, than we've been made aware.

Solitaire - Aug 20, 2006 9:12 am (#370 of 1104)
Edited Aug 20, 2006 10:14 am

Perhaps she suffers from agoraphobia. I do believe she may think of her house as a "safe zone." It was for a long time--until Harry re-entered the Wizarding World.

I think she must have had some kind of contact with others in the Muggle World, if Dudley's friends visited the Dursley house and went on outings with them. Surely she knew the parents of these children. If Mrs. Figg was the one who made contact with Petunia, she obviously didn't think there was anything odd about it, and she seemed perfectly satisfied to leave Harry with Figgy. Perhaps Jo just didn't have time to really open up Pet's life to us. Or maybe we will see more of it in flashbacks in book 7, if we learn more about Lily's early life.

I don't spend a lot of time interacting with my neighbors, even though a number of them are very close and friendly with each other. I like them, we talk if we are outside at the same time, and I go to the block parties we have a couple of times each year. Their smaller kids frequently come into my yard to retrieve balls, frisbees, etc., and I enjoy talking to them. I never just "drop by" to visit, though. Maybe Pet is like me in that respect.

I think Phelim may be right. Perhaps there were more magical folk in the area than we know, keeping an eye on the Dursley home and its inhabitants.

Solitaire

Die Zimtzicke - Aug 20, 2006 3:52 pm (#371 of 1104)

Petunia and Dudley certainly could be taken to Hedquarters for their safety, since Dumbeldore mentioned #12 in front of them. He was the secret keeper, and he told them about the house. As I see it, they could technically go there.

Solitaire - Aug 20, 2006 7:18 pm (#372 of 1104)

But would it be possible for them to actually see it, since they are not magical? I guess we should take this over to the 12GP thread, if we are going to discuss it further.

Solitaire

Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 20, 2006 7:41 pm (#373 of 1104)

The ministry put magical triggers on #4 to detect if magic was ever performed. That is how they busted Harry over Dobby performing magic. I feel sorry for the Muggle children. They can't get away with anything! LPO

Phelim Mcintyre - Aug 21, 2006 12:15 am (#374 of 1104)

LPO - in HbP Dumbledore tells Harry that the ministry can detect where magic happens. They just can't detect who does it, so the ministry relies on children's parents to keep them in order. Where there is a child and no adult it is easier for them to detect who did the magic. No 4 is not as far as we are aware from DD's comments a special case.

Choices - Aug 21, 2006 9:47 am (#375 of 1104)
Edited Aug 21, 2006 10:52 am

We have discussed the incidence when Vernon tries to choke Harry when Harry is under the window listening to the news. Vernon receives a shock and is forced to let Harry go. Last night I was reading POA and noticed in the Shrieking Shack that Sirius starts to choke Harry, but nothing happens to him.

But Black's free hand had found Harry's throat--- No," he hissed, "I've waited too long---" The fingers tightened, Harry choked, his glasses askew."

Evidently Harry's protections did not kick in - maybe they only do at 4 Privet Drive - nor was his emotional magic activated. Whatever gave Vernon a shock did not bother Sirius.

Another interesting thing I noticed was this.....

Harry raised his wand. Now was the moment to do it. Now was the moment to avenge his mother and father. He was going to kill Black. He had to kill Black. This was his chance.... The seconds lenthened. And still Harry stood frozen there, wand poised, Black staring up at him.....

Harry found he could not kill Black, just as Draco discovered the same thing on the tower with Dumbledore.

The One - Aug 21, 2006 10:06 am (#376 of 1104)

As for Sirius choking Harry, Sirius wasn't really hostile at that poiunt. Does the magic know somehow?

We note that when Harry was choking Dung, some magic did kick in, and allowed Harry to escape.

Choices - Aug 21, 2006 10:34 am (#377 of 1104)
Edited Aug 21, 2006 11:40 am

Maybe it does know.....magic seems to know a lot. LOL

Die Zimtzicke - Aug 21, 2006 12:38 pm (#378 of 1104)

Vernon's rage was directed AT Harry. Sirius' rage at that point was directed elsewhere. Hary was an impediment to what he wanted to do, not his main target.

I think that has something to do with it. I could be wrong.

The One - Aug 21, 2006 12:53 pm (#379 of 1104)

correction: For "allowed Harry to escape", read "allowed Dung to escape"

Solitaire - Aug 22, 2006 9:13 pm (#380 of 1104)

I think you are right, Die Z. Sirius didn't want to choke Harry--not really. Had Harry truly been in danger because Sirius inadvertently squeezed too hard, I think something would have kicked in.

Solitaire

Die Zimtzicke - Aug 23, 2006 9:00 am (#381 of 1104)

Yes, that's it. I think INTENT has something to do with it. It would be the same, then, as it is for the Unforgivable curses in a sense. You have to mean them. Vernon meant to hurt Harry,and Sirius was concentrating elsewhere, really.

Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 23, 2006 7:22 pm (#382 of 1104)

It may have something to do with Sirius being Harry's godfather. There may be a binding magical contract there. Another way to look at it is Harry was older and more powerful when Vernon choked him.

I do not think magic "knows" intent. To me magic is a tool. It can be used for good or evil. LPO

Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 23, 2006 7:58 pm (#383 of 1104)
Edited Aug 23, 2006 9:15 pm

I had an interesting thought, in HBP Chapter chapter twenty-two Slughorn after becoming drunk with Hagrid, Professor Slughorn calls Harry by the name Parry Otter. This name combination is intriguing because of the question it raises.

According Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, the word parry has the following meanings:

Main Entry: par•ry Pronunciation: 'per-E, 'pa-rE Function: verb Inflected Form(s): par•ried; par•ry•ing Etymology: probably from French parez, imperative of parer to parry, from Old Occitan parar, from Latin parare to prepare -- more at PARE intransitive verb 1 : to ward off a weapon or blow 2 : to evade or turn aside something transitive verb 1 : to ward off (as a blow) 2 : to evade especially by an adroit answer - parry noun. ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] accessed August 23, 2006.)

In Order of the Phoenix chapter twenty-seven the text indicates that Hermione's patronus takes the form of an otter.

Will Harry is some way have to avoid Hermione, in book seven or turn aside Hermione's quesions or even deflect a blow caused by Hermione?

Solitaire - Aug 26, 2006 7:41 am (#384 of 1104)

Yeah, Nathan ... I wondered about that, too. I was also reminded of Hermione's otter patronus.

Madame Pomfrey - Aug 27, 2006 5:55 am (#385 of 1104)

I like that too! I have been worried that Ron or Hermione will be put under the imperius curse by a DE. Maybe that is a warning that it will be Hermione.

cindysuewho45 - Aug 28, 2006 12:08 pm (#386 of 1104)

Hi all, What all do you think Harry will be able to do, as far as magic goes. By the end of book 7???? I am hope he is able to learn some very good stuff, along the way. As well as be able to put some power behind it all.

Madame Pomfrey - Aug 28, 2006 4:39 pm (#387 of 1104)

Harry is the chosen one and I think he will be brilliant.He is already outstanding in DADA being that he is the only one in his class that could fight off the imperius curse and could fight off a hundred dementors with his corporal patronus which according to Hermione is "very,very advanced magic," I expect great things from him.It has been mentioned that Dumbledore's sacrifice might give him added magical abilities,if this proves true he will be awesome.I guess I am trying to say that I expect him to be the next Dumbledore.

Choices - Aug 28, 2006 5:33 pm (#388 of 1104)

I think it will be a very long time before he reaches Dumbledore's level of magical ability (if he ever does), but I think he will know enough to defeat Voldemort (with a little help from his friends).

haymoni - Aug 29, 2006 5:44 am (#389 of 1104)

If "Muffliato" keeps other people from hearing you talk, wouldn't that be helpful when casting spells if you haven't learned how to do it non-verbally?

I thought about this the other day - Snape's last instructions to Harry and all.

cindysuewho45 - Sep 1, 2006 2:33 am (#390 of 1104)

Hi all, I was just re reading book over again and saw where the Sorting Hat said, when talking about Harry, "Hmm" "Difficult. Very difficult. Plenty of courage, I see. Not a bad mind either. There's talent, oh my goodness, yes-and a nice thirst to prove yourself, now that's intersting....So where shall I put you?" "Not Slytherin, eh?" "Are you sure? You could be great, you know, it's all here in your head, and Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness,no doubt about that - no? Well, if you're sure - better be GRYFFINDOR!" Then there is that part at the start in Diagon Alley, when Mr.Ollivander say's, "The wand chooses the wizard, remember....I think we must expect great things from you, Mr. Potter.....After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be Named did great things - terrible,yes, but great." Again, I was thinking about how JKR talks about a lot of the plot being in book 1, and how she had to rewrite over and over so not to tell the hole plot in just book 1. A lot of people feel that Harry is not all that, as far as power goes. And that Snape, as of book 6 is much better than Harry in the power department. However, I feel that JKR will have Harry come into his own, so to say. As far as power goes, when Harry turns 17, I think we will see a more adult Harry and the power that comes with it. Now do not get me wrong, I also feel that Harry will not just take out LV, by power alone. I feel that Harry will use things like potions or charms, that he will find were left behind by his Mom. And that love will play the bigest part of doing in LV. But all the power will come in handy, when taking out the DE's.

Die Zimtzicke - Sep 1, 2006 5:25 am (#391 of 1104)

What if Harry builds on his experience getting the memory from Sluhorn and decided to use charm and cunning more to get somewhere? He would then become even more like Tom Riddle, and we all know there are already parallels there.

rambkowalczyk - Sep 1, 2006 7:54 am (#392 of 1104)

I can think of an incidence that happened before Harry went under the sorting hat that would show he wasn't Slytherin material.

Harry had no friends before coming to Hogwarts. He was consistently be beaten by his older cousin. The first person he meets is Draco who reminds him strongly of Dudley even though the two are built differently.

If Harry were a true Slytherin he not only would have recognized that Draco was a bully but Harry would have taken steps to insure that he would not be the object of his bullying. Surely Harry had no desire to be anyone's punching bag at Hogwarts and even though he disliked Draco, Harry would not want to antigonize him.

He was given a clear chance to get on his good side when Draco started insulting Hagrid. Harry at the very least could have denied knowing who Hagrid was. He could have said something funny about Hagrid such as he likes to knit or that he gets sea sick on Gringott's train. Instead he says "I think he's brilliant."

Harry at this point isn't being brave because he has already decided that he doesn't care about Draco's opinion. He is showing loyalty, a Hufflepuff trait. He isn't showing much intelligence (Ravenclaw) as whatever insults Draco gives Hagrid could easily be given to Harry. Draco consistently tries to find some common ground with Harry (Slytherin tendency to make some connection even if not heart felt) though they seem to have little in common. Harry feels no need to get on Draco's good side--not a Slytherin characteristic.

wynnleaf - Sep 1, 2006 8:05 am (#393 of 1104)

If Harry were a true Slytherin he not only would have recognized that Draco was a bully but Harry would have taken steps to insure that he would not be the object of his bullying. Surely Harry had no desire to be anyone's punching bag at Hogwarts and even though he disliked Draco, Harry would not want to antigonize him.

He was given a clear chance to get on his good side when Draco started insulting Hagrid. Harry at the very least could have denied knowing who Hagrid was. He could have said something funny about Hagrid such as he likes to knit or that he gets sea sick on Gringott's train. Instead he says "I think he's brilliant."

I don't think this is an indicator that Harry doesn't really have Slytherin characteristics. After all, Snape is a Slytherin and he was evidently bullied. It would have been to his advantage to try to get on the good side of the Marauders, or in some way placate them so they didn't attack him, but as far as we know he didn't do that.

Besides, having charactersitics of cunning doesn't mean you approach everything with a cunning attitude. Being ambitious doesn't mean you respond to everything from the "what's in it for me" perspective. Harry can have these charactersitics and still make the choices he did.

Choices - Sep 1, 2006 9:54 am (#394 of 1104)

Die Z - "What if Harry builds on his experience getting the memory from Sluhorn and decided to use charm and cunning more to get somewhere? He would then become even more like Tom Riddle, and we all know there are already parallels there."

I don't think charm and cunning are things you just decide to have - OK, today I think I will develope charm and cunning to make my job/life easier. They are traits you are born with and display naturally. I had an aunt who was the most charming person I have ever met and I wanted to be just like her, but try as I might, I could not be as charming as she was. It was natural to her, but it wasn't natural to me. I don't think Harry can just choose to become charming or cunning like Tom Riddle - Riddle was born that way and Harry wasn't. Harry has displayed no hint of being charming and he is pretty straight forward - no cunning there. With Harry, what you see is what you get.

Die Zimtzicke - Sep 1, 2006 3:39 pm (#395 of 1104)

Well, he played Slughorn like a fiddle, so he's got the talent. He might just have to develop it.

Choices - Sep 1, 2006 4:32 pm (#396 of 1104)

Was that actually Harry or was that the Felix?

HungarianHorntail11 - Sep 1, 2006 10:14 pm (#397 of 1104)

I have had a nagging question in my head and finally caught up on this thread, awaiting an opportune time to post. I don't mean to kill the current discussion, so feel free to ignore this post. . .

. . .neither can live while the other survives. . .

. . .The Boy Who Lived. . .

those two statements make me wonder if Harry doesn't defeat Big V, live out his life and have his story told by a great, great grandson or other descendant.

Mediwitch - Sep 2, 2006 2:22 pm (#398 of 1104)

I think that's a very interesting thought, Maria! I also believe that as Harry is "The Boy Who Lived", that he will live. I used to worry about his survival, but after much thought (and for a variety of reasons), I think he will make it.

Choices - Sep 2, 2006 4:33 pm (#399 of 1104)
Edited Sep 2, 2006 5:34 pm

Check out a very interesting post on Harry's survival by RPS in the "A Treasure Hunt: Looking for Literary Symbolism in HBP" thread.

Solitaire - Sep 2, 2006 7:24 pm (#400 of 1104)
Edited Sep 2, 2006 8:28 pm

I don't think charm and cunning are things you just decide to have

I disagree that one must be born with charm and cunning. I agree that one cannot just get up one day and "decide" to be charming or cunning; but I also believe both charm and cunning are qualities that can be cultivated and nurtured.

Cunning does not require exceptional intelligence or brilliance. Merriam-Webster Online defines cunning as dexterous or crafty in the use of special resources (as skill or knowledge) or in attaining an end; displaying keen insight; characterized by wiliness and trickery. One is certainly not born with knowledge, and though it is possible to be born with special abilities, it takes practice to refine and perfect them into actual skills.

I suppose it depends on what you call charm, but I believe it, too, can be learned. Several years ago, I attended a party given by one of my colleagues. I had an opportunity to chat with her husband, who was the most charming person I'd ever met! He was older and okay-looking but not drop-dead gorgeous or even young and sexy. What made him so charming was the fact that his complete attention was focused on me. The entire time we were talking, he looked me in the eye and made me feel as though I were the only person in the room.

Over the years, I had opportunities to observe him in different groups of people, and he was always the same ... completely with the person at hand, not looking around for someone better to talk to (a rather unfortunate habit of many people these days).

I made a note after meeting this man to take a lesson in social graces from him. I will probably never be as charming as he is, but I learned that looking someone in the eye, giving him my full attention, and truly caring about what he has to say are good starts if one wants to truly cultivate charm. The cunning person can, of course, fake charm ... but then it isn't really charm, is it?

Question: Does Harry really care if he is charming?

Solitaire

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:08 am

wynnleaf - Sep 5, 2006 11:44 am (#401 of 1104)

Die Zimtzicke said in post #176 of Harry's Blood and Harmony thread:

Oh, I'd love to see Harry die. I think it's the most fitting ending. And I loathe Ginny Weasely. But I know that's not a popular opinion.

I'm very curious as to why you say this. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just very, very curious. Are you kidding? If not, I'd love to know your reasons.

haymoni - Sep 5, 2006 11:51 am (#402 of 1104)

I don't think Harry cares about charming anybody.

He sees people trying to schmooze up to him - he wouldn't want to be that phony.

Unless of course it got him the Slughorn memory.

S.E. Jones - Sep 5, 2006 4:52 pm (#403 of 1104)

Choices --I don't think charm and cunning are things you just decide to have - OK, today I think I will develope charm and cunning to make my job/life easier. They are traits you are born with and display naturally.--

I have to agree with Solitaire that charm and cunning can be learned, but it takes a great deal of effort. Charm, in my opinion, is a combination of learnable social skills, good old fashioned manners, and the willingness to actively listen to the person you're talking to. I don't know that I'd say Harry is charming, but I think that's because he's never really bothered to be. That being said, I'd say Harry is quite cunning. Think of how he made both Hermione and Ron think he'd given Ron Felix Felicis when he hadn't actually done anything to the juice.

cindysuewho45 - Sep 5, 2006 8:29 pm (#404 of 1104)

Hi all, About "The boy who lived" I feel that Harry will end up having a good life with Ginny, and go on to have lots of kids. He will also have a great job. After he takes care of LV, the DE's and Snape, one way or another. And he will compleat school. I feel that JKR is a great writer, and will be able to put all the action, thrills, sadness, happiness and love in book 7. And about 99% of us will love the book. I will be one of the 99% no matter how it ends!

Laura W - Sep 6, 2006 1:49 am (#405 of 1104)
Edited Sep 6, 2006 2:50 am

Charm? No, I don't believe Harry has very much natural or cultivated charm ... or cares to, for that matter.

Cunning? Oh yes! Harry can and has been *very* cunning on numerous occasions. From his first year at school, as a matter of fact. It is not without reason that the Sorting Hat wanted to put him in Slytherin House! (Whether Potter was born with this characteristic or was inadvertently given it when some of Tom Riddle was transferred to him, I don't know.) Look at how adept he always is at getting Hagrid to tell him stuff Hagrid should not. Look how he figured out, on the spot, how to liberate Dobby by giving the diary back to Lucius Malfoy wrapped in a sock. Etc., etc.

As you have already pointed out, Harry used a great deal of cunning to get Slughorn's memory by playing on Sluggy's fondness for Lily. One other - of many - canon example, also in HBP, occurs when Harry and Dumbledore are watching that memory in the Horcruxes chapter. Tom is trying to squeeze the info about Horcruxes out of his professor. The next paragraph (p.464, Raincoast) says:

It was very well done, thought Harry, the hesitancy, the casual tone, the careful flattery, none of it overdone. He, Harry, had had too much experience of trying to wheedle information out of reluctant people not to recognize a master at work.

Cunning can be used for good or evil, of course, in both the WW and the Muggle World. ("It is the choices we make, Harry, that tell ...")

Laura

Die Zimtzicke - Sep 6, 2006 9:08 am (#406 of 1104)

In response to Wynnleaf, I think it would be a good ending in a way if Harry dies, because all he has ever wanted was his parents and Sirius back. He could go on to that next great adventure Dumbledore told him about, knowing the wizarding world was safe for those he left behind. Dying is not the same to me as losing. Harry is so intertwined with Voldemort that I wonder if neither can live while the other survives means they have to live or die together. Plus it would fit with Jo's odd (to me) comment about killing your characters so others can't misuse them. She has never confirmed definitely that he lives, and until she does I'd rather see him die. I think she can do that well, if she does it.

As for the Ginny thing, she cannot do romance well, in my opinion. I have always hated Ginny, since she wanted to go on the train and gawk at Harry like a zoo animal. I think she's a stupid, selfish brat, and she and Harry together were two equally annoying brats. And I especially hate the chest monster. I probably belong to every anti-H/G board that exists. But that has been gone into on the Ginny thread, and the shipping thread, and it doesn't need to be extended here. I can go back to either place is necessary.

haymoni - Sep 6, 2006 11:14 am (#407 of 1104)

Die - sometimes I wonder why you like to read these books!

The whole Wizarding World wanted to gawk at Harry like a zoo animal. I don't think we can blame a 10-year-old who has heard about him her whole life from wanting to see The Boy Who Lived. Draco was practically drooling!

Molly had sense enough to say something to the Twins and Harry appreciated it. It may have been one of the reasons he was willing to open up to Ron so much.

I thought that the description of "the chest monster" (I had forgotten that JKR had called it that - for a brief minute I thought it was something VERY inappropriate about Ginny!) showed that Harry was feeling more than the pangs he had felt seeing Cho & Cedric together.

Hoot Owl - Sep 6, 2006 12:04 pm (#408 of 1104)

I always thought "the chest monster" signified that Harry's feelings for Ginny were from his heart. With Cho all of his pangs were from his stomach or somewhere below that. Does that agree with your thoughts, Haymoni?

It must have been a real ' green eyed monster', after all it was Harry's monster.

Die Zimtzicke - Sep 6, 2006 7:13 pm (#409 of 1104)

Considering it was accompanied by hared, blazing looks, and that it caused Harry to make his first kiss with Ginny a public display in front of fifty people, most of whom he immediately looked at afterwards for reactions, I think the chest monster was aiming for much lower than Harry's heart. The last time we heard about a monster inside him, it was Voldemort.

By the wayt, I read the books for the plot, not the shipping, and because four of my kids are crazy about them. It gives us something to talk about together.

S.E. Jones - Sep 6, 2006 8:19 pm (#410 of 1104)

Okay, I know I have a lot to catch up on (so many threads, so little time!) and I'll probably slap myself in the head and say "doh!" when you tell me, but what is the "chest monster"?

haymoni - Sep 7, 2006 5:57 am (#411 of 1104)

Whenever Harry sees Ginny & Dean together, he feels something like a monster growing inside of him. I took it to mean jealousy.

Yes, Hoot Owl - I think Cho was a crush. Ginny is something more. It might not be true love, but as close to it as a 16-year-old can feel.

I think very few people knew about Cho & Harry. Their one public "viewing" at Madam Puddifoot's did not go over well. Harry & Ginny may have been a pretty big deal, since Harry really hadn't dated anyone before. The Boy Who Lived has a girlfriend. Harry really only cared what Ron thought and it seems Ron was OK with it.

The 'ships are fun, but the characters themselves are what keeps me going until the big plot mysteries are solved.

wynnleaf - Sep 7, 2006 7:14 am (#412 of 1104)

Die Zimtzicke,

In some ways I agree with you about Harry dying. To me, his death at the end of the books wouldn't necessarily be the tragedy that most people seem to see it. Harry seems to yearn for family, yet every semblance of family is lost to him -- his parents, the Dursleys who don't fulfill the role of family, Sirius, and finally DD is mentor. He only has his friends, but regardless how close he is to friends, such as Ron and Hermione, they are not really family. And now Ron and Hermione are sort of pairing off, too, even though they remain close friends.

Ginny could be considered potential family by Harry, but at this point, she's really just a teenage girl friend, and a recent one at that.

So if Harry were to die, I could see him contemplating death sort of like he did at the end of OOTP -- looking forward to finally being with his parents and Sirius, and now DD.

While normally, in real life, I'd consider the death of a teenager to almost always be a tragedy, I could see how, in a piece of literature like this, it need not be.

As regards Ginny, I don't really care for her one way or the other. I don't like or dislike her. I just don't care. Which is a bit too bad, since it's disappointing that Harry has a girlfriend that I find so uninteresting -- compared to Luna and Hermione, who are exceedingly interesting. But I don't really care what happens to her, other than I guess it would be sad if she died and Harry lived, because then he'd have lost another person.

Hoot Owl - Sep 7, 2006 9:46 am (#413 of 1104)

Sorry, I did not mean to stray into 'shiping'. I intended to state my opinion that "the chest monster" was more then a mere physical reaction to a pretty girl.

Yes, I thought it jealousy, (that old green-eyed monster.) When it ' burst from Harry's stomach and crawled up to his chest', that seemed to indicate something meaningful. How meaningful only time and Jo will tell us. One more point, wasn't the kiss the last appearance of the ' creature in his chest?'

Just defending my earlier post. I agree anything further should go on shipping thread.

HungarianHorntail11 - Sep 8, 2006 5:28 pm (#414 of 1104)
Edited Sep 8, 2006 6:31 pm

I have always hated Ginny, since she wanted to go on the train and gawk at Harry like a zoo animal. I think she's a stupid, selfish brat, and she and Harry together were two equally annoying brats. And I especially hate the chest monster. I probably belong to every anti-H/G board that exists. Die

C'mon, Die - tell us how you really feel, and don't hold back. LOL

Regarding the chest monster: At some point in HBP, Molly mentions that she used a bit of the love potion to give her hubby a boost in the right direction. It seems as though it wasn't used the way it was used in the chocolates meant for Harry. I think Ginny took a page from Molly's book and gave Harry the subtle boost, hence, the unexplainable surges of anger, etc., that he experienced. I'm not saying those feelings cannot happen to a teen w/o the potion, I am stating that I have my suspicions that Ginny followed in mum's footsteps.

Regarding Harry's fate, I always felt as though he can't lose. If he stays, he gets to be with his friends, if he dies, he gets to be with his family. What can we say for Big V?

Mediwitch - Sep 8, 2006 6:18 pm (#415 of 1104)

I remember Molly, Hermione, and Ginny giggling about a love potion Molly had made as a girl (I thought it was in OoP, but I could be wrong), but I don't recall her saying specifically that she had used it on Arthur to give him a boost, so to speak. I just think Harry's chest monster was Jo's metaphor for the strange new emotions Harry was feeling.

I really like your take on Harry's fate, Maria!

Steve Newton - Sep 8, 2006 9:56 pm (#416 of 1104)

I've never seen a hint of Ginny using a love potion.

Die Zimtzicke - Sep 9, 2006 5:57 am (#417 of 1104)

I do not beleive Ginny used a love potion on Harry, although I think Slughorn telling him that the love potion that appeared up in class showed the danger of obsessive love. What confuses me is that I thought love potions were banned at school. I don't think Slughorn should have showed one to Harry unless it meant something.

Things that appeared in Harry's first classes tend to reoccur, however. Maybe Ginny used a scintillation solution to make herself more popular, and that's why Harry finally noticed her? But I'm hoping no love potions were actually used on Harry.

I don't know how much of this should simply be moved to shipping. It's a tough call.

LooneyLuna - Sep 9, 2006 8:32 am (#418 of 1104)

I thought Harry's feelings for Ginny developed gradually and the "chest monster" meant that he had finally recognized he had romantic feelings for Ginny.

I also think the love potion that Slughorn talked about in his class was a vehicle for showing that Harry's true desire was something flowery at the Burrow, which he recognizes later as Ginny. I do not think that Ginny did anything, other than be herself, to attract Harry. I think it's meant to contrast Ginny with Merope Gaunt, who would do anything to get her man (like Romilda Vane).

HungarianHorntail11 - Sep 9, 2006 8:17 pm (#419 of 1104)

I think it's meant to contrast Ginny with Merope Gaunt, who would do anything to get her man (like Romilda Vane).

Molly admitted to using it. She's no Merope, though.

On another note, I came across something in a symbolism book I have that I felt was worth mentioning. It is regarding swords, stating that "Swords are related to water and dragons. . .the tempering of the blade is the marriage of fire and water; the sword, being fire is drawn to the water". Knowing Griffindor's only relic was the sword, I am now curious as to who is a descendant of GG. My mind ambles in Harry's direction, after all, he did pull a sword out of a hat. I'm not excluding DD, however, Harry is the one who bears the weight.

Eponine - Sep 9, 2006 8:27 pm (#420 of 1104)

Molly admitted to using it.

I don't think she ever admitted to actually using it. Making it, yes, but not using it. There's a difference.

But this has nothing to do with Harry.

Mezzanine - Sep 10, 2006 3:24 am (#421 of 1104)

Can anyone give me an exact quote when Molly mentioned this love potion business in whichever book she mentioned it ? To my shame I don't remember it at all.

Eponine - Sep 10, 2006 5:30 am (#422 of 1104)

From PoA (Chapter 5) p. 56 (UK edition)

They headed down to breakfast, where Mr. Weasley was reading the front page of the Daily Prophet with a furrowed brow and Mrs. Weasley was telling Hermione and Ginny about a Love Potion she'd made as a young girl. All three of them were rather giggly.

Mezzanine - Sep 10, 2006 7:43 am (#423 of 1104)

Thank you, Eponine. I had completely forgotten about that quote. I wonder if Molly ever used that love potion, but this belongs to a different thread.

Solitaire - Sep 10, 2006 10:00 am (#424 of 1104)

Why would you make it if you weren't going to use it? Just wondering ...

Choices - Sep 10, 2006 11:43 am (#425 of 1104)

Maybe just to see if she could. Like asking why someone climbs a mountain? Just because it's there. LOL

Solitaire - Sep 10, 2006 12:00 pm (#426 of 1104)

I could be wrong, of course, but Molly strikes me as someone who has been brought up to be frugal. I would imagine potion ingredients are expensive, so I can't see her making something she didn't plan to use. It would be too wasteful. JM2K, of course ...

Solitaire

LooneyLuna - Sep 10, 2006 12:09 pm (#427 of 1104)

We don't know if Molly used the potion or not or how frugal she was as a girl. We also don't know if Arthur was the intended guinea pig. Great questions for JKR. I'd love to see some Molly/Arthur back story.

Back to Harry...

I think Harry is very fortunate that he never ate those chocolate cauldrons from Romilda Vane. Could you imagine if he had? Eek! I wonder what would have happened if the situation were reversed and Harry had been love potioned instead of Ron.

HungarianHorntail11 - Sep 10, 2006 12:47 pm (#428 of 1104)

We'd have had a mess on our hands, LooneyLuna.

I will try and find the quote I was thinking of. I know I'm not imagining it. . .

TwinklingBlueEyes - Sep 10, 2006 2:47 pm (#429 of 1104)
Edited Sep 10, 2006 3:48 pm

...Mrs. Weasley was telling Hermione and Ginny about a Love Potion she'd made as a young girl.

Perhaps she made it in a Potions class?

I wonder whatever happened to all the potions Slughorn made for Harry's class.

haymoni - Sep 11, 2006 4:59 am (#430 of 1104)

How old is a young girl?

I don't think any potions were used on Harry. He just figured things out, just like Hermione said he would.

Die Zimtzicke - Sep 11, 2006 6:15 am (#431 of 1104)

Love potions are supposedly banned at Hogwarts. Maybe they were not when Molly was a girl, but if they are now, I don't even know why Slughorn made one. If he had not we'd have a lot less pseculation in this direction about Harry having been dosed with one.

haymoni - Sep 11, 2006 6:28 am (#432 of 1104)

I think the purpose of Slughorn's potion was to introduce the flowery smell also.

The thing that vexes me most about that potion is what the heck did Hermione smell that obviously reminded her of Ron?????

painting sheila - Sep 11, 2006 7:34 am (#433 of 1104)

MAybe the reason they are banned at Hogwarts is because of the potion Molly made. Maybe it created so much havoc that from that point on - they were banned.

Ron smells like . . . this guy I knew in high school. He had a smell that ws very attractive but he didn't use any cologne or anything. It was just his "smell". It was a clean, outdors, natural smell. Does any of that make sense? My little guy has his own smell. I love sticking my nose in his hair and getting a big whiff first thing inthe morning.

haymoni - Sep 11, 2006 7:47 am (#434 of 1104)

So...back to Harry.

What will happen on the Hogwarts Express back home?

S.E. Jones - Sep 11, 2006 11:31 am (#435 of 1104)

hoymoni, I'm thinking they're going to skip the Hogwarts Express, since it wasn't at the end of the book, and we'll be seeing Harry for the first time in Book 7 back at the Dursleys, per usual. Now, I'm wondering if we'll see a scene like we had in OP where several people show up to escort Harry to the Burrow as I'm sure Voldemort will know his protection will be running out and thus waiting for him. Or, do you think Harry would try to go by himself?

legolas returns - Sep 11, 2006 11:31 am (#436 of 1104)

I am surprised that the only time that the Hogwarts Express has been stopped is by the Dementors. I would be surprised if the train was not attacked.

haymoni - Sep 11, 2006 6:19 pm (#437 of 1104)

I'm picturing a bunch of somber kids heading home for possibly the last time.

No Draco, so there won't be the usual "Hey Potter" taunting. We don't know if the rest of the Slytherins stayed on. I could see DA members trying to suck up - where were they???

I'd love to see a Luna scene - we need someone to lighten things up.

I can picture a rather happy Vernon waiting to pick up Harry. "Last time I'll have to come to this ruddy train station for you, eh?"

S.E. Jones - Sep 11, 2006 6:31 pm (#438 of 1104)
Edited Sep 11, 2006 7:32 pm

I somehow doubt that Vernon would be happy, even with it being the last time.

I wonder, do you think Harry would do anything to the Dursleys when he turns 17, assuming he doesn't leave before his birthday? I mean, we saw how Harry wanted Dudley to do something so he could hex him in OP, and, while Harry's no longer in this tormented frame of mind, they are the people who made his childhood so awful. Maybe he'll shout "hocus pocus" again as he leaves #4 Privet Drive for the last time....

wynnleaf - Sep 11, 2006 7:55 pm (#439 of 1104)

I think Harry's going to get some revelations at Privet Drive this time -- we have to learn more about Petunia, who the "awful boy" was, how she knew about dementors, maybe more of DD's letters to her, and so on...

I have a feeling that Harry's time at Privet Drive will have a very different "flavor" to it.

Madame Pomfrey - Sep 12, 2006 7:27 am (#440 of 1104)

I agree,Wynnleaf.Will Harry have to threaten them with magic to get some answers or will Petunia tell all on her own accord? We are also to find out Dudley's worst memory during the dementor attack.Perhaps Dudley's memory will open up that can of worms.

haymoni - Sep 12, 2006 8:17 am (#441 of 1104)
Edited Sep 12, 2006 9:17 am

I'm sure Harry will tell Pet that Dumbledore is dead.

Who killed him?

A Death Eater names Severus Snape.

Severus Snape??? That awful boy that used to come 'round to see your mother??!!

Whaat???!!!

legolas returns - Sep 12, 2006 8:25 am (#442 of 1104)

THat would be priceless.

S.E. Jones - Sep 12, 2006 12:32 pm (#443 of 1104)

I don't see why Harry would tell Petunia that Dumbledore's dead. He didn't tell them about Sirius's death, and I'm sure Dumbledore's death will be just as painful a subject. I just don't see him offering something like that....

legolas returns - Sep 12, 2006 12:37 pm (#444 of 1104)
Edited Sep 12, 2006 1:37 pm

It could come up in a Vernon rant when he picks up Harry-"No more freaky people in strange clothes,with your abnormatlity, who talk nonsense and insult Dudders will come to the house or I will knock the stuffing out of you".

I hope that makes sense.

HungarianHorntail11 - Sep 12, 2006 3:22 pm (#445 of 1104)

Well, there are a lot of strange occurrences taking place in the muggle world that are intertwined with the magic world, so perhaps Harry might make an off-the-cuff remark that it is due to Big V. Pet will surely know what that means and that could be a lead in.

Hoot Owl - Sep 12, 2006 4:25 pm (#446 of 1104)

Possibly when Hogwarts notified the Dursleys to meet the train a month early, they told them why. "Due to murder of our headmaster the school term is ending on Sept 1st. Please pick up your student that evening at King Cross station."

Choices - Sep 12, 2006 4:41 pm (#447 of 1104)

Did I miss reading the part that says the school closed a month early due to Dumbledore's death? Please point me to were it says that in the book.

Also, Sept. 1st is the date that school opens, not closes.

haymoni - Sep 13, 2006 5:25 am (#448 of 1104)

Whatever the date, I'm sure parents were notified.

That is true that Pet may already know about Dumbledore's death.

She certainly knew who he was. I could still see her being incredibly curious & worried about who would be able to kill a wizard like Dumbledore.

Hoot Owl - Sep 13, 2006 9:55 am (#449 of 1104)

June 1st, my error! Check out the time lines on the Lexicon.

cindysuewho45 - Sep 13, 2006 11:00 am (#450 of 1104)

Hi all, I have not been on in about a week, so I had a lot to read!I was also happy to see that JKR updated her site. And about Harry and "the chest monster", I believe that for the most part it was a jealous, green eyed monster. I do not see why some feel that this should not be on this thread, but on a shipping? Ginny is part of Harry's life just like DD, Hermione, Ron, Durleys or other things that touch Harry's life and effect the way he dose or thinks about things. Shipping is for all possible, different loves. JKR has let us know that Harry is affected by Ginny. This thread is about Harry, and Ginny is part of that. However Harry was having a lot of new feelings when it came to Ginny. Feelings that were more adult like. Feelings that Harry was having and thinking about and dreaming about, that Harry was glad Ron could not see or know about. I feel that this was JKR's way of letting us know that Harry was getting older. I agree with Steve,"I've never seen a hint of Ginny using a love potion." And I also agree with LooneyLuna, when she was talking about Harry and how the Love potion that Slughorn made was a vehicle for Harry to short out his true feeling and desires. How Harry developed his feelings gradually and finally recognized his romantic feelings for Ginny. It started with Harry smelling the love potion in Slughorn's classroom, the smell of something flowery at the Burrow. Also, as for Harry looking around to see peoples reactions, when Harry and Ginny kissed. I feel it was just Ron, that Harry was looking for a reaction from. Harry just saw the others reactions as he was looking for Ron. Harry has always wanted a family and a normal life. And I feel that Ginny may be part of that potential family. Now I do not know about the "Hogwarts Express", but I do think that Harry will be planning his hunt for the Horcruxes, when he is at the Dursleys. It would not shock me if LV and his DE's show up at the Dursleys looking for Harry. I also feel that Harry would not do anything to the Dursleys, even if they need it. I was thinking that Harry may help them when or if LV and the DE's show up. It looks like Harry has a lot of emotions to deal with and hard work to look forward to. A lot could happen before school even starts.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:14 am

Die Zimtzicke - Sep 13, 2006 1:55 pm (#451 of 1104) Reply
Edited by S.E. Jones Sep 13, 2006 9:03 pm

I think Harry WILL tell the Dursleys Dumbledore is dead, and not just because he came home early. I think what Perunia knows will mean more to Harry now, and he knows or at least strongly suspects Petunia knows more than she lets on. The idea that she had more messages from Dumbledore than the first one is tantalizing to me, and I wish Harry would be curious about that, too. Plus, I think it will rattle them, and he might get into a situation where he wants to see them rattled.

-I deleted part of this post to help get the thread back on topic. If anyone wants to continue to discuss Ginny or her relationship with Harry, please go to the appropriate thread to do so. Thank you.- SE Jones

haymoni - Sep 14, 2006 4:20 am (#452 of 1104)

Yep - rattled.

Shaken and stirred would suit me also!

Meoshimo - Sep 14, 2006 7:31 am (#453 of 1104)

Where does it say that Harry came home early?

haymoni - Sep 14, 2006 8:50 am (#454 of 1104)

It doesn't.

Harry is still at Hogwarts.

Honour - Sep 14, 2006 2:22 pm (#455 of 1104)

I'm hoping that when Harry returns to Privet Drive that he finally starts asking pertinent questions. My goodness! He is nearly an adult in the magical world and he needs to speak with his aunt as an adult. The "don't ask questions" line may have worked in the past for aunt Pet but Harry will have to articulate to her now, how important the information she holds will be for him. He needs to explain to her how the world's will be facing Voldermort again, this, she can relate to. He will have to explain to her that she and her family are in danger also, and that maybe he can offer protection through the Order for them. She may not be receptive initially, but I think he can convince her. Even if all she does is give him the note that Dumbledore wrote her nearly 16 years previously. It will be a start.

OK, granted Pet wasn't a very good care-giver for Harry, but as Dumbledore said, she did grant him a roof over his head,(I paraphrase),and in doing so activating the old magic that has protected Harry for so long. Knowing Dumbledore is dead may also frighten her enough to speak to her nephew. Pet has some knowledge of the Magical World, she lived through the last war, admittedly on the periphials.

This would be a great jumping off point for Harry to then go to Godric's Hollow. I wonder if there are DE's stationed near Harry's parents graves? Actually, no,Voldermort probably wouldn't even think this way?

Phoenix - Sep 14, 2006 7:36 pm (#456 of 1104)
Edited Sep 14, 2006 8:37 pm

Hi! Sorry to intrude, but I was thinking about Dudley's reaction to the dementors. Whatever happened to Dudley must have happened before Harry came. Perhaps Lord Voldemort paid the Dursley's a visit before Wormtail turned? Of course, it could have been the horror he felt when he thought he was only getting 36 presents for his birthday. But perhaps this will be another piece of the puzzle?

HungarianHorntail11 - Sep 14, 2006 8:11 pm (#457 of 1104)

He will have to explain to her that she and her family are in danger also, and that maybe he can offer protection through the Order for them. Honour Egad! Imagine housing those three in an effort to keep them safe! **shudders**

Phoenix, that is some food for thought. It does pique my curiosity that she has left it to Book 7.

haymoni - Sep 15, 2006 6:56 am (#458 of 1104)

Maybe there is a DE stationed at Smeltings with a bigger stick than Dudley's.

Solitaire - Sep 17, 2006 11:04 am (#459 of 1104)
Edited Sep 17, 2006 12:05 pm

My goodness! He is nearly an adult in the magical world and he needs to speak with his aunt as an adult.

Alas, Honour, just because he is an adult in the magical world does not mean he will be either accepted or treated as one by his aunt and uncle--whether he acts like one or not.

As to Harry doing something to the Dursleys ... I'm not sure if he would even bother at this point. He has bigger fish to fry, and he is no longer at their mercy. I'm sure he now sees the Dud as a mere annoyance and no longer a threat.

If the Dursleys do have to rely on Harry and the Order for protection, I doubt Uncle Vernon's usual superior, bigoted, abusive attitude is going to fly. Harry won't really need them, after all ... they will need him, and I suppose Vernon's behavior will have to reflect that, or he will be given the boot (I hope) or perhaps Silencio!ed (which would be equally satisfying).

Solitaire

Ludicrous Patents Office - Sep 18, 2006 7:02 pm (#460 of 1104)

I think Harry will find out something important at the Dursleys. Then I think he will move on and we won't have any more Dursleys scenes. I used to believe there would be a big showdown with Voldemort at #4. No that I understand its purpose I think Voldemort will just wait till Harry leaves the house for good. I hope Dumbledore put other protections on Harry. LPO

HungarianHorntail11 - Sep 18, 2006 7:26 pm (#461 of 1104)

I think the friends Harry has made along the way will prove to protect him and come through for him. Not sure about DD, as he did tend to let things play out a bit more than I'm comfortable with.

Nathan Zimmermann - Oct 3, 2006 12:19 pm (#462 of 1104)
Edited Oct 3, 2006 1:56 pm

I have some thoughts and questions I would like to share about Harry and Neville

Sybill Trelawney foretells the downfall of Voldemort in late 1979 or early 1980. I am inclined to place the prophecy between September and early November of 1979 for the following reasons

1. Neville and Harry were born on the 30 and 31 of July 1980. That would indicate that Alice and Lily became pregnant some time in the autumn of 1979.

2. The time frame in which Lily and Alice became pregnant can be narrowed further. The normal gestational period for human beings is approximately 38 to 40 weeks. Any births that occur before thirty-six (36) weeks are considered pre-term, and children born after forty-two (42) weeks are considered post-term. If we use the thirty-six and forty-two week marks as guide posts.

The forty-two week mark, implies that Lily and Alice became pregnant in the middle of October of 1979, and if the thirty six week mark is utilized, that would imply that Lily and Alice became pregnant in late November of 1979.

3. I think it likely that Trelawney's prophecy was given before either Harry or Neville was conceived.

4. Also, the question arises where were Neville and Harry born? Voldemort knowing the first half of the prophecy only would be watching for the birth of a child born in late July. It seems likely that Saint Mungo's Hospital, would not have been the safest place in the Wizarding World to have given birth because, it seems likely that Voldemort would have either infiltrated Saint Mungo's or had it under close surveillance during this period of time.

Meoshimo - Oct 3, 2006 2:48 pm (#463 of 1104)

I've always imagined the prophecy being given in early 1980, but I don't think it would have been later than March.

Nathan Zimmermann - Oct 3, 2006 3:21 pm (#464 of 1104)
Edited Oct 3, 2006 4:22 pm

Meshimo, I disagree from the evidence of the prophecy given in PoA, prophecies tend to prefigure an event.

It will happen tonight. The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers. His servant has been chained these twelve years. Tonight, before midnight... the servant will break free and setout to rejoin his master. The Dark Lord will rise again with his servants aid, greater and more terrible than ever he was. Tonight... before midnight...the servant...will set out...to rejoin...his master.... (PoA Large Print Edition)

Choices - Oct 3, 2006 3:21 pm (#465 of 1104)

In the listings for St. Mungo's departments, no mention is made of "Maternity", so I think it might be safe to say that Neville and Harry were born "elsewhere" - although not St. Elsewhere. LOL

Meoshimo - Oct 3, 2006 3:40 pm (#466 of 1104)
Edited Oct 3, 2006 4:43 pm

Nathan- Yes, that prophecy was given before the actual events the prophecy fortells happened. But the same is true of the original prediction. That prophecy says that a child will be born, not that a child will be concieved, which leads me to believe that the prophecy could have been given after Harry was concieved, but before he was born.

But something has just occured to me: At what part of the year would Dumbledore be invterviewing applicants for the upcomming school year? It would have to be before September 1st when the year starts. For the prophecy to be relevent to July of 1980, it would have had to occur after July of 1979. This leads me to believe that the prophecy was given between August 1st and August 31st of 1979.

S.E. Jones - Oct 3, 2006 4:28 pm (#467 of 1104)

Meoshimo --At what part of the year would Dumbledore be invterviewing applicants for the upcomming school year? It would have to be before September 1st when the year starts. For the prophecy to be relevent to July of 1980, it would have had to occur after July of 1979. This leads me to believe that the prophecy was given between August 1st and August 31st of 1979.--

It could also be before the end of the previous school year, like early spring, before Summer starts, so the teacher would have time to get things ready for the upcoming school term. We also know that it was rainy, not snowy or hot, so it was probably either fall or spring. So, it could be spring of 1980 or fall of 1979.

Mrs. Sirius - Oct 13, 2006 9:22 pm (#468 of 1104)

While reading HPB, today I noticed that when Dumbledore announces that Snape will be the new Defence against the Dark Aaarts teacher, Harry says bitterly (it's in Spanish so I don't have the quote)that maybe Snape will wind up like Quirrel and he will die. The quote is approximately "I'll cross my fingers to see if there is another death"

Hermione is aghast. Up till now JKR has kept Harry rather innocent and blameless. He has never said anything really nasty about anyone. If something unpleaseant had to be said Ron said it or the twins or Harry's dominates. This time Ron mitigates and says maybe Slughorn will leave and Snape will get his job back.

Other than the forshadowing value, why does JKR have Harry say such such a nasty thing? Is Harry going to remember that he said this and dread-regret DD's death even more? Is this just to have Harry regret his hasty harshness?

shadzar - Oct 13, 2006 11:34 pm (#469 of 1104)

Some food for thought....

Soul Search - Oct 13, 2006 9:58 am (#1714 of 1719)

If Voldemort marked Harry as his equal, might he use the letter "S" for Slytherin?

We have been deceived throughout the six books by references to Harry's "lighting bolt shaped" scar. It is really an "S."

shadzar - Oct 13, 2006 3:47 pm (#1715 of 1719) Edited Oct 13, 2006 4:27 pm

Soul Search:

If you look at Elder Futhark, a Nordic Runic "alphabet"; you will notice the looks almost exactly like Harry's scar. This character is representative of the letter S.

A closer "lightning shape" to what appears on her site when Peeves knocks over the picture to give you a hint what to draw on the bulletin board may be seen in Younger Futhark which was adopted in the 8th century, also standing for the letter S.

shadzar - Oct 13, 2006 5:27 pm (#1717 of 1719)

The fact that the "S"s are similar to Harry's scar could mean something in relation to the Slytherin snake-ish S. Whether Lightmaker decided on which lightning shape to use of JKR had some say would make a difference on its relevance.

If she approved the lightning shape then it may mean the one seen in the movies that closer resembled Elder Futhark, and the one on her website resembling Younger Futhark, could mean the source of the scar in a for of ancient runic magic. The ancient magic that protected Harry from the AK.

Since runestones are made of these runic symbols and are used for divination, it may give clues into Lily and her charm ability and the protection itself and where it came from and why she may or may not have known what it would mean to sacrifice herself for Harry; AND why LV possibly didn't want to kill her for her knowledge.

Then again it could all be some coincedence that the lightning shape is similar to the Futharks instead of having more "prongs" to the lightnings shape.

Now I figured i would transcribe this here for people to think about and add a bit mo to it that doesn't belong on JKR site thread where it was originally posted...

The funny thing is in the movies the scar is reversed from what appears on her site, and in the Futhark runes.

Now looking into Norse mythology you will note that Thor (OE Þórr, OD Þunor) is the God of Thunder. Thunder, of course, is the bringer of lightning.

Thor owns a short-handled war hammer, Mjolnir, which, when thrown at a target, returns magically to the owner. (Similar to LV's AK upon Harry.)

Thor travels in a chariot drawn by the goats. (Aberforth likes experimenting on goats.)

Þunor gave his name to the Old English day Þunresdæg, meaning the day of Þunor, known in Modern English as Thursday. (July 31, 1980 was a Thursday.)

Jörmungandr, alternately referred to as the Midgard Serpent or World Serpent, is a sea serpent of the Norse mythology.

In Norse mythology, Ragnarök ("fate of the gods") is the battle at the end of the world.

During Ragnarök, Thor will kill and be killed by Jörmungandr.

OK overlooking the humor of Thor's goats and Aberforth, the rest of the Norse connection could give way to the future of Harry. Considereing JKR said the last word in the book was scar, and being bored tonight while working on something, I just did a small search while waiting for my posts count to reset.

The Midgard Serpent(LV) and Thor(Harry) will kill each other in the "final battle" so to speak. Can these small links to LV and Harry be a tie in to the final conclusion of the series?

Thoughout the series we have seen the connection between his scar and LV grow stronger. But what has really been said about the reason the scar was the shape of a lightning bolt?

Could this have been completely overlooked until now by EVERYONE else and I am the first to mention it? I hope not, and if it has been mentioned and disproved and I missed it I apologize. Any possible credit if I am thought correct in my idea or if someone wants to make an essay about it should please include Soul Search as the person that gave me the idea.

What would the Norse connection to Harry be before he gets the scar? Could any other connections be drawn from Norse mythology? Odin should fight Fenrir, but Fenrir has already been captured, and Harry's father is dead. Many of the Norse gods on both sides die in the battle of Ragnarok. Are we looking at the death of Harry in this old tale?

Soul Search - Oct 14, 2006 6:06 am (#470 of 1104)

shadzar,

I don't know anything about Norse mythology. It has just bothered me that the prophecy said "mark him as his equal," we keep hearing that Harry's scar is that mark, but that the scar was evidence of the magic used by Lily. It has just seemed like something was missing about Harry's scar. It is an important part or the storyline, so JKR would have been rather careful when writing references to it. Yet, it all doesn't seem to fit.

Mark him as his equal has a active tense to it. Like Voldmeort first gave Harry an "S" shaped cut, then did the AK.

I also can't see Voldemort marking anyone as his equal. Voldmeort wouldnt acknowledge anyone as his equal.

Harry's scar is, of course, mentioned throughout the series. The word "scar" is said to be the last word in book seven. Harry's scar is a signal that Voldemort is near or emotionally strong. It played a major role in OotP. It is a symbol of Harry speaking Parsletongue and any other abilities inadvertently passed to him by Voldemort.

I just think Harry's scar will play an interesting role in book seven and we will discover how we have been deceived.

Nathan Zimmermann - Oct 14, 2006 9:27 am (#471 of 1104)

Shadzar, with your permission I would like to copy your post to the mythology thread?

journeymom - Oct 14, 2006 9:33 am (#472 of 1104)

I'm not sure that the scar is the only way LV 'marked' Harry. He also imparted his parseltongue abilities to him, and the mental connection. Harry wouldn't have had those abilities had LV hadn't attempted the AK on him.

wynnleaf - Oct 14, 2006 10:14 am (#473 of 1104)

I don't think "marked" in the prophecy necessarily meant an intentional marking, even if LV originally thought so. LV may have had a plan to intentionally "mark" Harry in some way, but the back-firing AK ultimately marked Harry in ways LV didn't foresee -- such as the parseltongue, mental connection, etc. Which one the scar on his head is, of course, not quite known -- an intentional scar from LV, or part of the back-firing AK. DD does call it a curse scar I think.

shadzar - Oct 14, 2006 12:13 pm (#474 of 1104)

Nathan Zimmermann: copy it wherever. Like I said Soul Search gave me the idea. I don't mind it being copied anywhere, I just would like to know if the idea has come up before or not and what peoples ideas on it are. Just so many references to Norse when I look back through to let them go unmentioned. Don't forget another lightning refence being the Tarot card "The Tower" which in most decks depicts The Tower of Babel being struck by lightning. Both noting a relationship to prophecies and possibly Thor again.

Nathan Zimmermann - Oct 14, 2006 1:17 pm (#475 of 1104)
Edited Oct 14, 2006 2:20 pm

Shadzar, there has been discussion about Harry's scar and its connection to runes in the past. Although, to the best of my knowledge the mythological connotations were not discussed. Lauren Markewicz, "+ Harry's scar and other rune symbols." #, 2 Jul 2005 9:55 am

shadzar - Oct 14, 2006 3:16 pm (#476 of 1104)

Oddly enough i googled and found a few occurences of "harry potter" and thor...421,000 english pages. One from Jan 22, 2005 on Veritaserum [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just makes me wonder why it had not been discussed here. Made me think since Thor was so well known that maybe it was already discounted because the simple and obvious connections.

Anywho... feel free like I said to copy it anywhere and make yoor own essay about it, whomever may want to. I don't care about idea credits or anything like that. I just enjoy the theorizing and the fact that she links so much into things I enjoy.

Soul Search - Oct 14, 2006 3:18 pm (#477 of 1104)
Edited Oct 14, 2006 4:21 pm

shadzar, Nathan Zimmermann, the idea of the "S" shaped scar was not original with my recent post. I have it in mind that I suggested it a while back, and someone referenced a topic where it had been discussed in depth. I can't recall details, however.

Choices - Oct 14, 2006 5:04 pm (#478 of 1104)

This is the name of the rune symbol (see below) that looks like lightening - very much like Harry's scar. I think this description sounds correct, especially the "sword of flame" (Gryffindor's sword) and the cleansing fire (Fawkes dying in flames and returning from the ashes). Also the victory, health and success - I hope!!! Go Harry.

Sowilo: (S: The sun.) Success, goals achieved, honor. The life-force, health. A time when power will be available to you for positive changes in your life, victory, health, and success. Contact between the higher self and the unconscious. Wholeness, power, elemental force, sword of flame, cleansing fire.

Nathan Zimmermann - Oct 14, 2006 5:13 pm (#479 of 1104)
Edited Oct 14, 2006 6:13 pm

Perhaps, the discussion on Harry's scar should continue here Lauren Markewicz, "+ Harry's scar and other rune symbols." #, 2 Jul 2005 9:55 am

shadzar - Oct 14, 2006 5:35 pm (#480 of 1104)

Sure Nathan, feel free to copy my little post thing synopsis there also if you think people want to discuss it. So hard to find where some of these thigns really belong, so i just placed them in the two threads i was able to find that seemed relavent.

Lina - Oct 15, 2006 11:47 am (#481 of 1104)

Mrs. Sirius, I think that Jo made Harry say something as harsh to show how strong Harry's feelings about Snape are. After the "incident" at the Tower, I guess his feelings will be only stronger.

Potter Ace - Oct 16, 2006 8:48 am (#482 of 1104)

I think the comments were before the Tower but I think that she made them to show that Harry would be and is taking a more active role in "saving the world". There is a threshold that Harry must cross (I think this comment is her way of showing his has done so) in accepting his role and become the leader he is meant to be, rather than a follower.

juliebug - Oct 17, 2006 12:18 pm (#483 of 1104)

I orignally posted this on another thread, in response to another post. I am also posting it here to give people a chance to respond without going off topic.

To be fair, Harry doesn't always leave the cloak behind out of carelessness. In PoA when he left it hidden in the secret passage, it was because that was a safer place than keeping it on himself. He knew he was going to be questioned about his whereabouts and the cloak would have gotten him in huge trouble. Later in the book, when he lets it fall off of himself while running toward to Whomping Willow, he is showing that his friend's safety is more important than the cloak. He couldn't keeping running and hold the cloak over himself and Herminone, so he chose to keep going after his friend, who was (as Harry believed) in great danger. Dumbledore's fall off of the tower is, I think, another prime example of Harry showing that he values the people who are closer to him more than possesions, even very valuable ones. The cloak can be replaced, they can't be that rare and hard to get. Moody's got two of them.

Yes, there were times when Harry was a bit careless with the cloak. Especially when he was younger, but in general, I think he's getting better about it.

Choices - Oct 17, 2006 5:09 pm (#484 of 1104)

Well said, Juliebug. I agree with you.

Mrs. Sirius - Oct 17, 2006 8:49 pm (#485 of 1104)
Edited Oct 17, 2006 9:53 pm

Yes Lina agree with that. But when I read this statement what I thought was Harry’s choice of words:

…personally, I’m going to keep my fingers crossed for another death.

# 1 Harry is wishing for the harm and he doesn't’t say “ I hope Snape dies in this job”, he is just keeping his fingers crossed -for another- death. From the be-careful-of-what-you-wish-for, he got that wish. Only that unnamed death turned out to be one he deeply regrets.

# 2 This statement is full of hate. Harry's great strength, is his capacity to love. Harry has an extremely difficult task ahead of him. I don't know if Harry will be able to get that job done when all the secrets the tie and inter connect all the people involved are revealed if he clings to his hate.

I re-read these books often because I discover all these little gems that I missed the first time or that I have since forgotten. This passage is in the chapter Snape Victorious.

In the previous chapter The Slug Club, Malfoy says to the Slytherin gang that maybe he will not be at Hogwarts next year. When Pansy protests, his response is “…I might have -er- moved on to bigger and better things.”

This too seems to be from the same files of being careful of what you wish for, you just might get it.

Madame Pomfrey - Oct 18, 2006 7:52 am (#486 of 1104)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 8:58 am

Mrs.Sirius.That's weird being that I am also doing a reread of HBP and read that part last night.I also thought to myself "be careful for what you wish for,Harry."

And I agree.His hatred will compromise his ability to destroy Voldemort. He needs to stray away from such thoughts and keep his feelings under control. Those components are necessary for non verbal magic as well as occlumency.

Lina - Oct 18, 2006 12:01 pm (#487 of 1104)

I agree that those are really interesting observations. I'm afraid that Harry will need another great loss before he stops hating. And you made me just a little bit more impatient in waiting for the last book...

S.E. Jones - Oct 18, 2006 2:10 pm (#488 of 1104)

You know, I'm always struck by Dumbledore's line to Harry about feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort. I think Harry needs to feel some sort of compassion for him, he needs to let go of his hatred. He seems so quiet, to me, after Dumbledore's death. There's no sign of the turmoil that he felt after Cedric and Sirius's deaths. He just seems quiet and determined, so maybe this was the death he needed to make him him let go.

--He needs to stray away from such thoughts and keep his feelings under control. Those components are necessary for non verbal magic as well as occlumency.--

I don't think he really needs to control his emotions that much. It was his emotions and his inability to close his mind that kept Voldemort from possessing him before, what hurt Voldemort before. Voldemort has long since burried his emotions, so I think it's important for Harry to continue to wear some of his on his sleeve.

legolas returns - Oct 18, 2006 2:24 pm (#489 of 1104)

I think that he deals with death in a more mature manner than he did in previous books. He is certain that Dumbledore is dead. He has happy memories and then waves of grief.

Wearing emotions on his sleave may not be such a good idea if he meets Snape. Emotions will not save him in this confrontation.

Emotions/love will save him from Voldemort.

LooneyLuna - Oct 18, 2006 4:01 pm (#490 of 1104)

I think it's been established that Harry cannot win a duel with Voldemort (same wand cores) or Snape. Harry may be powerful, but he's young and subtlety isn't a strong point. Since Snape's parting shot was basically, "shut your mouth and your mind." and we already know that Harry has trouble with Occlumency, I don't see how it is possible to win a duel with Snape. He cannot shut his mind, but he'll do more non-verbal spells, but Snape will still be able to block Harry's spells.

Harry will find another way to defeat Voldemort or Harry will destroy all the Horcruxes so another can kill Voldemort. I think that other will be Snape or Wormtail. I think Snape will help Harry if he sees Lily in Harry's mind. I envision a situation similiar to when Harry gets the memory from Slughorn. I can see Harry playing on Snape's soft spot (love? friendship?) for Lily.

If that makes any sense....Toddles off for tea at St. Mungos.

rambkowalczyk - Oct 18, 2006 7:19 pm (#491 of 1104)

…personally, I’m going to keep my fingers crossed for another death.

Astute observation to the person who noticed that Harry said this when discovering that Snape had the DADA job.

It is somewhat out of character for Harry to say this and overall this may be a weak point in JKR's writing.

Afterall why would he want Snape to die? THere is no love lost between them but really what did Snape do to deserve this? The only thing that comes to mind is in the previous chapter Harry finds it easier to blame Snape for Sirius' death because it makes him feel less guilty.

Harry's hatred toward Peter Pettigrew seems tame in comparison than his hatred toward Snape and Peter at least deserves the hate (mainly because he is unrepentant).

Mrs. Sirius - Oct 18, 2006 8:45 pm (#492 of 1104)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 9:50 pm

I think it's been established that Harry cannot win a duel with Voldemort (same wand cores) or Snape. Harry may be powerful, but he's young and subtlety isn't a strong point. Since Snape's parting shot was basically, "shut your mouth and your mind." and we already know that Harry has trouble with Occlumency, I don't see how it is possible to win a duel with Snape. He cannot shut his mind, but he'll do more non-verbal spells, but Snape will still be able to block Harry's spells. LooneyLuna

Harry being powerful isn’t the make or break point of these books. I do believe that Harry is powerful, but his magical power is not what will get him to win the fight of good verses evil. Snape’s parting shot to Harry, I see as evidence of where Snape actually stands. Dumbledore is gone, Harry’s great weakness is not being able to control his emotions. Snape gave Harry a last hint as to what he needs to do. When Harry learns the last of Snape’s secrets, his entwinements in his and Voldemorts paths, it is going to be emotional, (whatever his envolvement maybe). Harry will still need to be a master of his strengths in order to survive.

It is somewhat out of character for Harry to say this and overall this may be a weak point in JKR's writing. rambkowalczyk

Interesting rambkowalczyk, I see this, out of character remark, a strength in Jo’s writing. This was not something that slipped past her editing in my opinion. She is telling us here that despite Harry knowing that he has a difficult task, he is still a young boy with unmeasured and un-considered emotions.

Toddles off after LooneyLuna for tea at St. Mungos.

S.E. Jones - Oct 18, 2006 9:11 pm (#493 of 1104)

JKR has already told us that Harry wasn't good with Occlumency because he doesn't know how to shut down his emotions, but what about Legilimency? After all, it was a connection between Voldemort and Harry's minds that hurt Voldemort before. Also, could he find a way to control his emotions and learn Occlumency through learning Legilimency?

Lina - Oct 18, 2006 10:41 pm (#494 of 1104)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 11:41 pm

I hope that you are right, SE Jones, when you say that DD might be the great loss that Harry needed to stop hating. We haven't seen much of his hatred emotions after that and it is quite possible.

I also think that Harry carrying his emotions on his sleeve will be the key to destroying Voldemort.

And I don't expect him to fight Snape any more. Or if they get the opportunity to fight, there is no need for Harry to win, because Snape is not fighting against him.

Laura W - Oct 19, 2006 12:03 am (#495 of 1104)
Edited Oct 19, 2006 1:04 am

Just rereading OoP and the line of discussion on this thread reminds me of what McGonagall said to Harry in her office. She was referring to his interactions with Umbridge, but maybe it applies to Harry generally as well.

For heaven's sake, Potter! Do you really think this is about truth or lies? It's about keeping your head down and your temper under control! (p.224, Cdn. ed.)

Laura

S.E. Jones - Oct 19, 2006 12:43 am (#496 of 1104)
Edited Oct 19, 2006 1:44 am

There's a line of discussion on the "Hogwarts's Future: How The Teachers Voted" thread about how Harry is, in some ways, the new Dumbledore, and I was struck by my reading tonight how he sorta comes across in a very Dumbledoresk manner a couple times in HBP when dealing with Scrimgeor, it reminded me so vividly of Dumbledore's meeting with Fudge and Umbridge in his office, so polite and yet strong willed. The line that really struck me tonight, though, was a comment by Dumbledore. Throughout the beginning of the book and when they leave for the cave, Dumbledore tells Harry not to worry because "you are with me". However, when leaving the cave Dumbledore says, "I am not worried, Harry. I am with you." I found this line very moving in subsequent reads and I have to wonder if it isn't supposed to be somewhat symbolic of a Dumbledore passing the torch to Harry.

rambkowalczyk - Oct 19, 2006 3:18 am (#497 of 1104)

Interesting rambkowalczyk, I see this, out of character remark, a strength in Jo’s writing. This was not something that slipped past her editing in my opinion. She is telling us here that despite Harry knowing that he has a difficult task, he is still a young boy with unmeasured and un-considered emotions. Mrs Sirius

I find this amusing because in the Why I found book 6 so disappointing thread, Vulture has used a number of examples to show why he thought book 6 was inferior to book 5 and when I looked closer at the things he didn't like about book 6 I saw an overall purpose for these "weak" parts of book 6 which strengthen my opinion that it was a good book.

Ironically I do agree with your above assessment; it's just that I think that the transition of imagining that he was grinding Snape's head with the scarab beetles (in book 4 when Snape tells him about Veritaserum) to wishing for his death is unbelievable imho. Even Snape doesn't wish for Harry to be dead and we know how emotionally stunted he is. Smile

Soul Search - Oct 19, 2006 6:10 am (#498 of 1104)

S.E. Jones,

you are with me/"I am with you."

I, too, picked up on these Dumbledore lines. I think they say a lot.

Dumbledore is pleased with his work to groom Harry for his prophecy role. He might even be saying his work is done.

Dumbledore has passed the torch to Harry.

Madame Pomfrey - Oct 19, 2006 6:19 am (#499 of 1104)

Throughout the beginning of the book and when they leave for the cave, Dumbledore tells Harry not to worry because "you are with me". However, when leaving the cave Dumbledore says, "I am not worried, Harry. I am with you." I found this line very moving in subsequent reads and I have to wonder if it isn't supposed to be somewhat symbolic of a Dumbledore passing the torch to Harry. SE Jones

Ya know, I never connected the two. What has happened in the cave that enables the torch to be passed to Harry? I think you are right, The torch has been passed. Harry acts so mature and Dumbledorish at the end of HBP that I think in book 7 his maturity will surprise us. I can see Harry thinking things through before responding or asking himself "what would Dumbledore do?"

Die Zimtzicke - Oct 19, 2006 7:26 am (#500 of 1104)

I also think Harry needs to have another major loss to really focus on winning. He can't just take time off to be a normal kid anymore. He has to be completely in tune with his destiny. I htink tha'ts why Jo said she wrote her last Quidditch game. To lose someone else would fit a pattern...he haslost his parents, his godfather, his mentor...it has to be someone important to push him over the edge and give him resolve as I see it. As late a the end of OotP he was still wondering if he could kill if he had to, was he not? We don't know what he has to do, but he has to be prepared for anything. That takes total concentration.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:22 am

Madame Pomfrey - Oct 19, 2006 9:08 am (#501 of 1104)

Well..if the black,white and red thing is true then Hagrid is next and Hadrid is very important to Harry. Poor Harry. If that's what it takes for him to execute his destiny then so be it, but I do hate to see him suffer another loss. Die, don't you wish it could be Ginny instead of Hagrid?

Die Zimtzicke - Oct 19, 2006 9:14 am (#502 of 1104)

She's connected with red, too. LOL!

But I think either Molly, Ginny or Hagrid would hit Harry hard enough to buckle down. Even odds on those three. Lower odds on Lupin or McGonagall. Just my hunch...

S.E. Jones - Oct 19, 2006 1:07 pm (#503 of 1104)
Edited Oct 19, 2006 2:09 pm

Die Zimtzicke --I also think Harry needs to have another major loss to really focus on winning. He can't just take time off to be a normal kid anymore. He has to be completely in tune with his destiny.--

No, I think Dumbledore was the death he needed to focus on winning. He's been his protector since before he can remember and now he's no longer there. Harry is now very acutely aware that he's on his own, now, in terms of facing Voldemort, as we can see from the end of HBP. Sirius's death in OP told him he couldn't worry about childish things anymore, he needed to think like an adult; Dumbledore's death, I think, is what will force him to walk into the final confrontation with his head high and his shoulders square. He already has the will to win, he doesn't need more deaths to push him anymore. When Dumbledore asked him if he would walk away now, and let Harry think it over, he said basically "no, I'd want him dead and I'd want to do it" because he knows what Voldemort has done, knows who Voldemort has killed, and knows Voldemort will continue until he's stopped. I'm reminded of the scene in GoF at the graveyard as Harry hid behind the tombstone, he realized he was going to die there and so decided to meet death standing on his own two feet with his wand held high. It's the same scenario now. Dumbledore's gone and there's no buffer between him and Voldemort anymore, and he knows that, so he won't hide, he'll meet Voldemort head-on.

That being said, I think there will be more deaths, probably of major characters, simply because this is a war, but it won't be to motivate Harry anymore. His motivations are all in place. Now, JKR may want to motivate Ron or Hermione by killing off some of the Weasleys, but, as I said, Harry's motivations for finishing this conflict are already well established.

wynnleaf - Oct 20, 2006 7:51 am (#504 of 1104)

…personally, I’m going to keep my fingers crossed for another death.

It is somewhat out of character for Harry to say this and overall this may be a weak point in JKR's writing.

rambkowalczyk,

I actually think this is in character for Harry, but only in regards Snape. Back in GOF we saw Harry imagining torturing Snape with cruciatus. And his hatred of him only increased in OOTP. So I don't think this comment by Harry is out of character. JKR seems, with her comment about Harry's hatred of Snape to be more personal, to have wanted to intensify his hatred of Snape.

Will it take another death to change Harry? Hm. I think it would depend on how the other death took place. I would love to see Harry look at the deaths that have already occurred, particularly Sirius and DD, and consider them in a different light. I think it would take a completely different approach to a death for another character's death to actually change Harry's perspective, when the deaths to date have only increased his hatred.

While another death (if approached differently) could change Harry, it's also possible that some catalyst that would cause him to re-evaluated the previous deaths could also change him.

cindysuewho45 - Oct 22, 2006 1:11 am (#505 of 1104)

Hi all, Yes I agree with you about another death, in one of JKR's interviews she was talking with her husband about book 7. And he said Oh no, you can not do that! And she said, she did! I can not remember all of the interview in detail just now, but I'm thinking that it had to do with someone's death. At first I was thinking that it would be Molly. After all JKR did lose her own Mom, and this would be a way for her to share her feelings about that. How it would be for Arther, Bill, Ron, Ginny, Fred etc. etc. and Harry. It would be a great loss for Harry, but how hard would it be for Harry to see all of them go through something like that? But Hagrid is a good guess also!

S.E. Jones - Oct 22, 2006 8:38 pm (#506 of 1104)

There was a Harry topic brought up on the Crookshanks thread and I thought I'd move it here:

--------------------------------------
S.E. Jones - Oct 12, 2006 2:50 pm (#35)
I think Crookshanks could be helpful in the future for finding objects that have been magiced as Harry doesn't yet have Dumbledore's ability to see the imprint magic leaves behind.

Solitaire - Oct 22, 2006 7:00 pm (#36)
Harry doesn't yet have Dumbledore's ability to see the imprint magic leaves behind

I agree he doesn't have DD's ability ... but he certainly seemed to know that there was something odd about the Diary, even before it "showed itself" to him. He took it back to his room where it was quiet and he could concentrate on it ... what it was and how it worked. I sometimes think Harry simply needs to pay closer attention to little things in his surroundings. I believe he has abilities he has not tapped, because he doesn't take the time to stop, look, listen, and "feel" what is around him.

Harry has a tendency to plow into situations with his wand drawn, completely focused on the task at hand and blocking out extraneous clues. This isn't a criticism, necessarily ... lots of people operate this way. Get in, fix the problem fast, and get out. We all know that it is possible to concentrate on details so intently that we can miss the big picture. No matter how urgent the matter at hand, Dumbledore seems to gather his wits about him and "register" all of the details of a situation. When Harry learns to do this, I think a lot of his "latent" abilities will shine.
--------------------------------------

Solitaire --I believe he has abilities he has not tapped, because he doesn't take the time to stop, look, listen, and "feel" what is around him.--

You know, I think you have something there. I re-read over the cave scene just two nights ago and found this line that's been knawing at me....

It has known magic, said Dumbledore simply.
Harry could not tell whether the shivers he was experiencing weredue to his spine-deep coldness or to the same awareness of enchantments.

It could be an example of this "awareness" kicking in already. Maybe we'll see more of it in Book 7. JKR did say his powers will start to grow, afterall.

P.S. Funnily enough, I nearly posted this yesterday to this thread.

Saracene - Oct 23, 2006 3:45 am (#507 of 1104)

I wasn't really surprised by Harry's "fingers crossed for another death" remark in HBP, seeing that a few pages before the book made it clear that his hatred for Snape rose to a whole new level after Sirius' death.

Does anyone BTW find it interesting that Harry doesn't seem to feel anywhere as much hatred for Pettigrew as he did for Sirius when he believed him guilty of betraying his parents? Is it because Pettigrew is just so pathetic and cowardly that he would mostly inspire contempt?

I also think that, although DD says that Harry is protected from temptation of the Dark Arts by his ability to love, in a way love is rather intertwined with hatred here. Because Voldemort killed his parents, it means that Harry would never join him since he'd hate Voldemort forever and always want revenge.

rambkowalczyk - Oct 23, 2006 4:34 am (#508 of 1104)

Does anyone BTW find it interesting that Harry doesn't seem to feel anywhere as much hatred for Pettigrew as he did for Sirius when he believed him guilty of betraying his parents? Is it because Pettigrew is just so pathetic and cowardly that he would mostly inspire contempt? Sarecene

agreed. on both counts. I previously contrasted Harry's reaction to Snape whose death he wishes for and Pettigrew who although he feels guilty about letting him go free, there is no lingering hat. Maybe it is because Pettigrew is pathetic.

I suppose the difference is with Pettigrew, he was somewhat forced into his position as betrayer. He did not want to die. But, I think Pettigrew is deceiving Harry. He comes off pathetic and miserable but he doesn't say he's sorry. Compare this with Barty Crouch Jr who acted just as miserable at his trial for torturing the Longbottoms.

Laura W - Oct 24, 2006 1:18 am (#509 of 1104)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 2:21 am

When I first read the second paragraph in your post, Saracene , I thought, "What a good point!"

It still is, but I think I might have come up with an answer... sort of. It has to do with the difference between Sirius' previous relationship with James and Peter's previous relationship with James. Especially as Harry saw it (which happens to be true, in this case).

That conversation Harry overheard in the Three Broomsticks in PoA. McGonagall says that Sirius was James' best friend at Hogwarts and that you "never saw one without the other." Flitwick chimes in, "You'd have thought Black and Potter were brothers." All this Harry heard and believed. Then he went back to the dormitory and took out the album Hagrid had given him first year. His parents' wedding picture included a smiling best man. The fact that it was Sirius Black once again attested to the closeness between the Potters and Black. This made Sirius' apparent betrayal all the more treacherous and vicious to Harry.

Even though Peter was one of the Marauders, he obviously had a different and less intimate relationship with the murdered couple - and James in particular -, which is why I believe Harry didn't see it in *exactly* the same way when he found out what Pettigrew had done.

Just guessing, of course.

Laura

S.E. Jones - Oct 24, 2006 2:06 am (#510 of 1104)

Laura, you could also add that Sirius had been picked as Harry's godfather to attest to their closeness. Not only did James believe in Sirius enough to consider him a brother and make him his best man, but he trusted him enough to entrust his son to Sirius upon his death. That certainly makes it far more personal than anything we see with Peter.

Laura W - Oct 24, 2006 2:17 am (#511 of 1104)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 3:20 am

Blimey, how could I have forgotten that one when I gave my examples above?! (blush) That fact came out during the Three Broomsticks conversation too, of course. Hagrid reveals it.

Laura

Madame Pomfrey - Oct 24, 2006 7:25 am (#512 of 1104)

It has known magic, said Dumbledore simply. Harry could not tell whether the shivers he was experiencing weredue to his spine-deep coldness or to the same awareness of enchantments.SE Jones

I have wondered about this,too. I think Harry is experiencing sensations associated with magical concealment even though he might not realize it. Harry's neck hairs prickle alot throughout the HP series. I know alot of it is heebie Jeebies but I wonder if some of it may be something else. For example:

From SS " Harry felt strangely as though he had enterd a very strict library;he swallowed alot of new questions that had just occured to him and looked instead at the thousands of narrow boxes piled neatly right up to the ceiling. For some reason, the back of his neck prickled. The very dust and silence in here seemed to tingle with some secret magic."

Did he experience the prickling because he had just glanced at the boxes concealing magic wands?

Nathan Zimmermann - Oct 25, 2006 10:52 am (#513 of 1104)

A thought occurred to is it possible that to an extent that force of the love and goodness demonstrated by Lily's choice to sacrifice herself to save Harry negated or muted to an extent the evil of the killing curse that Voldemort attempted to perform on Harry.

Is it possible that force of Lily's sacrifice and force of Voldemort's curse deflected each other to the extent that although scarred Harry survived because the force of Lily sacrificial act caused the killing curse to be deflected back at Voldemort destroying his mortal body. However, his spirit endured because he had created the Horcruxes.

haymoni - Oct 25, 2006 11:04 am (#514 of 1104)

I think that is exactly it, Nathan.

Some sort of "shield" was created by her sacrifice.

Nathan Zimmermann - Oct 25, 2006 11:41 am (#515 of 1104)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 12:57 pm

I had another thought on the subject I would supplement my earlier by saying that the interaction between Lily's Sacrifice and the Killing Curse was sufficient to destroy Voldemort's mortal body it was not powerful enough to destroy the portion of Voldemort's soul that resided within his body and that however maimed it is survived to wander aimlessly living as a parasite until it was restored to its body.

I miscalculated, my friends, I admit it. My curse was deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice, and it rebounded upon myself. Aaah . . . pain beyond pain, my friends; nothing could have prepared me for it. I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost . . . but still, I was alive. What I was, even I do not know . . . I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality. You know my goal – to conquer death. And now, I was tested, and it appeared that one or more of my experiments worked . . . for I had not been killed, though the curse should have done it. Nevertheless, I was as powerless as the weakest creature alive. . ."(GoF Large Print Edition page 832).

You think he succeeded then, sir? asked "he made a Horcrux? and that's why he didn't die when he attackme? He had a Horcrux hidden somewhere? A bit of his soul was safe?" " A bit . . . or more," sad Dumbledore.(HBP Large Print Edition pages 637-38).

The seventh part of his soul however maimed , resides in his regenerated body. (HBP Large Print Edition page 642).

haymoni - Oct 25, 2006 11:47 am (#516 of 1104)

It can't be destroyed. Not until all the Horcruxes are destroyed.

T Vrana - Oct 25, 2006 11:55 am (#517 of 1104)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 12:56 pm

I don't think a soul can be destroyed, not even by an AK. Its host (body, horcrux) can be destroyed. In a normal death the body and soul are seperated, with the soul going beyond the veil, I think. Since LV has bits of his soul anchored to this side of the veil in horcruxes, even though his body was destroyed, his soul remained bound to this side of the veil.

S.E. Jones - Oct 25, 2006 12:06 pm (#518 of 1104)

I'm not really sure where the speculation is, this is all stuff we knew already. Were you going in a particular direction with your last couple posts Nathan? Or just thinking aloud... or rather posting aloud?

Nathan Zimmermann - Oct 25, 2006 12:29 pm (#519 of 1104)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 2:06 pm

I am going in a particular direction yes I was attempting to point out that these two equal and opposite forces were in play that night and that their interaction could have resulted in the destruction of the House at Godric's Hollow and cancelled out all other charms placed on the house. I would argue that the Fidelius Charm cast over the Potters including Harry, could have been negated by the force of the interaction between the two opposing forces thereby rendering Godric's Hollow visible and rendering a rendering the need for a revelation by Pter Pettigrew null and void, while, enabling Sirius, and Hagrid to find Harry in the rubble.

I assert that Dumbledore learned of an attack in Godric's Hollow and sent Hagrid to investigate and arriving on the scene he finds Sirius there with Harry and Hagrid learns of the deaths of James and Lily. Hagrid communicates this to Dumbledore who orders Hagrid to bring Harry to him because he suspects Sirius of being the traitor because, he is not privy to the Potters plan. I would assert that knowingen Voildemort seemingly died while, attempting to cast the Killing Curse on Harry I doubt Petter given his naature would attempted to do so but, that he fled the scene taking Voldemort's wand with him.

I tend to think that if someone were under the cloak it would have been Peter because, given the fact that he semingly lack the courage skill and talent of the other Marauders it seems likely that to me that Petre came to see the Potters while he was their Voldemort showed up and killed James and Lily. Peter witnessness the effect that attempting to kill Harry had on Voldemort would not have been likely to attempt a killing curse of Harry for fear of the same thing happening twice.

However, I accidently posted my thoughts as two separate posts I meant for them to be encompassed in a single post as a lead into this post.

haymoni - Oct 25, 2006 12:44 pm (#520 of 1104)

Since this had never happened before, it is completely possible that it knocked out any other spell/enchantment cast on the house.

I doubt anyone would be willing to duplicate it so...

S.E. Jones - Oct 25, 2006 1:57 pm (#521 of 1104)

Nathan --I assert that Dumbledore learned of an attack in Godric's Hollow and sent Hagrid to investigate and arriving on the scene he finds Sirius there with Harry and Hagrid learns of the deaths of James and Lily. Hagrid communicates this to Dumbledore who orders Hagrid to bring Harry to him because he suspects Sirius of being the traitor because, he is not privy to the Potters plan.--

Actually, if you read what was said by Hagrid in PoA, Hagrid got there first and Sirius was arriving just as Hagrid pulled Harry out of the rubble. Sirius wants Hagrid to give him Harry, but Hagrid asserts that Dd said he was to go to his Aunt and Uncle (as in he had previous orders). This makes it sound more like Hagrid already knew where Harry was to go before Sirius showed up. He also makes it sound like Dumbledore may have already known James and Lily were dead by assuming that Sirius had heard the news and came to help.

Here's Hagrid's account of things: "It was me what rescued Harry from Lily an' James's house after they was killed! Jus' got him outta the ruins, poor little thing, with a great slash across his forehead, an' his parents dead... an' Sirius Black turns up, on that flyin' motorbike he used ter ride. Never occurred to me what he was doin' there. I didn't know he'd bin Lily an' James's Secret-Keeper. Thought he'd jus' heard the news o' You-Know-Who's attack an' come ter see what he could do.... An' he says, 'Give Harry ter me, Hagrid, I'm his godfather, I'll look after him - ' Ha! But I'd had me orders from Dumbledore, an' I told Black no, Dumbledore said Harry was ter go ter his aunt an' uncle's. Black argued, but in the end he gave in." (PoA10, p207, US)

Nathan Zimmermann - Oct 25, 2006 2:32 pm (#522 of 1104)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 3:33 pm

S.E. I had forgotten about that passage it certainly changes some aspects of my reasoning. although, there are two points which are affected

1. I still think the effect of the Fidelus Charm may have been cancelled out by interaction of the two opposing forces of Lily's sacrifice for Harry and the Killing Curse.

2. If Peter were present at the time of the attack I doubt he would have attempted to kill Harry after seeing what happened to Voldemort, nor would he have waited at Godric's Hollow I think would have taken Voldemort's wand and fled the scene.

cindysuewho45 - Oct 27, 2006 6:28 am (#523 of 1104)

Hi all, Well it looks like a few people could of known about what happened. For Hagrid to think that Sirius, "just heard the news" and showed up to help. Maybe DD had someone staying there in Godric's Hollow, just down the road, looking after them. Like he did with Harry, at #4PD. And they let a handful of people know what had happened. I am looking forward to seeing Harry at Godric's Hollow, I think as Harry looks around and starts to find things there, it will help him learn to use some of his powers. And help him understand a few things. I feel that as Harry goes through book 7, and takes care of the different Horcruxes. He will be learning how to understand his power, use his power, and start to find out what he can do on his own. Going home may start this all out for him. Harry will find out what kinds of things / powers that he got from his Mom and Dad. And also learn more about the powers that LV gave him that night, I'm sure that they will all come in handy. I like to think that Harry will learn to be a powerful wizard in his own right, with what he finds out about his parents. And that all of the powers that he got from LV, he will only have to use a little bit. So he can see at last, that even though LV and he started out being alot alike they are not at all alike any more.

S.E. Jones - Oct 27, 2006 9:28 am (#524 of 1104)

I always figured the "just heard the news" comment was because Hagrid thought Dumbledore had notified a few members of the Order instead of just him.

wynnleaf - Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm (#525 of 1104)

I always figured the "just heard the news" comment was because Hagrid thought Dumbledore had notified a few members of the Order instead of just him.

Although we know that DD did not notify McGonagall. Hagrid told her. I'd guess that if he didn't tell McGonagall, DD didn't tell anyone in the Order other than Hagrid (whatever Hagrid may have thought). That is, he didn't tell them immediately. That wasn't what he was doing that morning. Wouldn't McGonagall have gotten some sort of patronus about it if DD was telling Order members?

T Vrana - Oct 27, 2006 2:20 pm (#526 of 1104)
Edited Oct 27, 2006 3:21 pm

I assumed DD told Hagrid, and Hagrid alone, at first, because he knew he could trust him. There was the question of who leaked the Potters whereabouts. Also, as I recall, didn't DD send Hagrid as the only escort for Harry at some poitn after LV's return. Harry was expecting a contingent of Aurors and it was just Hagrid? It seems DD thinks Hagrid adequate protection, so sending Hagrid to get baby Harry was

1) He trusted him

2) Hagrid can protect Harry

Don't recall who posted it, but I like the idea that James and Sirius had the mirrors Sirius and Harry had, and let Sirius know there was trouble. Question is, could James tell Sirius where he was?

S.E. Jones - Oct 27, 2006 2:45 pm (#527 of 1104)
Edited Oct 27, 2006 3:51 pm

Wynnleaf, I meant that Hagrid just thought Dd may have been informing Order members, (and, in Hagrid's mind, who else who Dd send a patronus to but James's closests friends?) not that Dd actually did. We know, as you pointed out, that he didn't.

T Vrana, I'm sure James and Sirius both would've made sure Sirius was in on the secret the moment Peter became Secret-Keeper. I don't think that James informed Sirius of trouble because Sirius, in his own words, says he was there just because he felt something may have gone wrong when he couldn't find Peter and wanted to make sure James and his family were alright. That also indicates that he was in on the secret.

The night they died, I'd arranged to check on Peter, make sure he was safe, but when I arrived at his hiding place, he'd gone. Yet there was no sign of a struggle. It didn't feel right. I was scared. I set out for your parents' house straight away. And when I saw their house, destroyed, and their bodies... (PoA19, p365, US)

T Vrana - Oct 27, 2006 3:06 pm (#528 of 1104)

se- Thanks, forgot that, had liked the mirror theory, oh well...

Liz Mann - Feb 13, 2007 4:57 am (#529 of 1104)

I don't know if this has been discussed or not (probably has) but I need to bring it up for the purposes of my own sanity. since it has been bothering me all day.

I am currently re-reading HBP for the first time since I bought it (I've had a lot of assigned reading for classes and I have re-read the entire series) and I found something that I had completely forgotten about regarding Horcruxes and soul splitting. It worried me before and it's worrying me now.

Slughorn told Riddle: "You must understand that the soul is meant to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature... (You do it) By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a horcrux would use the damage to his advantage."

If what Slughorn says is true then wouldn't killing Voldemort split Harry's soul? And would Harry want to live if he had to do so with his soul damaged and a feeling of being 'against nature'?

The thing is, first Slughorn uses the word 'murder' and then the word 'killing'. Does killing another person always split your soul, whatever the circumstances, or does it have to be murder? (Of course it's a matter of opinion whether or not all killing is murder.) If it's all kinds of killing then what does that say about the Aurors who were given permission to kill suspected Death Eaters? All the people who have ever been to war?

Murder is definined in the dictionary on Microsoft Word as "The crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defence or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law." So, if it is specifically murder that splits your soul, then does that mean that if the Ministry exempted Harry from the laws on killing, like they did the Aurors, Harry's soul would be safe?

What do you guys think?

haymoni - Feb 13, 2007 5:56 am (#530 of 1104)

There is a thread going on the AK and the morality of killing. You might want to flip through that.

My personal feeling is that there is a big difference between killing the most evil wizard of all time and going out and murdering someone to gain power.

Again, though, it's Jo's world and Jo's souls. If she thinks that killing someone under any circumstances tears your soul, then that will be that.

The real point that Slughorn is making though is that the truly sick individual uses the killing to their advantage - they create a Horcrux. Tom Riddle is so morally bankrupt that he is not concerned about the consequences.

I could see Harry's soul being torn, but I forgive him.

verde823 - Feb 13, 2007 7:34 am (#531 of 1104)

I'm having big problems with this too. When Harry says he's got to try to kill Voldemort, Dumbledore jumps in and says of course you've got to try. Which does not sit well with me, because Dumbledore is always telling Harry that his most powerful weapon against Voldemort is love. There is a difference though, between killing someone because of a total disregard for life, and self defense. But, I think it will be more than that. I don't know what the above conversation really meant, but I don't think Harry is going to use the AK curse to kill. You need hatred for that, and I don't think Harry is capable of real, true hatred.

haymoni - Feb 13, 2007 7:54 am (#532 of 1104)

I think Harry has enough hatred at 17 to kill Voldy.

He holds Voldy responsible for the death of his parents, the condition of the Longbottoms, the death of Sirius, the ruination of the Crouch family, the dilemma of Draco - he knows that Voldy is the source of all this grief and evil.

I think he could be very successful at an AK on Voldy. Maybe even Bella. I'm not sure about Snape.

wynnleaf - Feb 13, 2007 8:25 am (#533 of 1104)

Speaking of Harry's hatred, isn't it interesting that Harry never seeks any revenge or even punishment for Kreacher. Harry focuses his anger over Sirius' death on Snape, because of Snape goading Sirius about being a "coward." But Kreacher is far more culpable as the house-elf who betrayed his master and worked with other Black relatives to ultimately lead Harry to the MOM and lead Sirius to his death.

Kreacher is in Harry's control throughout HBP. Yet Harry never even berates him for what he did. He even uses Kreacher's services to spy on Draco (with oversight by Dobby, of course). Here is this house-elf, who Harry could punish in all manner of ways, and he doesn't even yell at him.

I think that's very interesting and could give us a lot of insight into Harry.

T Vrana - Feb 13, 2007 8:31 am (#534 of 1104)

Liz mann, On Harry's soul, I think, if it was torn, it would heal. He would have a scar, but not a permanently torn and damaged soul. Even in the real world, someone who kills in war or in self defense carries that with them forever.

But I'm hoping Harry won't directly kill LV...

haymoni - Feb 13, 2007 8:44 am (#535 of 1104)

I think Harry realizes that Kreacher is a wacko. He won't ever trust him, but he's not going to punish him.

Mrs Brisbee - Feb 13, 2007 8:54 am (#536 of 1104)

Kreacher didn't have the choice of picking his allegiance in the first place. Maybe Harry realizes this. Kreacher was pretty clear that the only reason he was serving Sirius and the Order was because he was compelled to do so. And, as haymoni points out, he's wacko.

HungarianHorntail11 - Feb 13, 2007 8:56 am (#537 of 1104)

Despite his intense anger, Harry always listens to what DD has to say. He told him Kreacher was a product of his surroundings and Harry took his word for it.

I think DD told Harry he must try to kill Big V in an effort to get through to Harry that this will not go away until he takes an aggressive stand against him. It is one thing to duck his blows and entirely another to actively seek and destroy his horcruxes. No sign of him actually killing there.

It seems to to me as though Big V will hang himself - Harry will provide the rope. There has been a vein of events where Big V has made mistakes - at least one in every book - to his detriment and Harry has walked off licking his wounds.

Chemyst - Feb 13, 2007 9:00 am (#538 of 1104)

I go with the Big V hanging (or AK'ing) himself too.

Harry won't become a murderer. I doubt Harry will become a killer either. I imagine LV will try to murder Harry however, and that the "first part" of Harry to die will be the portion of the blood LV transfused into his own veins. Voldemort, who has literally spent (used up, depleted) his life by trying to preserve it, will discover too late that his attempt to kill Harry resulted in committing suicide. (I haven't worked out what becomes to "the rest of Harry" yet.)

Liz Mann - Feb 13, 2007 9:09 am (#539 of 1104)

Harry always listens to what DD has to say.

He doesn't listen to him about Snape.

On the subject of Harry's hatred, he definitely hates Snape. Whether or not he could actually kill Snape, I don't know. He seems to imply it at the end of book 6, but he also thought he wanted to kill Sirius and then when he got the chance to he found he couldn't go through with it.

I also like the idea of Voldemort bringing about his own destruction, with Harry providing the catylist.

HungarianHorntail11 - Feb 13, 2007 9:16 am (#540 of 1104)

He doesn't listen to him about Snape. Liz Mann

I know what you mean, Liz, but there are subtle hints that he does "hear" what DD says, and that is what I mean. Example: In OotP, Harry is described as standing between the two (Snape and Sirius) when they are arguing in the kitchen. Harry doesn't throw himself in front of Sirius but rather between them. JKR could very easily have written that but chose not to.

Chemyst, I'm still trying to work that "glint" in DD's eye and the "Harry's blood" into the big picture, here, as I feel it will come into play with regard to the horcruxes and his demise.

Magic Words - Feb 13, 2007 9:37 am (#541 of 1104)

I agree that if Harry directly kills Voldemort (which he may or may not) his soul will tear. However, it would heal easily because I'm betting the healing process has a lot to do with love and forgiveness. It's also possible that the nature of the killing (in defense of himself and others, against someone no longer fully human) will make the tear less serious to begin with.

Liz Mann - Feb 13, 2007 10:48 am (#542 of 1104)

There's nothing in the books to suggest that a soul can heal.

T Vrana - Feb 13, 2007 10:59 am (#543 of 1104)

True. But doesn't it seem reasonable that the soul can heal, just as the body can heal? If two wizards each commit a murder, and only one felt remorse and tried to redeem himself, do you think their souls would have the same damage long term? I tend to think that there is the chance to redeem oneself and heal one's soul. You would still end up with a scarred soul.

Thom Matheson - Feb 13, 2007 11:02 am (#544 of 1104)

Chicks dig scars

juliebug - Feb 13, 2007 11:03 am (#545 of 1104)

And Hungarian Horntail tatoos.

T Vrana - Feb 13, 2007 11:04 am (#546 of 1104)

Thom

.....what kind of 'chicks'....?

Thom Matheson - Feb 13, 2007 11:08 am (#547 of 1104)

Tag line from the movie "The Replacements". It was part of a "Win one for the Gipper" type speech.

Liz Mann - Feb 13, 2007 1:31 pm (#548 of 1104)

But doesn't it seem reasonable that the soul can heal, just as the body can heal? If two wizards each commit a murder, and only one felt remorse and tried to redeem himself, do you think their souls would have the same damage long term? I tend to think that there is the chance to redeem oneself and heal one's soul.

Actually, all this souls stuff sounds very Christian, and when you've committed a sin (like murder) can't you gain God's forgiveness by confessing your sins? So I suppose it could be possible to heal a person's soul, even if it will still be scarred.

wynnleaf - Feb 13, 2007 1:44 pm (#549 of 1104)

I don't have my books here. What exactly is the canon evidence that all killing (not just murder) "tears" the soul, or splits it?

I thought it was specifically murder that did that. I don't consider it murder if Harry has to kill Voldemort, although I realize the ethical views on that differ.

Liz Mann - Feb 13, 2007 1:58 pm (#550 of 1104)

You must understand that the soul is meant to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature... (You do it) By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a horcrux would use the damage to his advantage.

First he used the word 'murder' but then 'killing'.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:30 am

geauxtigers - Feb 13, 2007 2:04 pm (#551 of 1104)

Just to get my opinion thrown out there..

The 'Glint" in Dumbledore's eyes. That is going to play a part in Vold's defeat. I just have this feeling it will (then again I also had that feeling that DD wasn't dead).

I believe that the soul can heal. So if Harry were put in the position to kill Vold, I could forgive him for lack of a better term. No it doesn't say that a soul can heal, but it also never says it can't. I guess its just what you think, I thnk there is a difference between murder and killing. Voldemort has made it his life-mission to kill anyone who stands in his path to immortality and some of them he does it for the heck of it. None of those murders were self defense, none of them. They were all cold-blood murders, he killed them, but he killed them by murdering.

Harry, should he be put in the postion to kill Voldemort, he will kill him, but not murder him. It will be self defense in my opinion. Harry has been escaping him all these years, avoided death by Vold five times. I would classify any killing of VOld by Harry as self defense. If Vold had never done any of the things he did and never tried to kill Harry, but Harry killed him for the heck of it and not in self defense.

I also believe that his soul would heal if it is indeed torn. He is ridding the world of the most evil man alive. I think he will be able to over come that in the end. Love conquers all. But I think think there will be something else in realtaion to the 'glint' that will lead to Voldemort's downfall. I don't think Harry will use the AK, Jo will have something creative up her sleeve that will shock us all!

timrew - Feb 13, 2007 4:23 pm (#552 of 1104)

Liz Mann:- There's nothing in the books to suggest that a soul can heal.

Are you suggesting, Liz, that a pair of shoes can't be soled and heeled. If you don't mind me saying so, I think that's a load of cobblers..............

HungarianHorntail11 - Feb 13, 2007 4:42 pm (#553 of 1104)

SPEW, timrew!

Quidditch Mom - Feb 16, 2007 3:45 am (#554 of 1104)

I've always hoped that Harry could somehow "kill" the Dark Lord, Voldemort, the wizard...while Tom Riddle the person survived. I really hate to see Harry have to deal with the emotional aftermath of murdering someone (even though Voldemort certainly deserves it). Harry's been through so much already.

Wouldn't it be worse than death to Voldemort to live as a squib, especially looking like a deformed snake? He could work for a traveling circus, or sell his picture to the National Enquirer for food money. True poetic justice!

haymoni - Feb 16, 2007 5:42 am (#555 of 1104)

I must be truly heartless, but I have no qualms about Harry killing Voldy.

I also think that Harry will be able to cope just fine with the fact that he killed such an awful person.

Liz Mann - Feb 16, 2007 7:38 am (#556 of 1104)

I don't think he'll be able to cope just fine. I don't think he'll regret it, because he knows it was the right thing, but I think he would be disturbed by what he's done and will undoubtedly be haunted by it for the rest of his life, even if he's mostly fine. He'll probably be haunted by the whole thing, not just killing Voldemort but the entire war and all the people who lost their lives.

HungarianHorntail11 - Feb 16, 2007 9:14 am (#557 of 1104)

I agree. I think when DD questioned Harry if he felt sorry for Riddle, it showed that Harry's compassion has no boundaries. Still, he has a job to do. I'd say that is a form of courage - doing something that goes against your grain. I really don't think Harry fears for his own life.

EDIT: I forgot to add that I like that idea, Quidditch Mom! He'd have to be the mop boy for HW which of course would be run by the Weasleys.

LooneyLuna - Feb 16, 2007 5:52 pm (#558 of 1104)

I think Harry's soul will remain intact. "No Unforgivables for you, Potter!" I think another wizard, one whose soul is already torn asunder, will AK Voldemort. Harry will destroy the horcruxes, leaving Voldemort all too vulnerable to someone else.

Lina - Feb 16, 2007 11:53 pm (#559 of 1104)

I don't think that she will let someone else finish Harry's business. I may be wrong, but I see this series to be describing real life. Voldemort is plain Evil and I think that the Evil can not be defeated with Evil because it produces new Evil. So I hope Harry will really defeat Voldemort with Love somehow. I'm pretty sure that, by defeating Voldemort, not all the Evil will disappear, someone else will show up, because the fighting Evil is never finished, but I don't expect this new Evil to come from Harry. So, if she sees things the same way as me, Harry will defeat Voldemort with plain Good, being determined, but good. And he will get help, but not in a way that someone else does his work for him. JM2K.

HungarianHorntail11 - Feb 17, 2007 12:14 pm (#560 of 1104)

Well said, Lina. There are a number of ways that can transpire, as well. Not sure what will come after, though - JKR might not even get into that. Perhaps, too, I am taking "none will come after" too literally.

Solitaire - Feb 17, 2007 9:13 pm (#561 of 1104)

I must be truly heartless, but I have no qualms about Harry killing Voldy.

I'm with you, Haymoni! I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. I'm not sure Harry will, either. He didn't seem terminally affected by destroying the Diary Riddle. I'll admit Harry would be bothered by having to kill someone, but I think it is preferable to Jo introducing some great deus ex machina to relieve him of the responsibility of making that choice--something I said over on the thread about the morality of killing.

I believe that it is going to come to a showdown between Harry and Voldemort, and it will be kill or be killed. Not all choices are between a bad alternative and a good one. Sometimes all the alternatives are distasteful, and one must choose the one which will bring the greatest good in the long run. I simply do not believe Harry is going to be able to remain a pure, innocent child. And should he? In real life, evil is not conquered without loss. Maybe the price is Harry's innocence.

Solitaire

TomProffitt - Feb 18, 2007 4:20 am (#562 of 1104)

Always remember Quirrel's death when thinking about Harry killing Riddle, too. Harry may not have directly killed Quirrel, but his actions were very involved in Quirrel's death and Harry doesn't seem to have been too deeply upset by it.

Lina - Feb 18, 2007 6:29 am (#563 of 1104)

True, Tom. Something like that exactly I expect to happen with Voldemort as well. Harry's actions were involved in Quirrel's death, but also Quirrel's actions were involved even more (he was doomed as soon as he let Voldemort share his body), not to mention Voldemort's involvement. It is Harry's job to destroy all the Horcruxes and that will be the biggest contribution in Voldemort's death, but the last move I expect from Voldemort.

Is it possible that the Horcruxes get destroyed by AK too? Maybe that's why Snape cast the AK, but neither him, neither DD knew that it was not a Horcrux that DD was holding? Oh, well, this is probably not a question for this thread...

Choices - Feb 18, 2007 9:57 am (#564 of 1104)

I used to worry about Harry causing harm to his soul and I felt Dumbledore would not want that to happen, but this exchange between Dumbledore and Harry in HBP made me change my mind......

....Look at Madam Bones, look at Emmeline Vance.....It could be me next, couldn't it? But if it is, he (Harry) said fiercely, now looking straight into Dumbledore's blue eyes gleaming in the wandlight, "I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with me as I can, and Voldemort too if I can manage it."

Spoken both like your mother and father's son and Sirius's true godson! said Dumbledore, with an approving pat on Harry's back. "I take my hat off to you----or I would, if I were not afraid of swhowering you in spiders."

That sounds to me like Harry is up for some killing and Dumbledore approves.

Soul Search - Feb 18, 2007 10:27 am (#565 of 1104)

Choices,

That sounds to me like Harry is up for some killing and Dumbledore approves.

Sounds that way to me too, but it will be a real shock to Harry. I noted a while back that no student had ever used their wand to kill anything, even murderous spiders. Most that got killed by students were some worms or toads used in potions, and magic wasn't used.

It will be a very big deal if Harry kills a death eater, even in defense.

We may have some hints that it will happen. Harry trying some unforgivables here and there and the Semptumsempra spell may be a start for him.

me and my shadow 813 - Feb 18, 2007 3:20 pm (#566 of 1104)

I still hold out hope that Vold will die in a similar fashion to the Wicked Witch in The Wizard of Oz. It will be due to a harmless act, not exactly an accident but caused by an innocent or non-lethal act. I'm hoping either the Veil or a Dementor.

Hail to Harry! The Wicked Vold is dead!

MickeyCee3948 - Feb 18, 2007 5:27 pm (#567 of 1104)

On the DH Predictuion thread, I was equating Dumbledore's comment to Tom that "there are some things worse than death" with the comment Remus makes to Harry that the dementor's kiss "was much worse than that(death). You can exist without your soul, you know, as long as your brain and heart are still working. But you'll have no sense of self anymore, no memory, no...anything. There's no chance of recovery. You'll just---exist. As an empty shell. And your soul is gone forever...lost." I hope this is the fate that awaits Voldemort. Harry won't be doing it, the dementor's will.

Mickey

Thom Matheson - Feb 18, 2007 5:30 pm (#568 of 1104)

My only problem with that Mickey is that Voldemort won't remember it either. Not good enough for me. Not too vindictive am I?

wynnleaf - Feb 19, 2007 9:49 am (#569 of 1104)

Choices,

Thanks for posting that quote! It really sounds like DD not only approves of Harry wanting to kill LV, but a bunch of Death Eaters as well. Hm.. Well, so much for DD not wanting Harry to kill anyone.

Very interesting -- has implications for the splitting the soul theories and killing, doesn't it? Think I'll take that to another thread -- um, the Avada Kedavra thread?

Laura W - Feb 19, 2007 1:53 pm (#570 of 1104)

Choices et al:

Yes, Dumbledore did say that. No question. Because LV took the prophecy seriously and marked Harry as his equal and has continued to hunt him, he (Tom) has assured that the prophecy must be played out and "neither can live while the other survives." DD has said this in OoP and he has said this in HBP. He fully expects Harry to go after LV and to destroy the Horcruxes and then to destroy Tom Riddle. I know this. Everybody knows this.

But .... do not forget what Dumbledore said during the talk he had with Harry in the Horcruxes chapter of HBP. He (and Jo) tells Harry (and us) that Potter has the "uncommon skill and power" of love which is what will kill Voldemort.

(DD): "It will take uncommon skill and power to kill a wizard like Voldemort, even without his Horcruxes."

(Harry): "But I haven't got uncommon skill and power."

(DD): "Yes, you have. You have a power that Voldemort has never had. You can -"

I think Jo is telling us something here. Giving us a hint - however obscure - about how Harry will take LV down (even if Harry goes down with him). And DD is telling us once again that, even in this most extreme case, he does not see Harry needing to use the Dark Magic.

Dumbledore wants Harry to defeat LV, of course. He even wants him to kill him. But based on this DD quote from HBP ("In spite of all the temptation you have endured, all the suffering, you remain pure of heart, just as pure as you were at the age of eleven, when you stared into a mirror that reflected your heart's desire, and it showed you only the way to thwart Lord Voldemort...") , I cannot believe DD would want Harry to blemish his pure heart - regardless of whether it tears his soul or not - by removing Voldemort from this world by using an Unforgivable or any other Dark Magic. Nor does DD believe Harry needs to do so in order to accomplish the task before him - to "thwart Lord Voldemort."

Harry hasn't got that message yet, as of the end of HBP but I think Jo will have Harry get that message - although I have absolutely no idea how - in DH. There is just too much wink-wink, nudge-nudge, hint-hint, hitting us over the head references (from DD) to Harry rejecting the Dark Arts and defeating LV with love; and also to Dumbledore hating Dark Magic and everything else that Voldemort represents (ie - racism against Muggle-borns and non-wizard creatures, winning through threats and intimidation, etc.); and also to the differences DD sees between Tom Riddle and Harry Potter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, it almost seems like Jo is contradicting herself - or having Albus Dumbledore contradict himself, in terms of the various things he says - on *this particular issue* at different places in the six books. Although it certainly looks that way to me, I don't believe she is. I cannot believe she would be that sloppy! She is just too brilliant at her craft. I think there is just a piece which we (ok, I) either haven't seen or haven't recognized yet. (sigh)

Laura

S.E. Jones - Feb 19, 2007 3:38 pm (#571 of 1104)

"....Look at Madam Bones, look at Emmeline Vance.....It could be me next, couldn't it? But if it is," he (Harry) said fiercely, now looking straight into Dumbledore's blue eyes gleaming in the wandlight, "I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with me as I can, and Voldemort too if I can manage it."

"Spoken both like your mother and father's son and Sirius's true godson!" said Dumbledore, with an approving pat on Harry's back. "I take my hat off to you----or I would, if I were not afraid of swhowering you in spiders."

I don't think this is Dd saying, "yeah, go kill me some DEs". I think this is Dd realizing that Harry is readying himself for a fight, which is what he will have to do in order to survive. He says as much again with this later exchange:

"But, sir," said Harry, making valiant efforts not to sound argumentative, "it all comes to the same thing, doesn't it? I've got to try and kill him, or -"

"Got to?" said Dumbledore. "Of course you've got to! But not because of the prophecy! Because you, yourself, will never rest until you've tried!"

Think about it, he gives a whole speach on trying to convince Harry that Harry needs to fight Voldemort directly because he is the kind of person who needs to fight for what is right. And Harry does finally realize this when he makes the comparrison of being dragged into an arena and walking in with your head held high. I think it's all the same thing. It's not that he wants Harry to kill, it's that he wants him in the right state of mind where he's ready for a fight to the death.

There's also this comment (which I think has been quoted already, but it's worth quoting again), to consider, "...[Voldemort] was in such a hurry to mutilate his own soul, he never paused to understand the incomparable power of a soul that is untarnished and whole." Just something to think about.

Choices - Feb 19, 2007 5:55 pm (#572 of 1104)

I totally agree with you both - S.E. Jones and Laura - there are big contradictions in what Dumbledore says at various times. I like to think the kinder and gentler Dumbledore is the right one, but I've been fooled before. LOL

me and my shadow 813 - Feb 20, 2007 5:16 pm (#573 of 1104)

I certainly don't want Harry having to kill Vold. I'm wondering about the quote from DD in HBP regarding horcruxes: "As far as I know - as far, I am sure, as Voldemort knew - no wizard had ever done more than tear his soul in two."

The quote is about horcruxes. However, we know there are numerous wizards/witches that have committed more than one murder yet we are told in above quote that no wizard ever tore his soul in more than two portions. This *seems* to imply that murder in itself does not tear the soul. Other quotes say differently. Any thoughts?

Liz Mann - Feb 20, 2007 5:32 pm (#574 of 1104)

I agree with S.E. Jones, Dumbledore's seemingly approving quote of Harry killing Voldemort and the Death Eaters may be that he approves of the fact that Harry is willing to do what needs to be done despite the fact that it's not a nice thing to have to do, rather than approving of Harry's willingness to kill.

You know, it almost seems like Jo is contradicting herself - or having Albus Dumbledore contradict himself, in terms of the various things he says - on *this particular issue* at different places in the six books. Although it certainly looks that way to me, I don't believe she is. I cannot believe she would be that sloppy! - Laura

As a writer myself I can say that sometimes a writer doesn't notice what readers do. They don't notice where a question is unanswered because they already know the answer, and they often don't realise where something doesn't make sense because it makes sense to them. It's nothing to do with sloppiness. In fact it is probably more sloppy on her editor's part. That's what an editor is for, after all.

Besides, should we take everything Dumbledore says as true, especially when it's his opinion? Dumbledore may be 150 years old but he is not all knowing or all powerful. J.K. has gone out of her way to show that before now.

Choices - Feb 20, 2007 6:11 pm (#575 of 1104)

Me and My, I think what Dumbledore meant is that up until Voldemort, no wizard ever tore his soul and made more than one Horcrux. Voldemort is the first, to Dumbledore's knowledge, who ever made more than one tear in his soul and made multiple Horcruxes.

haymoni - Feb 21, 2007 10:15 am (#576 of 1104)

me & my shadow - I think your soul always tears with murder, but the difference is removing that portion and keeping it as a "souvenior".

me and my shadow 813 - Feb 21, 2007 11:09 am (#577 of 1104)

That makes sense, Choices and haymoni. I agree with the recent discussion that JKR seems to be vague in her message about DD's - and Harry's - philosophy on killing. I'm sure JKR left it vague for a reason, perhaps because she doesn't want to be considered a moral authority and because Harry's struggle with such a profound question will be of utmost importance in DH.

wynnleaf - Feb 22, 2007 8:35 am (#578 of 1104)

I'm sure JKR left it vague for a reason, perhaps because she doesn't want to be considered a moral authority and because Harry's struggle with such a profound question will be of utmost importance in DH. (me and my shadow)

I agree. I don't think JKR actually wants to set these concrete moral standards for her characters and for her readers to use to interpret everything. Oh sure, she's perfectly willing to show that murder is evil, but she doesn't go about defining murder versus self-defense or killing in war.

There's a lot of things that Harry does that are questionable throughout the series. Some readers I've noticed seem to want JKR to come back in the last book and make it clear exactly what was unethical and what was okay -- not just about Harry's behavior, but other characters on the good side as well. I think she may do that in a more subtle way, as Harry for instance will hopefully come to see that his hatreds may get in the way of his ability to defeat LV. But that doesn't mean that JKR is going to have some sorts of explicit definitions for us of what exactly Harry can do and still be doing "good," or what he can't do. I don't think JKR has ever been preachy and she's even commented that she's not trying to teach some sort of standard. I think she wants readers to see Harry learn from his mistakes, come to realizations about good and evil probably, but not with some easily drawn lines that the reader can take away and apply across the board of the whole series.

mona amon - Feb 23, 2007 5:38 am (#579 of 1104)

These are exactly my thoughts about it,Wynnleaf. And very well expressed! I really liked your post.

Mrs Brisbee - Feb 24, 2007 6:30 am (#580 of 1104)

Over on the Ginny thread, I had made the comment that Harry was nasty in HBP because he hexed people in the corridor just because he could, and Peachespig asked me to explain what I meant here.

In HBP, Harry acquires the Half-Blood Prince's Potions textbook. In the margins are notes on jinxes and hexes. Here's the relevant passage:

Harry had already attempted a few of the Prince's self-invented spells. There had been a hex that caused toenails to grow alarmingly fast (he had tried this on Crabbe in the corridor, with very entertaining results); a jinx that glued the tongue to the roof of the mouth (which he twice used, to general applause, on an unsuspecting Argus Filch): and perhaps most useful of all, Muffliato, a spell that filled the ears of anyone nearby with an unidentifiable buzzing, so that lengthy conversations could be held in class without being overheard. -- (HBP, Ch 12, "Silver And Opals")

There's also this:

Harry was about to put his book away when he noticed the corner of a page folded down; turning to it, he saw the Sectumsempra spell, captioned "For Enemies", that he had marked a few weeks previously. He had still not found out what it did, mainly because he did not want to test it around Hermione, but he was considering trying it out on McLaggen next time he came up behind him unawares.-- (HBP, Ch 24, "Sectumsempra")

The chapters are about six months apart, suggesting that Harry's behavior was ongoing.

That isn't the kind of behavior we've seen in Harry before HBP. I find it reminiscent of how the bad behavior of James is described: hexing people in the corridors just because he could (I wish I could remember where that exact quote is from, so I can cite it. I'm sure that Snape said it-- very ironic, since he is the Half-Blood Prince whose spells Harry now has such fun using on people just for the heck of it).

peachespig - Feb 24, 2007 8:36 am (#581 of 1104)

Thanks for the quick answer, Mrs Brisbee!

I hadn't remembered the first paragraph you mention because I'm sure when I read it I took it to be funny, not the sign of some growing unpleasantness in Harry. Those spells are all very minor and don't particularly rise above the level of a practical joke; the twins have been doing far more for years without me deciding that they're nasty. I placed in in my mind in the same "amusing comeuppance" category as things like Harry's cheeky remark to Snape about not needing to call him sir.

The HP world is very rough-and-tumble when it comes to minor spells and jinxes, and always has been; and it seems to me Jo has never had any qualms with letting people we're supposed to consider unpleasant bear the brunt of them, ever since Hagrid gave Dudley a pig's tail in the very first book because he was mad at Dudley's father. Were we supposed to think of Hagrid as a nasty person? I guess you could. I think we were supposed to laugh.

I think this is similar; I think the author assumes we have little love left for Crabbe or Filch at this point, that they have also been tormenting Harry for years to the point that a little back-and-forth would be justified, and that Harry's spells are going to be perceived as funny with no lasting consequences. I don't think either of those things rises to the level of what we saw James do to Snape, which seemed actually cruel, and I don't think the text is expecting us to condemn Harry or do anything more than chuckle. And I certainly don't think it's out of character for Harry; it seems perfectly in keeping with the way he's always felt and behaved towards the people who had tormented him at school.

As for the thing about McLaggen and Sectumsempra -- well, Harry didn't do it, did he? I think that line is there entirely to give us a shudder on the second read about what would have happened if Harry had mistaken that spell for one of those harmless and temporary annoyance jinxes. Though you have to wonder, if Harry really thought it just made your toenails grow or something, why did he use it when Draco was about to Crucio him? I think he must have suspected on some level that Sectumsempra was a little more powerful and sinister than all those other spells.

MickeyCee3948 - Feb 24, 2007 11:27 am (#582 of 1104)

I agree with you peachespig these are nothing more than hi-jinxs which most young teens believe are comical. In most cases they aren't especially to the ones who are the blunt of the hi-jinx. It was done before I became a teenager, while I was a teenager and has been done the many, many years since I was a teenager.

It is just a little more pronounced in the wizarding world. Not an indication of things to come. You are supposed to grow out of this and become responsible just like the twins are doing. And as I am sure James did.

Mickey

S.E. Jones - Feb 24, 2007 11:58 am (#583 of 1104)

I find it very amusing that we look at Harry jinxing Crabbe and Filch repeatedly and say it's supposed to be funny (which I do think is how Jo intended it) but look at James jinxing Snape repeatedly and say it's foul behavior, simply because we (the fans in general) tend to favor Snape more so than Crabbe and Filch. Part of it, I'm am quite sure, is due to the fact that we know Crabbe and Filch have repeatedly picked on Harry over the years while we know James picked at Snape (but we also know that Snape apparently picked right back). I don't think Harry's behavior was any worse or better than James's and I don't think it will lead to a lasting "bad" streak. It just seems to be a phase that teenage wizards go through, especially those who know more than is readily good for them.

Eponine - Feb 24, 2007 12:10 pm (#584 of 1104)

I don't think Harry was right to jinx Crabbe and Filch, and neither do I think it was right for James to jinx Snape [although, since Snape did kill Dumbledore eventually, I'm a little more inclined to overlook it] =)

The thing is, these characters are human, and all people do things they shouldn't. I don't think Harry was particularly nasty in HBP, but he wasn't a perfect little angel either. He has good qualities and bad qualities, but mostly, he's a good kid.

peachespig - Feb 24, 2007 12:21 pm (#585 of 1104)

S.E. Jones: I find it very amusing that we look at Harry jinxing Crabbe and Filch repeatedly and say it's supposed to be funny (which I do think is how Jo intended it) but look at James jinxing Snape repeatedly and say it's foul behavior, simply because we (the fans in general) tend to favor Snape more so than Crabbe and Filch.

Well, I do think they are different, or at least I think that one event we saw between James and Snape is different (maybe their other interactions I would find more amusing), and I can assure you it's not from any particular affection I have for Snape. S.E., you and I agree that Jo intended the jinxing of Crabbe and Filch to be funny. Do you also think that Jo intended for Snape's Worst Memory to be funny in the same way? I definitely don't -- I think Harry's reaction to it makes that evident. Of these two events, the tone of the books makes it clear, I think, that one is amusing and the other substantially more troubling.

There are gradations of being mean, of course. But I think there can be a difference between a simple practical joke on someone you don't like and a protracted, mean-spirited public humilitation. I'm no James hater -- if anything I'm trying to make up for a tendency to favor him by being as fair as I can be. I certainly don't think it makes James an awful person, at all -- as I've said in other threads, how boring it would be to blacklist a character because of one less-than-ideal action, when really it just makes them complicated and human. But I think James took it too far, subjective though that may be, while Harry did not.

Solitaire - Feb 24, 2007 12:42 pm (#586 of 1104)

That isn't the kind of behavior we've seen in Harry before HBP. I find it reminiscent of how the bad behavior of James is described: hexing people in the corridors just because he could

We do have to remember that Harry learned these spells from the HBP (Snape), which suggests that Snape was probably doing his share of hexing people in the corridors, right along with James and probably a lot of other kids.

I'm willing to bet that this hexing has probably always happened on a pretty broad scale, once students began to learn such spells. We are simply made aware of the behavior by Harry, Snape, James, and Sirius, because they are more central to our story.

As to why Harry chose to use the Sectumsempra spell on Draco, I would suppose it is because the HBP designated it "for enemies." Draco certainly qualifies as Harry's enemy. It does bother me that Harry used a spell the outcome of which he did not know. I think that was irresponsible. As preoccupied as he'd been with the Prince, however, I'm sure the spell just popped out automatically. He obviously didn't have time to weigh his options ... considering Draco had just hurled an Unforgivable at him. JM2K about both things, of course ...

Solitaire

wynnleaf - Feb 24, 2007 3:24 pm (#587 of 1104)

There's a difference in getting into a hexing battle in the halls with one's schoolmates, and hexing someone who can't fight back.

In HBP Harry seriously plans to use Sectumsempra when McLaggen's back is turned. We're talking about a spell that Harry knew was supposed to be for "enemies," not just the typical hex. He hexed Filch who as a squib can't fight back magically. This is, in my opinion, different from the usual hallway hexing.

While we have yet to see Harry do just like James, ganging up with friends to attack a single person for no reason other than that they "exist," we are seeing Harry start a bit down that path. He's intentionally attacking for no reason at all, people that can't fight back.

I think JKR was working in HBP to increase several of Harry's problems. She picked up where OOTP left off and had him blaming Snape for Sirius death, refusing to look at those who were much more to blame. She has intentionally made his hatreds more "personal." She has Harry continue to attempt crucio. She had him hexing people outside of defensive actions, but just out of petty jealousies or dislikes.

In my opinion, JKR was increasing Harry's weaknesses so that the personal character weaknesses or difficulties he'll have to work through in the last book are more intense, or more easily apparent to the reader.

S.E. Jones - Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm (#588 of 1104)

peachespig --Do you also think that Jo intended for Snape's Worst Memory to be funny in the same way?--

No, and that wasn't quite what I meant. I guess I wasn't very clear in my last post, so let me try again. I think the incident with Crabbe and Filch is supposed to be funny, and we're supposed to sympathize with Harry. I think the incident with Snape was supposed to be troubling and we're supposed to sympathize with Snape. However, what I find amusing is that, from my point of view anyway, I think it is the same (or rather similar) behavior (as Solitaire just pointed out, Snape seemed to be hexind just as much as James was, so I don't think it was one-way abuse). I only brought this up because of the comments of Harry having an immerging "nasty" streak in HBP. In my view, this is something most teens of this age in the wizard world go through and it is something that will phase out. As we saw with James, you can hex people in the halls and still grow into a good man who was considered worthy of respect by others, including Dd himself.

Solitaire --We do have to remember that Harry learned these spells from the HBP (Snape), which suggests that Snape was probably doing his share of hexing people in the corridors, right along with James and probably a lot of other kids.
I'm willing to bet that this hexing has probably always happened on a pretty broad scale, once students began to learn such spells. We are simply made aware of the behavior by Harry, Snape, James, and Sirius, because they are more central to our story.--

Very well said!

sstabeler - Feb 24, 2007 4:13 pm (#589 of 1104)

To be fair, we have canon only that he used spells only on Crabbe ( He's getting revenge for Crabbe threatening him for 5 years) and Argus Filch, who hates students, so I don't think he used the spells that much, and only on a few people. I don't think he ever quite got to the James level of jinxing anyone he could.

Choices - Feb 24, 2007 6:30 pm (#590 of 1104)

I think Harry's jinxes are just the magical equivalent of shooting spit-balls or putting a tack in the teacher's chair or dipping the pigtail of the little girl in front of you into the ink-well. Mischievous, but basically harmless.

Laura W - Feb 25, 2007 12:00 am (#591 of 1104)

I'm willing to bet that this hexing has probably always happened on a pretty broad scale, once students began to learn such spells. We are simply made aware of the behavior by Harry, Snape, James, and Sirius, because they are more central to our story. (Solitaire)

When I read this paragraph, something twigged in my memory. Something about the Quidditch final in Book Three and spells being cast in the hallways of the school. So, I have looked it up. PoA, chapter 15, p.220 (Raincoast): "By the time the holidays were over, tension between the two teams and their houses was at breaking-point. A number of small scuffles broke out in the corridors, culminating in a nasty incident in which a Gryffindor fourth-year and a Slytherin sixth-year ended up in the hospital wing with leeks sprouting out of their ears."

And then there was Harry, Ron, Hermoine, Fred and George simultaneously hexing Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle in the train on the way home from Hogwarts in GoF after the 14-year-old Draco made that absolutely horrible, vicious comment ( "I told you not to hang around riff-raff like this! Too late now, Potter! They'll be the first to go, now the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first! Well - second - Diggory was the f- ").

I wonder if jinxes and hexes which are not explicitly illegal or dark magic are the equivalent of fistfights or beatings in the Muggle world. Something which should not take place - as their are better ways of solving differences -, but which young wizards (and not-so-young, but definitely immature wizards) resort to when angry.

Just a theory.

And, by the way, I love Harry but found myself not too pleased with his behaviour on more than one occasion in HBP too.

Laura

Laura W - Feb 25, 2007 12:36 am (#592 of 1104)

I wrote: "PoA, chapter 15, p.220 (Raincoast):"

Sorry, it's on page 222. (Too late to edit previous post)

Yours in accuracy,

Laura

Solitaire - Feb 25, 2007 10:26 am (#593 of 1104)

Given Filch's penchant for corporal punishment--he has lamented its demise in more than one book--and his absolute glee at Umbridge's intent to revive whipping for the Weasley twins, I have a hard time scraping together much sympathy for him. He would have been hanging students by their thumbs and whipping them in the dungeons all along, if he could have. He is not as horrid as Uncle Vernon, but that, IMO, is only because of Dumbledore's restraining hand. JM2K, of course ...

Solitaire

rambkowalczyk - Feb 26, 2007 7:33 am (#594 of 1104)

The pranks that Harry did in book 6 may have just been harmless pranks and certainly the victims of his pranks are unsympathetic. The pranks that Snape may have done may also have be harmless. Most of the stuff the Weasley twins did were harmless as well. When James and Sirius started their pranks they were all in fun as well.

A some point a line gets crossed. Fred and George setting off fireworks to frustrate an incompetent Headmistress is funny. No one got hurt. Fred and George pushing Montague in the Vanishing Cabinet seems funny but that student was missing for a couple of days and when found was not easily healed and his parents took him out of school.

Harry hasn't gotten to that point where the line gets crossed, but if it happens will he know it?

mona amon - Feb 26, 2007 8:15 am (#595 of 1104)

I think Harry's jinxes are just the magical equivalent of shooting spit-balls or putting a tack in the teacher's chair or dipping the pigtail of the little girl in front of you into the ink-well. Mischievous, but basically harmless.(choices)

All the same he wasn't in the habit of doing such things earlier,except when provoked.It does seem to be the insidious influence of the Half Blood Prince textbook.He finds it so interesting that he wants to try out all the spells,using his foes(and on one occasion,friend)as guinea pigs.

Anyway,he seems to have learnt his lesson after seeing what the Sectumsempra spell did to Draco.I doubt we will see this behaviour in DH.

sstabeler - Feb 26, 2007 8:42 am (#596 of 1104)

To be fair of Fred and George, it wasn't them pushing Montague into the Vanishing Cabinet that caused Montague's injuries, but his Apparation onto Hogwarts grounds. I imagine if anyone tried to Apparate anywhere in Hogwarts, they would have similar injuries. Also, harry didn't mean to levitate Ron, he just waved his wand, it was just chance that it was in the direction of Ron's bed. and him using the langlock jinx on Filch, that sounds to me as if he is simply playing a prank on Filch. Also, I find it hard to believe most of the spells didn't mention something about their effects, after all, Snape would have wanted to keep a record of the effects. he's nasty, but he's not stupid. However, I believe with Levicorpus, Harry just hadn't noticed the effect mentioned further down the margin (or above) and with sectumsempra, I think Snape deliberately left the effect off as it was so variable.

frogface - Feb 27, 2007 3:03 am (#597 of 1104)

I think his behaviour was pretty typical for a kid his age, more Fred and George like than anything, and nowhere near as bad as James which was frankly just maliscious bullying. I did some pretty naughty things at school as well, sometimes even things that were mildly dangerous for other people, but I haven't turned into a bad person (I hope!) It's not like using the Dark Side lol. There is a line you can cross but usually people are perfectly able to cross back again. I think Harry learnt his lesson when he almost seriously hurt Draco, and besides which I think he's grown out of that behaviour by now. Just as James did by his 7th year.

Mrs Brisbee - Feb 28, 2007 10:18 am (#598 of 1104)

All the same he wasn't in the habit of doing such things earlier,except when provoked. It does seem to be the insidious influence of the Half Blood Prince textbook. He finds it so interesting that he wants to try out all the spells,using his foes(and on one occasion,friend)as guinea pigs.

Anyway,he seems to have learnt his lesson after seeing what the Sectumsempra spell did to Draco. I doubt we will see this behavior in DH. -- mona amon

I hope that was the end of it. While I agree with others that Harry's behavior wasn't outside the norm for teenagers nor that it's the inevitable path to the Dark Side, it also wasn't part of Harry's character prior to HBP. I agree with mona amon that the influence of the Half-Blood Prince's textbook played into it. The book was making Harry look good in Potions. It was giving him fun spells to play with. I think Harry was enamored with the gift of power from this faux-mentor. And because it is a book, it's pretty undemanding in return. By contrast, Harry's real mentor, Dumbledore, is giving Harry knowledge and trying to get him to think, and giving him tasks that prove difficult. Perhaps part of the whole set up was to give Harry a choice of paths-- the easy one, with instant power and fame, and looking intelligent (as opposed to actually having to be intelligent); or the harder one, that requires thought and understanding and hard work. It culminated in the cave, where Dumbledore advises Harry that fire will keep the Inferi at bay. But Harry forgets Dumbledore's advice and goes with the Prince's instead-- Sectumsempra "for enemies"-- and nearly gets pulled into the lake by the Inferi. Harry chose wrong, and nearly died for it.

S.E. Jones - Mar 1, 2007 3:32 pm (#599 of 1104)

An excellent post, Mrs. Brisbee! I too hope that Harry learned this lesson well and will be choosing the other path in the future. I think Dd was confident enough that will happen, considering his "I'm not worried, I'm with you" line.

peachespig - Mar 1, 2007 10:36 pm (#600 of 1104)

I would even say that DD's wonderful "I am not worried, Harry. I am with you" line is an indication that Dumbledore already has a deep trust and faith in Harry's character, and I don't think he's going to let a few harmless practical jokes change his opinion.

Dumbledore was disappointed in Harry once in HBP; disappointed that Harry didn't follow through in getting Slughorn's memory. Crabbe's toenails aren't even on the radar.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:34 am

wynnleaf - Mar 2, 2007 6:22 am (#601 of 1104)

Anyway,he seems to have learnt his lesson after seeing what the Sectumsempra spell did to Draco. I doubt we will see this behavior in DH. -- mona amon

Hm. I disagree. I think that JKR has described and even developed these elements in Harry for a reason, and that it will in fact culminate in DH.

Although Harry was shocked at the effects of sectumsempra, his distress over what happened to Draco paled quickly in the face of the danger of loosing the HBP potions book. Later, serving detentions (which even McGonagall said he deserved), he was much more focused on the "injustice" of his detentions, Snape's nastiness, and missing Quidditch than any reflection on what he had done that got him the detentions in the first place.

Later, he twice attempts Sectumsempra, and tried Crucio again against Snape. While I certainly understand that Harry was in crisis mode at both those times, I think JKR's having him use those curses wasn't just to show us what tension Harry was under, but to give us more examples of Harry's willingness to use dark curses.

In Flight of the Prince, Snape says, "no unforgiveables from you Potter!" (not exact). While Snape, himself, may be just taunting Harry, I think JKR has used this line to once again point out to the reader what Harry is doing -- his willingness to use dark curses -- and to also point out that he should not.

In interviews following HBP, JKR seemed quite satisfied with having made Harry's hatred of Snape all the more "personal." I think we can look both at JKR's willingness to intensify Harry's hatred, as well as her specifically pointing out Harry's use of dark curses, and take those as signals that JKR will bring Harry, in DH, to some point where his hatreds and his willingness to use dark curses in his anger, must be addressed.

I don't think she's had Harry truly realize what he's doing. Sure, he was shocked by the effects of Sectumsempra. But I think Harry's shock was over the effect of the spell, not the fact that he was the one to use it. Harry continues to use the curse, as well as the unforgiveable crucio, and has not yet -- as far as I can see -- had any qualms about his own willingness to use dark curses.

Soul Search - Mar 2, 2007 6:57 am (#602 of 1104)

There is another aspect of the sectumsempra episode that may be worth mentioning.

The combination of Harry running through the halls covered with blood and Myrtle's screaming means the whole school knows Harry attacked Draco with a dangerous, if not dark, curse. Only a few know that Draco attacked Harry without provocation and was about to cast an unforgivable curse on Harry. Harry only gets detention?

We don't see any particular reaction from staff or students afterward, however.

HBP ends with Draco and Harry on the tower and then with Draco fleeing Hogwarts with Snape. How much will the students know about events on the tower? Previously, the students seem to learn a lot of what has happened; Quirrel/Voldemort in PS, for example. What's everyone to think of the tower events and Harry and Draco?

mona amon - Mar 2, 2007 8:15 am (#603 of 1104)

Actually I agree with you,Wynnleaf. When I said I doubted we will see more of this behaviour in DH, I was referring to his newly acquired, James-like behaviour of hexing people for the fun of it. I feel the unexpected effect of the sectumsempra spell, and the realisation that the book belonged to Snape, have given him a more responsible attitude in general.

As to whether he will continue to use the dark curses against his enemies, you are right, he will most probably try them at some point. I do have a feeling we will see Sectumsempra again in the next book.

wynnleaf - Mar 2, 2007 9:43 am (#604 of 1104)

When I said I doubted we will see more of this behavior in DH, I was referring to his newly acquired, James-like behavior of hexing people for the fun of it. (mona amon)

In this I agree. I think Harry is probably (even if at school) going to be a lot less interested in adolescent hexing in the hallways over petty jealousies and rivalries.

However, I think that's going to come due to his focus on more serious needs such as the need to find the horcruxes. I don't necessarily think it will come because of a more overall mature attitude. I think his adolescent attitudes will be coming out in other ways, rather than the hexing in the hallways situations.

Mrs Brisbee - Mar 2, 2007 10:37 am (#605 of 1104)

In Flight of the Prince, Snape says, "no unforgivables from you Potter!" (not exact). While Snape, himself, may be just taunting Harry, I think JKR has used this line to once again point out to the reader what Harry is doing -- his willingness to use dark curses -- and to also point out that he should not.-- wynnleaf

I think this is a good point. The cave thing where Harry picks a Dark spell over the recommended "light" one also points to Rowling hinting that for Harry Dark Magic is the wrong-- and ineffective-- choice. It was disappointing to see him again try Dark Magic when chasing down Snape. And I think wynnleaf is correct and this remains unresolved. Harry still has to figure out that he shouldn't resort to Dark Magic, especially when trying to fight Dark Wizards.

Rosie Lu - Mar 4, 2007 2:01 am (#606 of 1104)

What I find interesting about everything Harry does re: spells in HBP is that it's all basically coming from Snape. Harry's being taught by Snape in HBP, just by using things from the book. I'm of the opinion that Snape will eventually be on the good side, but Jo is definitely wanting us to look closely at all the potions and spells Harry does in HBP, knowing that it's coming from Snape's book.

me and my shadow 813 - Mar 12, 2007 1:52 pm (#607 of 1104)

Reading HBP again, and noticed a small but interesting symbolic phrase. It is mentioned once in Horace Slughorn chapter and twice in The Cave chapter.

When DD and Harry arrive at Slughorn's "home", "DD stopped dead and Harry walked into him." Then in Cave, Harry "almost walked into him", and a few minutes later "really did walk into him."

What a nice little metaphor for Harry *stepping into DD's shoes*, becoming the next "greatest wizard".

Choices - Mar 12, 2007 5:20 pm (#608 of 1104)

Excellent catch, Me and My! Clever JKR - you gotta love her!

Muggle Doctor - Mar 16, 2007 7:12 am (#609 of 1104)

What I have to say relates to both Snape and Harry, such that I'm not really sure which thread to put it in.

I have heard, and I can see valid aspects to, the theories of both Snape's loyalty (to Dumbledore) and his betrayal.

I am torn as to which would be more effective. If it comes out that Snape is in fact good (i.e. working for Dumbledore the whole time, even to the point of accepting the need to kill him under certain circumstances), Harry will learn a bit of humility, which he needs as and if he survives the final conflict. No doubt all will be revealed in the end.

If it comes out that Snape is bad, this augurs well for Harry at the start of the book. It means that he was right - very right indeed - about something very important throughout HBP, and has been all along. He was outstandingly right about what would happen at Hogwarts in (his and) Dumbledore's absence, and from whom the threat would come, and he asked his friends to do all the right things in his absence (save the Felix potion for themselves, call out the DA). We can talk about 'ifs', but IF the entire DA had come out, it's quite probable that Draco would have been nailed cold or that the Death Eaters would have had a much harder time. Here, for once and at last, he showed inspired leadership on top of (we presume) correct intelligence predictions regarding both Draco and Snape. Hermione's failure to call out the entire DA (or their failure to respond) is not Harry's failure.

If he keeps on making decisions like this, anticipating what's coming, really thinking on his feet and coming up in advance with the right thing to do, and delegating to his friends (provided they have the ability to back him up) wherever possible, I think he's going to win. I think half the battle is won; with Dumbledore dead, he knows he doesn't have a safety net any more; and to quote an old World War One phrase, "Things such as this tend to concentrate the mind wonderfully."

journeymom - Mar 16, 2007 8:48 am (#610 of 1104)

Was Hermione responsible for which/how many DA members responded? I don't remember. Either way, it seems just as well the whole lot didn't show up. Yes, they might have caught Draco, or there might simply have been more students injured, perhaps severely.

But I agree, Harry is shaping up to be an excellent leader.

MickeyCee3948 - Mar 16, 2007 8:52 am (#611 of 1104)

Muggle Doctor - I don't know if the entire DA would have been anygood. We see the leading young wizards of that group in the battle anyway, and all those extra wands would have made for more casualties and they probably would have been stepping on each other. The rest of the DA haven't had a lesson in over a year and probably couldn't have contributed much. JM2K's

Mickeyh

Choices - Mar 16, 2007 8:57 am (#612 of 1104)

As far as I remember, Harry was talking to both Ron and Hermione when he said to call on the other DA members, as well as Neville, Luna and Ginny. I don't think he assigned that job specifically to Hermione, although he did ask about using her enchanted galleons to notify the DA members. Even if he did, Hermione can notify the members, she can't force them to show up.

haymoni - Mar 16, 2007 9:28 am (#613 of 1104)

Maybe they spent their galleons!!

Solitaire - Mar 17, 2007 1:44 pm (#614 of 1104)

Haven't several of the DA members left Hogwarts? Any who were in Fred and George's year would be gone. My guess is that those most likely to have shown up for an on-site battle with the DEs--other than Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Neville and Luna--would have been fellow Gryffindors F&G, Angelina Johnson, Lee Jordan, Alicia Spinnet ... JM2K, of course. Katie Bell was still in St. Mungo's at the time of the DE incursion, wasn't she?

Solitaire

PatPat - Mar 17, 2007 2:29 pm (#615 of 1104)

No, Solitaire. Katie returned in chapter 24. The DE battle did not happen until chapter 27. However, you do have a point about several of the DA members being gone. But I do think there were enough left to help out. The problem was probably that most of them had stopped carrying the fake galleons around with them. The hadn't had a DA meeting for over a year. Harry even indicated that Neville and Luna were probably the only two who still checked their galleons, as they are the two that missed the DA the most. I don't think it was anyone's fault that none of the others showed up.

Solitaire - Mar 17, 2007 3:18 pm (#616 of 1104)

I don't think it was anyone's fault no one else responded. Most probably believed that, since Umbridge was gone, there really wasn't much need for the DA. Neville and Luna missed it ... but they also had "real life" combat experience and had been in close proximity not only to DEs but to Voldemort himself the previous year. The danger was more real to them, I think, than it was to the other DA kids.

I do, however, think that if F&G had still been at Hogwarts, more kids in their year might have been on hand. I honestly believe they and Lee Jordan, at least, would have responded. I somehow think Ernie and some of the other DA kids were a bit too prudent to voluntarily put themselves in the path of DEs, if it could have been avoided--even if they had been carrying their coins. Is that cowardice? I don't think so. Given their inexperience, it was probably just common sense. More than likely, too, McGonagall had probably told most of the kids to stay put in their common rooms.

Why were the other five out in the halls, where there was obvious mischief going on? We must remember that HRH have a history of boldly going where they feel they are needed, despite the danger and without regard to any orders from adults. An adult telling them to keep out of the way is pointless. Ginny, Luna, and Neville, too, have already proven that they are not about to back down in the face of danger when Harry needs their help. Official or not, they already seem to be "junior" members of the OotP, and they aren't about to shirk their business.

Solitaire
edited

Choices - Mar 17, 2007 5:02 pm (#617 of 1104)

I'm not at all sure that Fred and George would have joined the fight. Remember in COS when Ginny was taken down into the chamber by Tom Riddle, Fred and George were so upset they went to bed. LOL I love the twins, but so far they have not struck me as "fighters" (except for when they took the aging potion in GOF).

Solitaire - Mar 17, 2007 6:42 pm (#618 of 1104)

Yeah, maybe you're right. But they didn't know Harry and Ron were going after her, did they? (Did anyone know save Lockhart, who was forced to accompany them?) Also, it was before the DA was in existence.

Still, I seem to remember Sirius talking to them rather "siriusly," at 12GP, about their professed desire to work with the Order and admonishing them about rash behavior once or twice during OotP (the pot calling the kettle black?). Even so, I wish we'd had an opportunity to see whether they'd have gone to the DoM with Harry & Co. and what kind of fighters they'd have made. If anyone else is curious about this, I guess we can address it over on the twins' thread, so that I don't drag us any further off-topic here.

Solitaire

Laura W - Mar 17, 2007 7:11 pm (#619 of 1104)

(the pot calling the kettle black?).

Sirius admonishing the twins about rash behavior. The pot calling the kettle black.

Tell me you *meant* that to be funny, Solitaire! Regardless ... hee, hee, ha, ha.

juliebug - Mar 17, 2007 8:09 pm (#620 of 1104)

I don't think the twins would have missed an opportunity to join in to fight the good fight. They got kick off the quidditch team for fighting. I think the human bludgers would have gone to fight for Ginny too, if they hadn't (probably) believed her to be dead already. That skeleton line was rather misleading.

Solitaire - Mar 17, 2007 8:46 pm (#621 of 1104)

Yes, Laura ... I couldn't resist. I was being "sirius," but I couldn't help making a play on black, too. It was just there, begging me to say it! hehe You know how we English majors are ... we can't resist wordplay.

Solitaire

frogface - Mar 18, 2007 12:02 pm (#622 of 1104)

I'm certain Fred and George would have helped. They didn't help with the Chamber of Secrets because they knew hardly anything about it. Whereas Harry had a key lead to the location in the form of Myrtle which only he and Ron knew about. If Harry had told Fred and George I'm sure they would have gone into the Chamber with them.

MickeyCee3948 - Mar 18, 2007 3:15 pm (#623 of 1104)

I doubt if F&G would have backed down or that they will back down when called on in DH as I am sure that they will all be involved in the final battle one way or the other. Tsk..Tsk. Solitaire you English teachers are all alike. I'm still trying to get the corn out of my monitor.

Mickey

PatPat - Mar 18, 2007 4:53 pm (#624 of 1104)

We're way off topic here but I have to agree that Fred and George would definitely step up if they had the chance. They have never backed away from a fight or not done something because if was hard. They were the first to sign the paper that Hermione passed around during the first DA meeting. They came to Harry's aid at the end of Goblet of Fire when Malfoy was baiting him. I believe they would have stepped up in CoS had they been given the chance. And I believe they will step up in the last book. Some of their products might even become useful. JKR did not take us on a tour of their shop simply for comic value.

Muggle Doctor - Mar 19, 2007 4:02 am (#625 of 1104)

Some of their products might even become useful.

They were, but unfortunately to the wrong side (Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder, which Draco used).

Fred and George describe developing hats which give the user a Shield charm - essentially body armour - as well as a range of other serious stuff that they show to Harry at the start of book six. Chekhov's gun - if it's on the table in Act One, it fires by the end of Act Three. They are on their way to becoming the Ministry's weapon shop. They may not have finished their schooling, but they demonstrate by the things they make that their practical wizarding skills are almost without parallel. They are essentially backyard inventors, and very good ones.

Recall that when CoS happened, they were a lot younger. I think they'd have stepped up. And they would have been formidable.

If I attach any 'blame' to Hermione's methods for contacting the DA, it is that she relied on everyone still having the coins, not thinking that they might not have bothered to check them. Her thinking can be a bit restricted sometimes, notwithstanding the fact that she often picks when Harry's walking into danger. Wood for the trees. Everyone's guilty of it. The fact that Hermione failed to get the DA to show is indisputable. The underlying reason why is something we could debate forever, and that's the point of this thread.

Harry and his friends are going to have to do a lot of thinking about the underlying reason why in DH. Harry has become a lot better at controlling the Capslock of Rage, but it's anyone's guess as to exactly what sort of man he'll become with Dumbledore gone. The end of HBP already gave me the feeling of someone who is going in because he must (i.e. his sense of justice compels him), with a bleak outlook. He seems about to shut his feelings off, which is something he should have done a long time ago, but in the final battle he may well need them.

I am convinced that he and Hermione and Ron need to sit down and summarize exactly what it is that they can all do. Harry has seen Dumbledore fight Voldemort, and although he probably can't cast some of the attacking spells he saw Dumbledore use, there is a lot of helpful advice to be found by reliving the duel and seeing how the old wizard defended himself, particularly against the AK (solid objects block it).

I feel that there is going to be a duel - sort of a replay of the graveyard scene. Only this time, Harry is going to know that he is the more powerful (remember it was Voldemort's wand that was forced to perform priori incantatem), he is going to be expecting the duel, and all he needs to do this time is stay alive... and tempt Voldemort inside his head just once more. Because given what Harry will be fighting for (Ginny's life perhaps, fighting the real Voldemort to save it as he once fought the shadow Voldemort in CoS?), and given what he will (we hope) be feeling at the time, that peek Voldemort takes in there (perhaps to see where Harry is hiding in the course of the duel?) will probably prove fatal. If not, it may well distract him long enough for Harry to deliver the final blow (whatever that is).

Joanne Reid - Mar 31, 2007 1:55 pm (#626 of 1104)

I agree, Muggle Doctor. And I am encouraged by the book covers that were just released. It seems to me that HRH are in the middle of it, doing their thing, and that Voldemort is not invulnerable to their capabilities, whatever they are. And, it also looks like they are going to get help from multiple sources, which will decide the battle in Harry's favor. I hope! J

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 1, 2007 1:22 pm (#627 of 1104)

Great ideas, Muggle Doctor.

particularly against the AK (solid objects block it)

I wonder, then, what the mirror would do? Reflect it back? If it is tilted at just the right angle. . .

Muggle Doctor - Apr 5, 2007 1:00 pm (#628 of 1104)

I doubt it; solid objects are destroyed, and Fawkes (who swallowed an AK for Dumbledore) was forced to reincarnate.

Mudblood and Proud - Apr 7, 2007 1:36 pm (#629 of 1104)

I don't really know where to put this so it’s going here.

I understand and appreciate that Harry is protected at 4PD because it contains the blood line of his mother and that she died trying to protect him. What I don't understand is why this ancient magic will lift when he comes of age? I don’t actually think DD explained why it should lift on his 17 birthday? Some will say it’s because he is an adult and should be able to protect himself. But a mother’s love is not age dependent. Does anybody have an answer?

Also when it happens will it be taken for granted? Or will something strange and magical happen to signify it occurence? Will Harry’s eyes perhaps no longer be green?

MickeyCee3948 - Apr 7, 2007 8:32 pm (#630 of 1104)
Edited Apr 7, 2007 9:33 pm

Interesting thought Mudblood and Proud - Harry with blue or brown eyes and maybe he won't need glasses either.

Mickey

TheSaint - Apr 7, 2007 10:03 pm (#631 of 1104)

When he comes of age he is considered a man and no longer a child in need of his mother's protections.

Doesn't DD say that it lives in his skin and would leave some form of protection forever?

Laura W - Apr 8, 2007 11:04 am (#632 of 1104)

Mickey: Well, his father had hazel eyes, so maybe that's what colour they'll turn. (grin) Just kidding. I think Harry's eyes will remain bright green, whatever happens.

From PS, Chapter 17, p.216 (Raincoast). Dumbledore: "Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign ... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin. ..."

Laura

Soul Mate for Sirius - Apr 9, 2007 8:14 am (#633 of 1104)

TheSaint & Laura: DD did say that Lily's sacrifice left Harry protected forever, but I thought LV overcame this in the graveyard in GOF when he used Harry's blood to create his new body? Can't he touch Harry now? So in my mind, that protection in Harry's skin is gone in a way because LV overcame it.

If that's true and I'm not remembering wrong (which I very well could be), then Harry's last line of defense from his mother is 4PD, and that's about to run out too. I agree that the reasons for this protection running out when Harry comes of age is most likely becuase he is now an adult, and while a mother's love doesn't stop when her child becomes an adult, she would most likely feel that he was now old enough to take care of himself and she need not worry QUITE so much...

-Jenn

journeymom - Apr 9, 2007 9:00 am (#634 of 1104)

The difference between the protection that Lily's sacrifice gave Harry and the protective charms that Dumbledore himself applied to Harry (or was it 4 Privet Drive? Both?) are, in my opinion, very difficult to define. Others here have attempted to define and clarify the differences for me, but I'm still not getting it, and I just don't think it should be this difficult to 'get'. So either JKR purposefully made the protection issue vague for future use, or she simply did a poor job explaining it (through Dumbledore). In my opinion. It's one of the many things I hope will be clarified in Deathly Hallows, and it might never be fully defined.

MickeyCee3948 - Apr 9, 2007 1:23 pm (#635 of 1104)

SMfS - Dumbledore had that little glint in his eye in GoF when he found out Voldemort had taken some of Harry's blood. The fact that JKR put that into the book in that way makes me feel certain there is something that DD(and JKR) know that we don't. There is something about the protection that is going to have significance in DH. JM2K's.

Mickey

PatPat - Apr 9, 2007 3:21 pm (#636 of 1104)

The way I always saw it was that Harry received protection specifically from Voldemort by his mother's death. Voldemort, however, overcame that protection in GoF. The protection at Privet Drive, I believe, was Dumbledore's doing. He USED the lingering protection of Lily's blood to cast a special charm upon Harry that protected him from, not just Voldemort, but his followers as well. This protection, however, only works while Harry is a child and only works at Privet Drive. In my eyes, the protection worked something like a Fidelius Charm where neither VOldemort nor his followers could harm Harry while he was at Privet Drive. This charm will lift when Harry comes of age. Just my thoughts on the subject. I could be way off base, though!

Laura W - Apr 9, 2007 9:00 pm (#637 of 1104)
Edited Apr 9, 2007 10:06 pm

Mickey, what is SMfS ?

Laura

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited to respond to post below -

Thanks, Saint. Got it now!

TheSaint - Apr 9, 2007 9:04 pm (#638 of 1104)

Laura..he is addressing Soul Mates for Siris..SMfS.

colbow - Apr 12, 2007 12:30 pm (#639 of 1104)

Maybe it is as simple as Harry will be adult and WOULD not want to live at his aunt and uncle as a adult wizard. Did Dumbledore know that Harry was going to be having a rough life till he reached the age of 11 from the Dursleys or did he find out when Harry attended Hogwarts for the first time?(Don't have my book handy)

Seventeen is the year wizards come of age ,so maybe the charm only works till then, as most go on to the next step of their lives.

PatPat - Apr 12, 2007 5:40 pm (#640 of 1104)

Dumbledore knew Harry would have a difficult life:

I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years. (Dumbledore OoP27)

colbow - Apr 12, 2007 9:30 pm (#641 of 1104)

Thanks PatPat, then maybe Dumbledore had a inkling that Harry wouldn't want/could stay there one minute after he became a adult at seventeen.

Mudblood and Proud - Apr 13, 2007 3:25 am (#642 of 1104)

Colbow. By "10 darks years" DD doesn't mean that Harry will be leaving 4PD when he turns 17. What DD means is that he will be coming to Hogwarts aged 11.

colbow - Apr 13, 2007 6:59 am (#643 of 1104)

I know. What I meant was maybe Dumbledore thought Harry, who would be quite uncomfortable there, would not want to stay past his adult age, as he already knew Harry was going to have a rough childhood with the Dursley's when he placed Harry on their doorstep.

Besides if Harry could always stay at good ol Aunt Petina's and was happy there then why worry about Voldie. The more I think on it, the more it seems that the charm only would work until Harry reaches maturity which in the wizard world is seventeen.

Soul Search - Apr 13, 2007 11:48 am (#644 of 1104)

colbow,

What you are suggesting with your second grf is Dumbledore made sure Harry would go after Voldemort because he would have no safe place to stay. That isn't all he did to make sure Harry would accept his fate, but it is one more part.

I think that is a good read.

colbow - Apr 13, 2007 12:03 pm (#645 of 1104)

Soul Search,

Dumbledore knew Harry would WANT/HAVE to go after Voldie, so he feed him tidbits and tools over time(which grew with each passing book) and not to mention gave Harry chances to confront Voldie.

Quite, Harry is the one who has to confront Voldie as HIS life will never be peaceful and safe until he does. Where does one go if they are on the top of the hit list and not mention the person after has tried to kill you once and killed your parents as well.

Solitaire - Apr 14, 2007 11:33 am (#646 of 1104)

I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years.

Those "dark" years could also refer to the fact that, during the whole of them, Harry was "in the dark" about who and what he was and how he came to be where he was. The fact that Dumbledore knew those years would also be "difficult" suggests to me he may have had direct dealings with Petunia even before he made the decision to place Harry with her. Dumbledore has always tended to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I can't believe he would simply accept Lily's word about Pet's attitudes and behavior without attempting to verify it himself. I suspect he and Pet met long before Harry even came on the scene ... perhaps when Lily was enrolled in Hogwarts.

Solitaire

Choices - Apr 14, 2007 4:19 pm (#647 of 1104)

I don't get the impression from the books that Dumbledore met Petunia face to face (until HBP). I do think he may have "spyed" on the Dursleys before he took Harry there or had someone else watch them (perhaps Mrs. Figg), and I think he possibly corresponded with her. His comment in HBP...."This must be Petunia?"...indicates to me they have never met face to face.

Solitaire - Apr 15, 2007 1:30 pm (#648 of 1104)

You're probably right, Choices. Of course, the comment might still be appropriate if it had been 15-20 years since he had seen her last. (I know ... I'm reaching!)

Solitaire

Potter Ace - Apr 16, 2007 8:22 am (#649 of 1104)

Just to throw a wrench into the DD never having met Pet before. Every time (at least in the movies or TV) two parties get together and do not want to alert a third party that they have met before, they faint knowing each other. so for DD to state "this must be Petunia" does not necessarily mean he has never met her, but perhaps does not want anyone else in the room to know that he has.

Both Harry & Pet's husband (sorry it escapes me) would have more questions would it have slipped that they had already met.

Soul Mate for Sirius - Apr 16, 2007 8:29 am (#650 of 1104)

I have to agree with Potter Ace here. I thought that very thing while reading that scene. I don't know why, but Petunia's reaction to DD when he says "this must be Petunia" seems weird to me, and I felt like she knew exactly who DD was, but was afraid of Vernon finding out...

JM2K

-Jenn

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:37 am

haymoni - Apr 16, 2007 9:13 am (#651 of 1104)

I could see Pet knowing who Dumbledore is - "Who doesn't know Dumbledore?"

Perhaps Lily had Daily Prophets delivered to the house. She may have seen his picture before - even if Lily had just described him, I'm guessing she would have been able to figure out who he was.

But I'll bet Dumbledore has never actually met Pet.

Ludicrous Patents Office - Apr 16, 2007 5:35 pm (#652 of 1104)

I don't think there was any reason for Dumbledore to meet Pet. I think the first time they met face to face was in HBP. Dumbledore had no choice but to put Harry with the Dursleys. He knew Voldemort was alive and could come back at anytime. LPO

Pamzter - Apr 29, 2007 4:23 pm (#653 of 1104)

I'm not sure where to post this.

I just watched the movie POA and don't own the POA book to double check what I'm thinking about. It has to do with Harry conjuring his patronus. When he calls it up in Lupin's office and over Sirius the first time through it's not extremely powerful. However, when he and Hermione time warp and he is across the lake from himself and Sirius it's super incredible. Here's my question: Does the book say what the thought he uses either time to call it up over Sirius? I suspicion the original time with Sirius it was when Sirius asked Harry to live with him. Was the second time the realization that it was he himself who had done the previous super incredible patronus?

Perhaps in the long run it really doesn't matter, but to me it's kind of interesting, from a psychological point of view, that it moved from being dependent upon happiness that others provided to a happiness he found within himself.

gusmania - Apr 30, 2007 1:51 am (#654 of 1104)

Pamzter, Harry is a very powerful wizard when he or his friends or in danger. In OOP Harry tries to use a crucio spell, it does not work as he uses this spell as an attack. In HBP Harry uses the sectumsempra spell against Draco, this is as dark as a crucio spell it works as Harry is using it as a defence.

PatPat - Apr 30, 2007 5:37 am (#655 of 1104)

gusmania, this is actually a VERY good observation. This may be how Harry's love translates into power. When he is protecting someone or himself he is able to summon an enormous amount of power within himself. We see it again when he is trying to protect himself and Dudley in OoP. He is even able to use wandless magic here to light up his wand. I'm with you on this.

Steve Newton - Apr 30, 2007 5:41 am (#656 of 1104)

A slight disagreement. The Crucio of Trixie in the MOM did work. It just didn't work as well as her's would have.

journeymom - Apr 30, 2007 9:11 am (#657 of 1104)

Was the second time the realization that it was he himself who had done the previous super incredible patronus?

Pamzter, if I remember in the book correctly, the first time he's finally successful with the expecto patronum in the lesson with Lupin it's because he's actually thinking about his mom and dad, the moments before they die. It's their voiced he's hearing, and it makes him very happy. The first time his patronus is big, powerful and corporeal is at the quidditch match when Draco and Co come out on the field dressed as dementors. He's about to get the snitch and just doesn't have time for these dementors. He bellows the spell and sees something huge shoot out of his wand and proceeds to catch the snitch in a spectacular manner. Lupin comes up to him later and is shaking but very pleased for him. Harry doesn't find out till later that that was the first time his patronus was a stag.

Yes, the common theme is protection for a loved one. Harry's parents were sacrificing themselves to protect him, and he loves to hear their voices. In fact he feels a little guilty about succumbing to the dementors, wondering if he's doing it just to hear their voices.

(Which is another theme repeated in OotP, when Snape accuses him of not practicing occlumency so that he can continue to see into Voldemort's mind. Snape doesn't want him to feel 'special'.)

rambkowalczyk - Apr 30, 2007 2:09 pm (#658 of 1104)

regarding Harry's patronus

Here's my question: Does the book say what the thought he uses either time to call it up over Sirius? I suspicion the original time with Sirius it was when Sirius asked Harry to live with him. Was the second time the realization that it was he himself who had done the previous super incredible patronus? Pamzer

I got my book

When Sirius is unconscious and Harry is next to him, his happy thought is

I'm going to live with my godfather. I'm leaving the Dursleys.

but he is overwhelmed by the volume of dementers.

Later when he goes back in time.

But no one came. Harry raised his head to look at the circle of dementers across the lake. One of them was lowering its hood. It was time for the rescuer to appear--but no one was coming to help this time---

and then it hit him---he understood. He hadn't seen his father--he had seen himself--

Harry flung himself out from behind the bush and pulled out his wand.

EXPECTO PATRONUM!

It appears that not only happy thoughts are needed but confidence as well.

This doesn't necessarily negate the idea that Harry can summon up power when loved ones are in danger.

Journeymom, I think I disagree that hearing his parents voices are what made him conjure the Patronus or maybe I am misunderstanding you. I think Harry associates hearing his mother's voice with not being able to produce a patronus.

1st time memory, riding his first broomstick. but as he waits for the dementer to come out

He tried to keep his mind on flying, but something else kept intruding... Any second now, he might hear his mother again...but he shouldn't think of that, or he would hear her again, and he didn't want to...or did he?

Harry hears the Stand aside and faints.

2nd time memory Gryffindor wins house championship. No mention of waiting to hear mother's voice. Harry hears his father's voice and faints.

3rd time memory Finding out he is a wizard and going to Hogwarts. Again no mention of waiting to hear parent's voices. This time there is a patronus between him and the boggart.

PatPat - Apr 30, 2007 2:29 pm (#659 of 1104)

Yeah, journeymom, I think you are thinking of the movie version which is seldom accurate. In the movie, Harry tells Lupin that he was thinking of his parents when he first conjured the Patronus. But, in the book, he says it is finding out he is a wizard, as ramb states above. It's hard to keep it all straight because of all the movie contamination!

journeymom - Apr 30, 2007 8:16 pm (#660 of 1104)

Ugh! I totally blew it that time! Lol! You're right.

xray - May 9, 2007 3:31 pm (#661 of 1104)

And that's just the movies. Can you imagine what fanfics are doing to contaminate some people?

p.s. I don't read fanfic; I want to remain pure

Ludicrous Patents Office - Jun 25, 2007 1:42 pm (#662 of 1104)

With the deluxe edition art work out I'm wondering if the new pet Harry gets is a Dragon. I've always hoped it would be Fawkes but thought it was Buckbeak. Now I think it will be the Dragon. Dumbledore was a special wizard and had a Phoenix. Harry is a special wizard and needs a special pet a Dragon. LPO

M A Grimmett - Jun 29, 2007 6:53 am (#663 of 1104)

In the mood Harry's in, I don't think he cares much about violating Ministry rules for the keeping of dragons. Dunno where he'd keep it; probably wouldn't fit into Grimmauld Place very well.

Choices - Jun 29, 2007 8:30 am (#664 of 1104)

With Harry's attitude about Hagrid keeping Norbert, would he really want to deal with a dragon himself? Somehow I just can't see it.

Solitaire - Jun 29, 2007 9:30 am (#665 of 1104)

I can't see him keeping a dragon, but I can see him using one for transport ... especially if it was sent to him by Charlie Weasley.

Choices - Jun 29, 2007 9:45 am (#666 of 1104)

I agree Soli - using one for transportation is a lot different than having one as a pet. LOL

Ludicrous Patents Office - Jun 29, 2007 1:53 pm (#667 of 1104)

Harry will be leaving the Dursleys and we don't know where he will be living. I don't think he will live at #12. Maybe he and his dragon will tour the world after it is all over! Charlie's job for the Order may be to try and train dragons for them. LPO

Solitaire - Jun 29, 2007 5:46 pm (#668 of 1104)

Uncle Vernon just about had a conniption when the Anglia pulled up to Harry's window. Hm ... just wondering what he would do if a dragon pulled up and parked on the front lawn? hehe

Solitaire

Joanne Reid - Jun 30, 2007 7:33 am (#669 of 1104)

Hi,

ROFL!

Think of this one: "Owls! Owls! I will not have them in my house! Owls! Argh! DRAGON!!!"

PatPat - Jun 30, 2007 8:13 am (#670 of 1104)

LOL!!! I can just see his big face turning purple as he pulls tufts of hair out of his mustache. Petunia looking out the window to see if the neighbors saw the dragon sitting on her perfectly manicured lawn. "Uh, nothing to worry about. It's just a really big lizard."

Chemyst - Jul 6, 2007 4:38 am (#671 of 1104)

... yeah? Well, just 'til until next season when Petunia discovers that dragon dung fertilizer has made her flowers twice the size of her neighbors! She'll be singing a different tune then.

I think Harry's dragon ride will fall under the "help always cones to those who ask" rule. It is odd how throughout the books, and especially during the Umbridge era, Harry would go back and forth about asking for help. His pride often made him very selective as to who he'd allow to help him.

Solitaire - Jul 6, 2007 7:53 am (#672 of 1104)

Yes, her agapanthas will be flourishing! **wondering if dragon dung fertilizer would work on my crepe myrtle**

Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 6, 2007 8:09 am (#673 of 1104)

LOL Chemyst! I would like to try some myself. My garden could use a lift.

Chemyst I love the idea of "help always comes to those who ask". I wonder if Dumbledore's spirit becomes part of Hogwarts. Hogwarts is an entity of itself. Harry will ask for help and be quiet surprised when a dragon turns up!

I can't believe it is the end. LPO

journeymom - Jul 6, 2007 12:01 pm (#674 of 1104)

Hogwarts is an entity of itself.

Totally agreed!

TheSaint - Jul 12, 2007 8:33 am (#675 of 1104)

Just a question.

Rereading OOTP...My husband and I were theorizing for fun. Dumbledore consults the little silver machine...essence divided. Two pages later Harry is talking about the 'snake rising up in him.' Let's say Harry is a horcrux...and the powers he possess are given to him by Voldemort, '...and in marking you with that scar, he did not kill you, as he intended, but gave you powers (not more powers, his powers or some powers)' or 'Consequently, he could not warn his master that to attack you would be to risk transferrring power to you'. He was a squib before the transfer. Dumbledore has also said that even if he could get rid of Harry's scar, he wouldn't.

Long story...Anyway so the question. At the end of the final battle, Harry is still in possession of his scar and Voldemort's soul piece. He has a choice...He can get rid of the scar and the soul piece and live his life as a squib, or keep the piece and his powers. Which do you think he would choose?

Choices - Jul 12, 2007 8:38 am (#676 of 1104)
Edited Jul 12, 2007 9:39 am

I think he would be rid of the soul bit and his scar. Living as a Squib would be preferable to Harry than having a bit of Voldemort in him. Just my opinion.

Anna L. Black - Jul 12, 2007 9:15 am (#677 of 1104)

Also, wouldn't Harry's having LV's soulbit in him prevent him from vanquishing Voldemort?

Choices - Jul 12, 2007 9:42 am (#678 of 1104)

If (if????) Harry has a soul bit in him and he killed Voldemort, it would be Godric's Hollow all over again. The soul bit in Voldemort would just fly off (being tied to this plain by Harry being a Horcrux) and eventually Voldemort would go through rebirthing process again and regain a body. Voldemort could only be vanquished completely if the soul bit in Harry were destroyed first (and all his other Horcruxes). Just my opinion....

Paul Potter - Jul 12, 2007 10:20 am (#679 of 1104)

In OOTP Voldermort tried to posses Harry but could not stay because of the Love which he possessed so maybe no Part of Voldermort could be within him. Just my thoughts

Steve Newton - Jul 12, 2007 10:27 am (#680 of 1104)

I agree that even one soul bit left would lead to Voldemort's return. However, the soul bit in Harry, if it exists, would have been exposed to years of love and may be quite a bit changed.

Choices - Jul 12, 2007 10:36 am (#681 of 1104)
Edited Jul 12, 2007 11:37 am

A changed bit, eh? LOL I think I agree. It seems to me that our souls are not preprogrammed - they are what we make of them. If they were preprogrammed we would have no free will, no choices. If (????) there is a soul bit in Harry and it has resided in Harry for over 10 years, would it not change and adopt the same demeanor or substance (or whatever you want to call it) of Harry's own soul. His soul is good and unblemished and loving, so wouldn't the Voldemort soul bit just take on the qualities of Harry's soul? I don't think a soul bit has a mind of it's own.

Solitaire - Jul 12, 2007 10:54 am (#682 of 1104)
Edited Jul 12, 2007 12:04 pm

If there is a soul remnant in Harry, it must be destroyed before Voldemort can be vanquished ... by Harry or anyone else. As long as there is a tiny fragment of Voldy's soul tethered to someone or something that is still intact, he cannot die.

I think Harry will have to submit to being "de-Horcruxed"--once he has figured this out, that is--before he or anyone else will be able to bring Voldy down. In fact, it may be Snape who ultimately has to bring Voldy down, since Harry may not be fit for battle once the Horcrux within him has been destroyed. JM2K ...

Edit: Choices, I do not think the soul fragment of Voldy's will ever take on the qualities of Harry's soul, simply because it is Voldemort's soul. Looking back in OotP, it must be this fragment that caused Harry to want to attack DD. (Remember the time he said he looked at Dumbledore and felt the snake within him rear up like it wanted to attack?)

But ... don't forget that there is now a part of Harry in Voldemort, as well--his blood. So Voldemort now is infused with the blood of Lily, which is permeated with love, the one thing Voldemort despises above all others. He saw this as having the same protection Harry had from Lily, but might it not actually be his undoing? Imagine his reaction when he realizes he has not just Lily's blood but her love flowing through his veins. Could get interesting ...

Solitaire

Soul Search - Jul 12, 2007 12:48 pm (#683 of 1104)

Voldemort has had Harry's/Lily's blood flowing in him since the end of GoF. He continued to commit and order atrocities in OotP and, particularly, HBP. We hear of some in the first chapter of HBP.

Voldemort tried to kill Harry in OotP, the MoM fight.

It doesn't appear Harry's/Lily's blood has changed Voldemort at all.

Choices - Jul 12, 2007 1:40 pm (#684 of 1104)

It certainly doesn't. It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, it has on the Harry/Voldemort relationship and confrontation in book 7.

LooneyLuna - Jul 12, 2007 2:10 pm (#685 of 1104)
Edited Jul 12, 2007 3:11 pm

I think Voldemort having Harry's blood in him means that Harry will be able to vanquish Voldemort once and for all. "I can touch him now" goes both ways. Harry almost died when he wouldn't let go of Quirrel/Voldemort in the Sorcerer's Stone. Dumbledore said he had just gotten there in time and Harry was unconscious for 3 days afterwards.

Solitaire - Jul 12, 2007 6:26 pm (#686 of 1104)

It doesn't appear Harry's/Lily's blood has changed Voldemort at all

I didn't say it had changed him. I do wonder, however, if it affected his ability to possess Harry in the Ministry? Remember the surge of love Harry felt for Sirius, and how Voldemort suddenly relinquished his hold? Remember the description of Voldemort seeming to be afraid in the graveyard? Could he have been reacting to the feelings of love and hope that were welling up within Harry? It's just something to consider ...

Solitaire

Hoot Owl - Jul 13, 2007 12:22 pm (#687 of 1104)

If Harry was a squib, he would not have been ' down for Hogwarts since he was born.' Only children born with magical abilities are recorded that way. There is so much made about Harry flying as well as James for him not to have inherited the ' dominant magic gene' from his parents.

I do not believe either Harry or his scar is a horcrux. But if I'm wrong, the soul bit that he would have received would not have been 'a pure untainted soul bit ' ready to be imprinted with love. It would have been part of LV, the foulest evil Dark Wizard of the 20th Century. I doubt 16 years in Harry would make a dent in the 50+ years of evil in Voldermont.

IMHO, of course!

Soul Search - Jul 13, 2007 1:29 pm (#688 of 1104)

Hoot Owl,

Good points.

I don't like the idea of Harry's scar being a horcrux, but I can't explain too many things any other way: Scar hurting when Voldemort is around. Mental connections with Voldemort. Speaking Parsletongue and the other "capabilities" Harry got from Voldemort that we haven't seen yet.

JKR has had six books to hint at some other explanation and there has been nothing. Harry's scar is unique in the wizarding world, and so are the other things he got from Voldmeort. There must be a connection. Horcrux is all we have.

While Harry being a horcrux makes destroying all Voldemort's horcruxes before Harry can kill him a bit of a problem, I expect Harry having a Voldemort soul bit will come in handy. For example, a protection on a horcrux might be set to recognize Voldemort, and Harry's Voldemort horcrux will be a benefit.

One question is does Voldemort, now, know that Harry is an accidental horcrux? After Voldemort tried to occupy Harry in OotP, he started performing Occulmency so Harry can't read his mind and he hasn't tried to kill him. Snape even tells us Voldmeort gave orders that Harry was not to be harmed.

Is this because Voldemort doesn't want one of his precious horcruxes destroyed? Makes things difficult for Voldemort, too.

Oh, what a web our favorite author weaves!

Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 13, 2007 1:38 pm (#689 of 1104)

If Dumbledore is correct in thinking Nagini is a Horcrux I think Voldemort is using her as a back up. I think he may have a way to transfer the Horcrux to a relic of his choice: Gryffindor's Sword. If he can do that he does not want Harry killed until he can transfer that Horcrux into something else.

I agree Soul Search. With all the available information we have it looks like Harry may well be a Horcrux. Our favorite author is wonderful at misdirection so who knows! LPO

Choices - Jul 13, 2007 4:19 pm (#690 of 1104)

I think JKR has not only given hints as to the connection between Harry and Voldemort, she has come right out and told us about that connection through Dumbledore (her mouthpiece). He told Harry that Voldemort transferred some of his powers to Harry - not intentionally - on that night the AK backfired. "Powers" do not equate to a piece of his soul, in my opinion.

Solitaire - Jul 13, 2007 4:48 pm (#691 of 1104)

Powers do not equate to a piece of his soul, in my opinion.

I agree, Choices. However, while talking to Harry after he returned from the Chamber and the others had gone, Dumbledore made that comment: "... he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure ..."
Voldemort put a bit of himself in me? Harry said, thunderstruck.
It certainly seems so.

When Harry says "put a bit of himself in me," Dumbledore does not correct him by saying "no, only a bit of his powers." This does not bode well to me.

Solitaire

Choices - Jul 13, 2007 4:58 pm (#692 of 1104)
Edited Jul 13, 2007 5:59 pm

I agree, Soli, it may not bode well. However, it could all be chalked up to phrasing. Maybe JKR never dreamed we would all jump on that word "bit". The powers are a bit of Voldemort, at least the way I look at it. Voldemort putting a bit of himself in Harry, could be just be an innocent referral to powers. It could be like a Mark Evans thing.

Solitaire - Jul 13, 2007 5:12 pm (#693 of 1104)

It could be just what it says ... and it could be more. I'll be glad to know once and for all ... but I'm worried that a Horcrux Harry won't survive the spell to "de-Horcruxize" him.

Solitaire

Choices - Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm (#694 of 1104)

If the de-Horcrux-ing spell has to be performed, I trust Severus Snape to do it.

Solitaire - Jul 13, 2007 5:25 pm (#695 of 1104)

Alas, it will take some major twists and turns to get Harry to trust Snape at this point ... I think.

Choices - Jul 13, 2007 5:27 pm (#696 of 1104)

LOL I agree. It's just that I don't think Harry is a Horcrux, so I do not think it will actually come down to Snape having to do it.

PatPat - Jul 14, 2007 6:17 am (#697 of 1104)

I agree with you Choices, but we seem to be in the minority regarding Harry/Harry's scar is a horcrux theory. I just can't get past the fact that I do not believe that Dumbledore would have kept this important piece of information from Harry in HBP. If he thought Harry could be a horcrux (and there is NO WAY the thought never occurred to him. If we thought of it, so did Dumbledore) he would surely have tried to help Harry find a safe way to remove it. The last thing he would want would be for Harry to discover he is a horcrux at precisely the wrong moment.

Madame Pomfrey - Jul 14, 2007 8:08 am (#698 of 1104)

JKR said that the shape is not the most significant thing about the scar. I have read a theory that the scar houses Voldemorts magical abilities and that with Voldemorts death the magic within the scar would also die,making Harry a sqib. I just can't buy that.Harry has his fathers Quidditch skills for one thing.It came natural to him.Tom Riddle was never on the Quidditch team that we know of. Harry has been on the list to join Hogwarts since he was born.I don't think this really proves anything because Nevilles grandmother feared he was a squib for the longest,so it might be that all children born to magical parents are down for Hogwarts. Also,if the scar does contain only Voldemorts magical powers then why is Harry able to feel Voldemorts emotions?

So,besides the scar housing a bit of Voldemorts soul,I cannot think of anything else that would make it significant.

Harry said "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Dumbledore replied that it would seem so. I do not think Voldemort was aware of this until he tried to possess Harry.After that,Voldemort used occlumency against Harry and ordered Harry not to be killed.

Joanna Lupin - Jul 14, 2007 8:20 am (#699 of 1104)

Actually, what Snape says is "Potter belongs to the Dark Lord" it rather seems like Voldemort wants to kill Harry himself.

I'm not sure how I feel about the Harry is a horcrux theory. Doesn't the prophecy name Harry as the only one able to vanguish Voldemort? How is that possible if Harry has to die first?

TheSaint - Jul 14, 2007 8:27 am (#700 of 1104)

Joanna - How is that possible if Harry has to die first?

Maybe they die at the same time..and since they share body and soul, the horcrux in Harry's head will spare Harry instead.

I should have put that part into the question I posted earlier.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:39 am

Joanna Lupin - Jul 14, 2007 8:31 am (#701 of 1104)

Or maybe Neville comes over Harry's lifeless body to finish the job. LOL

Choices - Jul 14, 2007 8:50 am (#702 of 1104)

LOL I agree with your post #697, PatPat. It would be totally unlike Dumbledore to leave Harry with a Horcrux in his head and not tell him how to get rid of it. Harry is "the one" who can save the wizarding world and Dumbledore has invested much time and effort into preparing him for this. Would he really just leave Harry with a ticking time- bomb in his head that might kill him before his job is finished? The only alternative I can envision is that Dumbledore has left Snape with the task of defusing the bomb (if there is one - I am holding out to the bitter end that there isn't.). **starts to fidget in the "eat crow" line, hoping not to have to**

PatPat - Jul 14, 2007 8:54 am (#703 of 1104)

# **gets in line with Choices***

legolas returns - Jul 14, 2007 9:38 am (#704 of 1104)
Edited Jul 14, 2007 10:39 am

If have never been in the Harry is a horcrux camp but have been thinking about this.

In favour-Harry feels Voldemort near/Senses his moods/when he has been mentally attacked (e.g after occulumency) he felt Voldemorts moods more fully

Against-He never has shown an interest in dark magic. Voldemort is unable to posses him. He chooses what is right rather than easy. He has been out of action many times but has not been taken over. He chose not to be in Slytherin.

So unless Harry can completely block out the evil part of voldemort i think its more like the connection that twins have rather than a horcrux. Twins often know how the other one feels rather than a full soul segment.

I dont think that Dumbledore would ignore any evidence of the scar being dodgy if it was infront of him. He would not have called it a blessing and a curse. He would not have kept it from Harry.

Solitaire - Jul 14, 2007 10:08 am (#705 of 1104)

It would be totally unlike Dumbledore to leave Harry with a Horcrux in his head and not tell him how to get rid of it.

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. Throughout the series, Dumbledore has shown a pattern of withholding information from Harry until he thought Harry was ready to hear it. It is possible that Harry might have made different choices if he had understood better what was happening in and around him. While I do not think Dumbledore intended to die without telling Harry about a potential Horcrux in him, I believe it may have happened. Of course, I am not sold on the Harry-is-a-Horcrux idea, either ... but I am coming to see that it is possible.

Solitaire

Soul Search - Jul 14, 2007 11:21 am (#706 of 1104)
Edited Jul 14, 2007 12:25 pm

I, and I think most of we forumites, really enjoy JKR's unexpected plot developments. She really has an imagination to admire. Just look at HBP compared to what any of us predicted for it. True, I did expect Dumbledore to die, but at Snape's hand!

If we just extrapolate HBP to Deathly Hallows we have a horcrux quest, then Harry kills Voldemort. Boring! There has to be a twist. More than one.

What a delicious twist if Harry destroys all the horcruxes, then discovers he can't kill Voldemort while he, himself, lives. Wow!

I am counting on JKR to come up with something like that.

And, Harry won't die. We have canon to prove it.

We have the excellent literary and message reasons for Harry to survive, and the fact that JKR has told us there is an epilogue (why have an epilogue if the main character is not in it. Who would care. After all, every book has been "Harry Potter and the ... .")

We also have canon that Harry will live. The prophecy: "... either must die at the hand of the other ... ." Usage of "either" commands a choice of one, but not both. If I put my "symbolic logic" hat on (I have one, it's my profession,) "either" is always exclusive. While "or" can be inclusive or exclusive, "either" is always exclusive. So, unless Voldemort is to survive the series, Harry will.

So, we have nothing to fear that Harry will die because his scar is a horcrux. JKR has worked out an astounding solution to that problem. I trust JK Rowling!

MickeyCee3948 - Jul 14, 2007 11:30 am (#707 of 1104)
Edited Jul 14, 2007 12:33 pm

Dumbledore is not "gone". He is just temporarily indesposed. I believe that Harry will have a conversation with DD's portrait. During which DD will reveal his belief that Harry is indeed the last Horcrux.

As Solitaire put it Dumbledore has shown a pattern of withholding information from Harry until he thought Harry was ready to hear it.

Throughout HBP, DD has seperated known facts from conjecture and he just didn't have conclusive proof that Harry was the last horcrux. I just can't believe that DD thought his last moments would be spent on the tower. So he never had the chance to tell Harry of his belief.

In the final third of HBP, Harry is so happy about his training with DD to discover and destroy the horcruxes and about his budding relationship with Ginny that DD just didn't have it in him to give Harry this last dose of reality. Remember that DD knew that he could come back via his portrait to speak to Harry further if he should go through the veil.

I believe that with DD and Hermoine's help they can find out how to destroy the remaining Horcruxes and remove the one in Harry without him losing his magical powers or having to sacrifice himself.

But these are only the conjecture of an old man with very little fact in support.

But in only 153 hours I will find out if I must eat ALOT of crow or if I will be serving it to Choices & PatPat.

Mickey

P.S. Soul Search I like your reasoning and agree wholeheartedly.

Solitaire - Jul 14, 2007 12:13 pm (#708 of 1104)
Edited Jul 14, 2007 1:14 pm

I seriously doubt Harry will revert to Squib-hood if/when the Horcrux is removed from him. He might not possess the gift of Parseltongue any longer, but ... so what?

And, Harry won't die. We have canon to prove it.

Um ... we do? Did I miss something?

Solitaire

Madame Pomfrey - Jul 14, 2007 12:53 pm (#709 of 1104)
Edited Jul 14, 2007 1:57 pm

I agree with Soli and others about Dumbledore withholding information until he feels it an appropriate time. When Harry asked Dumbledore why he trusts Snape Dumbledore looked as if he were about to disclose something then changed his mind. I feel Dumbledore will tell Harry in due time. He has his reasons for delaying info.

Daniel Radcliff was on Regis and Kelly the other day.He admitted that he was not one of the top 10 that has been granted permission to read the final book.When asked By Kelly if he thought Harry would live,he replied.Umm,I think he will but probably at a terrible price. He went on to say he couldn't wait to read the final book. I wonder if Daniel thinks Harry is a horcrux too?

Solitaire - Jul 14, 2007 1:47 pm (#710 of 1104)

I feel Dumbledore will tell Harry in due time. He has his reasons for delaying info.

Um ... now that Dumbledore is dead, I wonder when that "due time" will be? While I do agree that Dumbledore always had his reasons for delaying the imparting of certain information, I have frequently thought (with my 20/20 hindsight) that some of those reasons were more for his own good than Harry's. Even up to the end, I suspect Dumbledore thought he would have time--after Snape did what he needed to do for him--to clue Harry in on a few key things ... like why he trusted Snape in the first place.

About the Horcrux, I don't know ... I do not know whether to think (1) Harry is not a Horcrux; (2) Harry is a Horcrux, but Dumbledore did not have a clue; (3) Dumbledore suspected Harry is a Horcrux, but he wanted to tell him after he'd shown Harry how to destroy the soul remnant without destroying the item itself, in order to give Harry hope; or (4) Dumbledore knew Harry is a Horcrux, but he planned to remove the soul remnant himself or have Snape do it ... but he just ran out of time.

With the exception of number one, none of the above scenarios is very encouraging.

Solitaire

Soul Search - Jul 14, 2007 2:03 pm (#711 of 1104)

Solitaire,

I favor your 3 and 4.

Particularly 4. It allows the whole conflict with Snape to tie to the horcrux hunt and to Harry's final defeat of Voldemort.

Solitaire - Jul 14, 2007 2:06 pm (#712 of 1104)

I think it is likely, Soul Search. But I also worry that Harry will never accept anything from Snape at this point ... and may even attempt to kill him when he sees him.

Solitaire

PatPat - Jul 14, 2007 3:09 pm (#713 of 1104)

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with those who believe that Dumbledore would have continued to withhold such an important piece of information from Harry. It's true that, in the past, Dumbledore kept things from Harry. BUT, he spent the whole of HBP revealing information to Harry regarding the horcruxes. The only two things that we can truly say that Dumbledore withheld from Harry in HBP involved Snape (i.e. Snape and the prophecy; Why he trusted Snape). My feeling about this is that Dumbledore felt he was protecting Snape's privacy. He didn't feel that it was his place to reveal those things to Harry. Dumbledore knows that Harry is destined to vanquish the Dark Lord. He knows what is at stake. Would he continue to risk countless lives by withholding an extremely important piece of information from Harry? I don't believe so. He learned his lesson about that in OoP. If not, then we are to believe that Dumbledore is a fool who is doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. No way. ***watches the crow being thrown on the grill***

Chemyst - Jul 14, 2007 3:52 pm (#714 of 1104)

There is only one way that I've thought of which could make "Harry is a Horcrux" acceptable to me. It is based on going through the veil. According to Lupin, no one returns through the veil; but we haven't really seen anyone who was a horcrux try it either… So if a horcrux had an effect of reacting to the veil something akin to Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass where a horcrux could reverse reality… I hope you are right about JKR having a "delicious twist," Soul Search, because I will need one if that scar is a horcrux.

Choices - Jul 14, 2007 5:09 pm (#715 of 1104)
Edited Jul 14, 2007 6:11 pm

I think we have seen Dumbledore withhold information from Harry, but never information that might cause Harry to die. IF he has a Horcrux in his head, his life is in serious danger. As our departed friend, Steve Irwin used to say...."Danger, danger, danger!" Dumbledore loved Harry, more than he ever thought he would, so I just don't think he would slip up and not prepare Harry for this threat to his very existence. Even if he couldn't tell Harry, I think he would at least have said, "Harry, there is something terribly important that you need to know. If something should happen to me, go see Wizard X (Snape, I believe) and he will take care of it."

MickeyCee3948 - Jul 14, 2007 10:20 pm (#716 of 1104)
Edited Jul 14, 2007 11:22 pm

He can still tell him through the portrait!!

I think that JKR had to end HBP as she did with us learning who the HBP was and with the WW losing Dumbledore. It wasn't the place to tell Harry that he was the last of the horcruxes.

Mickey

legolas returns - Jul 14, 2007 11:48 pm (#717 of 1104)

Chemyst-Do you mean by a reversal of reality that everyone that Voldemort had killed would come to life or do you mean that Harry could walk back out through the veil?

Chemyst - Jul 15, 2007 6:32 am (#718 of 1104)
Edited Jul 15, 2007 7:33 am

That Harry could walk back out through the veil; one horcrux per person, please. I doubt one puny little horcrux would be able to cover everyone Voldemort has killed. That would make him one of the best revivalists of all time, wouldn't it?

legolas returns - Jul 15, 2007 6:47 am (#719 of 1104)

I am only little and wanted to check.

Joanna Lupin - Jul 15, 2007 7:01 am (#720 of 1104)

Hasn't JKR said there is no coming back from the dead though? And how can Voldemort's horcrux save Harry's life? It seems far-fetched to me.

Madame Pomfrey - Jul 15, 2007 8:58 am (#721 of 1104)

If Dumbledore knew he would die and he also suspected that Harry's scar might be a horcrux,I would think Dumbledore has left a memory or something in his will revealing his thoughts on the matter or converse with Harry via portrait, as Mickey suggested. While still writing DH,JKR said Dumbledore was giving her trouble.I think he is far from gone.

Solitaire - Jul 15, 2007 9:07 am (#722 of 1104)

JKR said Dumbledore was giving her trouble.

Perhaps his portrait kept talking to her! Just kidding ... Perhaps she was having trouble resolving this very issue--Dumbledore dying without having told Harry this most critical piece of information. It would certainly cast Dumbledore in a less-than-responsible light, and we know she would not want this.

Solitaire

MickeyCee3948 - Jul 15, 2007 9:21 am (#723 of 1104)

Unless Dumbledore admits to Harry that his biggest mistake of all was putting his trust in Snape. If the "supposedly" first sentence is truthful then it does not seem that Snape is feeling ANY remorse over killing Dumbledore. Quite the contrary he seems to be gleeful.

Mickey

Solitaire - Jul 15, 2007 9:57 am (#724 of 1104)

I suppose a lot hinges on whether Snape is truly Dumbledore's man ... or Voldy's man. Remember that Dumbledore told Harry, in the cave, to make him keep drinking, no matter what happened or what he said. Well, he may have bound Snape to a similar promise. And no, this does not mean I like Snape any more than I ever did. It simply means that I am willing to consider that he might have been acting on Dumbledore's orders.

Solitaire

Chemyst - Jul 15, 2007 4:51 pm (#725 of 1104)

Hasn't JKR said there is no coming back from the dead though? And how can Voldemort's horcrux save Harry's life? It seems far-fetched to me.

Yes, it is far-fetched. One of JKR's quotes about not coming back used the qualifier "properly dead." Harry may not be "properly dead" if he's still a viable horcrux. Voldemort's horcrux might be able to save Harry if one or both of these: (1. transfer at scar's creation, 2. the addition of Harry's blood at the rebirthing,) enabled that one horcrux to work on either person. If DD knew that, it could account for the gleam in his eye when he heard about LV using Harry's blood.

jose043 - Jul 15, 2007 5:48 pm (#726 of 1104)
Edited Jul 15, 2007 6:49 pm

Hi All

If Harry was a Horcrux, Voldemort would have been able to touch him in PS/SS when he had the stone but Quirrell could not his hands burnt.

Voldemort could not touch him till the GofF when he took some of Harry's blood.

Josephine & Anne

Little Werewolves of London

Solitaire - Jul 15, 2007 6:16 pm (#727 of 1104)

If Harry was a Horcrux, Voldemort would have been able to touch him in PS/SS when he had the stone but Quirrell could not his hands burnt.

We really don't know that for certain.

jose043 - Jul 15, 2007 9:33 pm (#728 of 1104)

Hi Solitaire

Well Voldemort was sharing Quirrell's body wasn't he.

Josephine & Anne

Little Werewolves of London

MickeyCee3948 - Jul 16, 2007 9:02 am (#729 of 1104)

Not sharing the body so much as inhabiting it. As Tom had no body of his own. Quirrell did all of the moving and touching. All Tom could do was tell him what he wanted.

And I believe it was Harry who was touching Quirrell that caused the burning. Not the other way around. But I could be wrong.

Mickey

jose043 - Jul 16, 2007 5:16 pm (#730 of 1104)
Edited Jul 16, 2007 6:16 pm

Hi Mickey

I agree that it was Quirrell who was doing the touching, but in GofF Voldermort said he could touch Harry now so Anne & I took to mean that he remembered what happened when he posed Quirrell.

Josephine & Anne

Little Werewolves of London

MickeyCee3948 - Jul 16, 2007 6:12 pm (#731 of 1104)

OK, Now I see what you mean jose043 and I agree with you.

Mickey

jose043 - Jul 16, 2007 11:16 pm (#732 of 1104)

Thanks Mickey, I have trouble at times writing things as I know what I want too say but put it around the wrong way or not express myself properly.

On Harry he knows how to love & trusts his friends, were Voldermort doesn't seems to trust any of his followers, to us he seems like a loner.

Josephine & Anne Little Werewolves of London The moon made me do it.

Luna Logic - Jul 16, 2007 11:50 pm (#733 of 1104)

Jose043: On Harry he knows how to love & trusts his friends, were Voldermort doesn't seems to trust any of his followers, to us he seems like a loner. That's a great remark about the difference Harry/Voldemort, and I think it will be crucial in the end !
It make me wonder, too, about Dumbledore, who seems not be able to trust friends (as discussed in some other thread)- but who says to Harry to trust his own's friends!

PatPat - Jul 17, 2007 7:36 am (#734 of 1104)

Whoa, Luna. How do we get that Dumbledore doesn't trust his friends?? He says in PS that he would trust Hagrid with his life. He says more than once how much he trusts Snape. And he puts a tremendous amount of trust in Molly and Arthur Weasley to the point of allowing Harry to stay with them.

Luna Logic - Jul 17, 2007 9:22 am (#735 of 1104)

Thanks, PatPat, to make me precise my post. I was thinking about horcruxes. Dumbledore confides in no one about that (I'm thinking of McGonagall, who wanted to know where he was going in Book 6...), he encourages Harry to confide in Ron and Hermione on this same topic.. I always asked myself, why...

PatPat - Jul 17, 2007 10:54 am (#736 of 1104)

Ah, I see what you are saying now, Luna. That's a very interesting point. I've always wondered whether or not Dumbledore DID tell someone about the horcruxes that we just don't know about yet. (I'm thinking of Snape, since he saved Dumbledore after the destruction of the ring horcrux). You're right though. It's a little odd that he told Harry that it was OK to confide in Ron and Hermione, but did not, apparently, confide in McGonagall.

Luna Logic - Jul 17, 2007 11:41 am (#737 of 1104)

I have though of Snape, too, for the same reason, the ring. Another reason: on the Tower, when Dumbledore asks Harry to bring Snape to him. Thus, I would not be surprised if we were to learn that Dumbledore told Snape about horcruxes. (But this could be discussed on another topic I suppose!)

Chemyst - Jul 17, 2007 2:43 pm (#738 of 1104)
Edited Jul 17, 2007 3:45 pm

It's a little odd that he told Harry that it was OK to confide in Ron and Hermione, but did not, apparently, confide in McGonagall.

If DD had a premonition that he would die before Voldemort was defeated, it becomes a bit more understandable. All during OP the MoM had been almost as great an adversary as Voldemort! McGonnagal was, by rights, clearly next in line as headmistress. Yet after a year of Umbridge, it was also apparent that the administration at the MoM might oppose giving her such an assignment if they though she would be another DD remix. Keeping a bit of space between them would improve the chance that a loyal Order member would hold high rank at Hogwarts after he was gone.
More importantly though, she is usually a pretty rigid personality. She has shown bits of flexibility now and then, but it is the exception. DD probably realized that dealing with horcruxes requires a bit of intuitiveness and a willingness to break the rules; qualities that the trio possess.

Soul Search - Jul 17, 2007 3:29 pm (#739 of 1104)
Edited Jul 17, 2007 4:30 pm

Dumbledore knows Ron and Hermione are true to Harry, more than any others in the Wizarding World. Harry has faced danger, and Voldemort himself, each year for the past six; Ron and Hermione have been needed for Harry's success ... and survival, each time. Dumbledore recognizes Harry will need their help to succeed and survive again.

While a good teacher, we have not seen anything to suggest McGonnagal is great in a fight or has any other talents Harry will need. In the Lighting Struck Tower fight, she was holding her own, but not much more.

I think Dumbledore knows who can, and will, help Harry.

Muggle Doctor - Jul 18, 2007 6:19 am (#740 of 1104)

Let's see.

When someone who has a Horcrux is killed (i.e. their body is killed), their soul transfers to the Horcrux. Right? (I don't know what would happen if there were several, i.e. which Horcrux it would go to - maybe the departing soul is able to choose).

If Harry is the last Horcrux, that means that after Voldemort's body is killed in the final confrontation, all that is left of him resides in Harry's head. Right?

But we know, from what happened at the Ministry of Magic, what happens when Voldemort tries to possess Harry, or get inside Harry's mind - the love of which Harry is capable is the most excruciating torture for him, and he must leave.

But what if he can't leave Harry's mind? My guess is that it would be fatal to him. Therefore, it is impossible to use Harry as a Horcrux. JKR almost certainly realizes this, therefore Harry will not be a Horcrux. (Stands in line for a feast of BBQ crow, because it would be a very good reason why Voldemort does NOT want any of his Death Eaters to kill Harry; it would be eliminating one of his Horcruxes!)

And even if Harry is a Horcrux, that's all right. Because when the struggle is so agonizing that he is dying, the thought of death reminds him of Sirius and his parents, and he feels love and is safe.

Joanna Lupin - Jul 18, 2007 6:38 am (#741 of 1104)

I think you got it wrong, Muggle Doctor.

A horcrux is made after the soul has been split after commiting a murder. There is a spell that encases a soulbit within the object. When later, a wizard is killed he cannot actually die because a part of his soul is earth-bound. As Voldemort describes in GOF "... I was ripped from my body... I was less than the meannest ghost..." the soulbit that resides in his body cannot be destroyed until horcruxes remain. There is no mention of Voldemort travelling between soulbits, he doesn't use any other part of his soul, nor can he, as he is detached from them. The soulbit that is now Voldemort is immortal as long as his horcruxes remain.

Choices - Jul 18, 2007 8:09 am (#742 of 1104)
Edited Jul 18, 2007 9:28 am

Joanna is right, Muggle Doc. A Horcrux (object containing a soul bit) is simply an anchor. Once it is made and hidden, Voldemort does not need to have any more contact with it. It is there, anchoring his main soul to this earthly plain. The Horcrux will not let his main soul depart (go to heaven) if his body is destroyed. We see this after Godric's Hollow when Voldemort's body was destroyed, but his main soul flew off to hide out in a forest, possessing small animals, etc. until he could be rebirthed and gain a new body. When all of the Horcruxes have been destroyed, then Harry can attack Voldemort and kill him and he cannot return. His main soul bit, having no Horcruxes to keep it earthbound, will fly off to it's final reward/punishment in the great beyond, and Voldemort will be no more.

Joanna Lupin - Jul 18, 2007 9:01 am (#743 of 1104)

I probably should go to Voldemort thread, but Muggle Doctor made me realise something.

After AK backfired upon Voldemort he was ripped out of his body, as he tells us. His body was never found though. What did happen to his body? Did it evaporate...?

Choices - Jul 18, 2007 9:15 am (#744 of 1104)

Joanna, I have wondered that also. I think maybe one of two things happened to it - it was completely destroyed in the explosion of energy (?) that destroyed the house, or Wormtail got it (when he picked up Voldemort's wand) and transfigured it into something smaller (much like Barty, Jr. did to his father's body at Hogwarts) and buried it in some secret spot. Just my opinion......

M A Grimmett - Jul 18, 2007 10:50 am (#745 of 1104)

I hadn't wondered about Voldmort v. 1 before. It's an excellent thought. Since LV was in the Potter' s house when it was destroyed, I vote for him being blown up.

Luna Logic - Jul 18, 2007 11:06 am (#746 of 1104) Reply
Edited by Jul 18, 2007 12:06 pm

But Harry was not (blown up).

Soul Search - Jul 18, 2007 11:39 am (#747 of 1104)
Edited Jul 18, 2007 12:41 pm

I have thought that Voldemort's body had to have been gone, by some means. References are that Voldemort "disappeared." Had there been a body then it would have been clear he had "died." There would have been less uncertainty about Voldemort's fate had there been a body (horcruxes notwithstanding.)

Voldemort, Harry, and Lily were in the same room when Voldemort's AK backfired. Any kind of explosion that completely destroyed Voldemort's body would have had to harm Harry as well. Yet, the house was "almost dstroyed," but Harry survived with only a minor head wound. Did Lily's sacrifice also protect Harry from the physical destruction?

If someone removed Voldemort's body, they left Harry. Hard to reconcile no matter who, Death Eater, Order, or Auror, did the removal. Also, they kept very quiet about it.

M A Grimmett - Jul 18, 2007 1:45 pm (#748 of 1104)

Harry was at the epicenter of the blast; the curse travelling away him apparently caused the energy spike. He wouldn't have been blown up.

Choices - Jul 18, 2007 4:50 pm (#749 of 1104)

Am I remembering correctly that Lily had placed Harry in his crib before Voldemort burst into the room? That also may have provided some protection for Harry (from the "blast"). I believe the main force of the explosion came from the backfiring AK hitting Voldemort with a tremendous blast of energy. It probably caused his body to vaporize. The house was in ruins, but that could mean damage from just a little, to a lot. Maybe it means that furniture was turned over or blown about, windows were blown out, but mainly the house was still standing, or the house was a pile of rubble. Hopefully DH will fill us in.

Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 18, 2007 7:42 pm (#750 of 1104)
Edited Jul 18, 2007 8:45 pm

I've always wondered whether or not Dumbledore DID tell someone about the Horcruxes that we just don't know about yet PatPat

Slughorn knows about the Horcuxes. He also knows how many there are. He may be the one to help Harry locate and destroy them. If Harry is a Horcrux he may be the one to destroy that Horcrux. I can see Harry trusting Slughorn long before he will ever trust Snape. LPO

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:46 am

Catherine - Jul 19, 2007 5:02 am (#751 of 1104)

Slughorn knows about the Horcuxes. He also knows how many there are. --LPO

Hmmm...Slughorn knows of Horcruxes in general, but where in HbP do we see him knowing what the Horcruxes are, and their number?

He recognized the Gaunt ring as the one on Tom's hand years ago, but other than that, I don't know where the text supports that.

Joanna Lupin - Jul 19, 2007 5:25 am (#752 of 1104)

Slughorn definitely knows Riddle wanted to make 6 horcruxes, and judging by his words to Harry "I might have made great damage that day." He is clever enough to realise Voldemort did do what he intended. He might not know exactly what they are, but he is accomplished enough to be able to aid Harry.

M A Grimmett - Jul 19, 2007 6:46 am (#753 of 1104)

Sluggy will have to make a hard choice then--to forsake the easy, comfortable path to which he is accustomed in order to join Harry in a potentially lethal quest. I'd kind of like him to be a Slytherin who isn't suspect; to kind of redeem his House from the taint of LV and Co. I think Harry's resemblance to Lily will help that process along.

Muggle Doctor - Jul 19, 2007 7:01 am (#754 of 1104)

Ah, so that's how they work. Many thanks.

I still think Voldemort could not plant a Horcrux in Harry for the same reasons as I have already delineated - that someone who cannot stand love would not be able to implant part of his soul in someone who was so full of love.

Here's another crazy thought - almost certainly wrong - but what if the Prophecy refers not to the impending battle, but to that day long ago in Godric's Hollow?

What if the Prophecy was flawed, and did not take Horcruxes into account?

That would make it really ironic - that Harry is rushing towards his destiny against Voldemort because he wants to kill him for all the right reasons (get rid of a bad dude, even the score for his parents), whereas Voldemort is rushing towards his destiny against Harry because he feels bound by it.

That Harry is doing it because he can, and Voldemort because he must.

That Harry is now in control. In fact he already is, because from the last part of book six, we know that he is now actively planning to hunt Voldemort. This is something he has never done before - he is going on the offensive. Voldemort doesn't expect to be seriously hunted. It may come as a shock to him.

Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 19, 2007 7:16 pm (#755 of 1104)

Muggle Doctor wonderful post! I agree that Voldemort is not expecting anyone to go on the offensive. Harry is making a choice to do what is right and not easy. LPO

S.E. Jones - Jul 20, 2007 1:22 pm (#756 of 1104)

Madame Pomfrey --I have read a theory that the scar houses Voldemorts magical abilities and that with Voldemorts death the magic within the scar would also die,making Harry a sqib. I just can't buy that.Harry has his fathers Quidditch skills for one thing.It came natural to him.Tom Riddle was never on the Quidditch team that we know of. Harry has been on the list to join Hogwarts since he was born.I don't think this really proves anything because Nevilles grandmother feared he was a squib for the longest,so it might be that all children born to magical parents are down for Hogwarts. Also,if the scar does contain only Voldemorts magical powers then why is Harry able to feel Voldemorts emotions?--

To add to why the scar's destruction would not leave Harry as a squib: Hagrid's comment about Harry being down for Hogwarts since birth can be reconciled with Neville's Gran worrying if he would be a squib because no one, outside of Hogwarts administration, is allowed to see whose names are down and only those children who are magical get their names listed. From Jo's Scholastic.com (3 February 2000) interview: "The Ministry of Magic doesn't find out which children are magic. In Hogwarts there's a magical quill which detects the birth of a magical child, and writes his or her name down in a large parchment book. Every year Professor McGonagall checks the book, and sends owls to the people who are turning 11." So, if the Ministry can't find out who is magical then why would Granny Longbottom? It would seem no one knows unless they look at the book and McGonagall only does that when she goes to send letters at the start of each year. Therefore, if Harry was down since birth then he must've been magical before the backfired AK transferred some of Voldemort's abilities (i.e. Parseltongue) to him, which isn't too surprising considering how magically tallented his parents were....

One interesting thing I noted from GoF, Voldemort said he couldn't touch Harry until he used his blood in the rebirthing ceremony. Well, he could definitely touch Harry without any problems after that, but Harry still felt incredible pain. So, why does Voldemort's touch still hurt Harry but no longer hurt Voldemort? I guess that made sense....

Madame Pomfrey - Jul 20, 2007 8:19 pm (#757 of 1104) Reply
Edited by Pinky Jul 21, 2007 11:14 am

Thanks for the info,S.E. Jones.That explains it perfectly.Harry is magical on his own. Welcome Back,BTW!!!

Edited to remove a sentence that contained a potential spoiler. ~Pinky

MickeyCee3948 - Jul 20, 2007 9:09 pm (#758 of 1104)

I totally agree Madame Pomfrey as you well know. I'm currently putting my Crow recipe's together so I will be prepared later this weekend.

Mickey

Luna Logic - Jul 30, 2007 11:41 pm (#759 of 1104)

A very good birthday to our Harry Potter !

jose043 - Jul 30, 2007 11:44 pm (#760 of 1104)

Happy Birthday to Harry Potter & have a happy day & many more to come.

Josephine & Anne

Little Werewolves of London

Snuffles - Jul 30, 2007 11:53 pm (#761 of 1104)

Happy birthday Harry

Denise P. - Jul 31, 2007 5:24 am (#762 of 1104)

Happy Birthday Harry!!

Jenniffler - Jul 31, 2007 6:04 am (#763 of 1104)
Edited Jul 31, 2007 7:10 am

Happy birthday Harry James Potter!

And a most happy birthday to the best fiction writer alive. Many happy returns (to writing!)

For she's a jolly good fellow,
For she's a jolly good fellow,
For she's a jolly good fellow!
Witch nobody can deny!

Solitaire - Jul 31, 2007 9:40 am (#764 of 1104)

Happy Birthday, Harry Potter!

Madame Pomfrey - Jul 31, 2007 10:51 am (#765 of 1104)

Happy Birthday,Harry and Jo!!! I am so happy that Harry gets the big, happy family he so much desired and Jo gets the long stress free break she so much deserves.

Stringer - Jul 31, 2007 3:11 pm (#766 of 1104)

A very Happy birthday wish to Jo and Harry. The 31 of July will always be a special day in my heart.

Mrs. Sirius - Jul 31, 2007 9:29 pm (#767 of 1104)

A double Happy Birthday to Harry. on this day in DH, Harry turned 18. Were Harry Potter a person, he would be 28 today.

Happy birthday Jo.

PatPat - Aug 6, 2007 9:20 am (#768 of 1104)

Actually, Mrs. Sirius, Harry would be 27. He was born July 31st, 1980. (sorry! I'm a math teacher.)

Mrs. Sirius - Aug 6, 2007 9:22 pm (#769 of 1104)

Opps! Patpat, I need stick close to you, because math has N-E-V-E-R been my strong suit.

Of course I was trying to explain to my children how old Harry was, obviously I got it all wrong.

PatPat - Aug 7, 2007 10:06 am (#770 of 1104)

LOL. Don't worry about it. Minor error.

wynnleaf - Aug 11, 2007 12:04 pm (#771 of 1104)

I just thought of an interesting comparison.

When Harry watches the Snape's Worst Memory scene in OOTP, his response is markedly different not only from James, but also from Lily.

Harry is appalled at James' actions, and can't accept any of Sirius and Lupin's excuses or explanations. But it's also interesting that Harry's reaction is completely different from Lily's response.

Harry had a lot of reasons to dislike Snape by the time he saw that memory. I can understand even that Harry hated Snape by that point. Prior to Harry watching that scene, he had no reason to have anything but admiration for his father and many reasons to take some sort of satisfaction from young Snape's predicament.

Lily, on the other hand, was supposed to be Snape's friend at the time of the event and had been given no reason personally hate Snape. He, until that point, had never done anything wrong toward her personally.

Yet when Harry watched the scene, he not only thoroughly disliked his father's bullying actions, he did not respond at all as Lily did. Harry had no desire to laugh or take the slightest pleasure in seeing his hated teacher humiliated like that. And if Harry had been able to add his voice into the scene, it's impossible to imagine him taunting Snape as Lily did.

Of course, a big difference is that Harry was able to empathize with Snape, while neither Lily nor James could do so.

Even though Harry had reason to be angry at Snape over his "mudblood" comment to Lily, Harry never seems to hold this against Snape until the end of HBP when Harry was searching for evidence that Snape hated Lily as well as James.

I couldn't help but wonder at Snape's reaction if he had known that Harry was far more sympathetic of his plight than Lily had been.

Mrs Brisbee - Aug 11, 2007 12:31 pm (#772 of 1104)

Of course, a big difference is that Harry was able to empathize with Snape, while neither Lily nor James could do so.

Harry also lived at a different time than Lily and James. I think Rowling gives us too sketchy information to know exactly what was going on. We just don't know what Snape was up to during his school years exactly. He sort of struck me as the Peter Pettigrew of the his gang, and maybe that's why neither James or Lily expressed much sympathy for him. It looked to me that the end of Snape and Lily's friendship was a long time brewing, and it was already near its final death throes by the time Lily stuck up for Snape in Snape's Worst Memory. I don't think they were that close amymore at that point, and Lily was unsympathetic because she was seeing Snape in a new, unfavorable light. Maybe she subconsciously felt Snape deserved it. It's hard to tell because Rowling decided to give us very little information on Lily and James outside of The Snape Filter .

Harry felt sympathy because he was looking at it from the opposite way around, and with no contextual information.

wynnleaf - Aug 11, 2007 1:30 pm (#773 of 1104)
Edited Aug 11, 2007 2:31 pm

But from what Lily actually says to Snape, her main complaints were the friends he kept, his laughing at some Dark pranks, and using the "mudblood" word. Harry has so much more against Snape it's almost laughable how much more reason he had to dislike him and to consider that he deserved what happened.

We only have what JKR gave us, but that's true of any character. She shows us what she wants us to see and we make our judgements based on what's written. These are not, after all, real people who had lives outside of the pages of the book.

Sorry, Mrs Brisbee, I know you know that... It's just that we get that excuse for characters all the time -- "maybe there's something else they did, said, felt that we don't know about that would explain their action and make it better (or worse)." Well, there wasn't unless possibly JKR had notes about it that she decided not to include in the books. And even then, she chose what to include and what she didn't think was important enough to put in the books. These aren't real people about which JKR was writing a history.

Mrs Brisbee - Aug 11, 2007 1:58 pm (#774 of 1104)
Edited Aug 11, 2007 3:08 pm

But from what Lily actually says to Snape, her main complaints were the friends he kept, his laughing at some Dark pranks, and using the "mudblood" word. Harry has so much more against Snape it's almost laughable how much more reason he had to dislike him and to consider that he deserved what happened.

Harry wasn't watching the adult Snape get his comeuppance. He was watching teenaged Snape get bullied in the long distant past. He has no idea what young Snape did to deserve such treatment, hence the sympathy. The things that Harry has against Snape happened in Harry's present, so I don't see why he would connect that with teenage Snape. Lily knew what Snape was into, and perhaps that's why she wasn't so sympathetic, despite attempting to stand up for him. She does say to James the Bully, "You're as bad as he is...." So I gather she doesn't see much difference in the behavior of James and Snape. I guess I just don't see why Harry and Lily should be reacting to this event in the same way.

It's just that we get that excuse for characters all the time -- "maybe there's something else they did, said, felt that we don't know about that would explain their action and make it better (or worse)." Well, there wasn't unless possibly JKR had notes about it that she decided not to include in the books. And even then, she chose what to include and what she didn't think was important enough to put in the books. These aren't real people about which JKR was writing a history.

It can be difficult to know what the meaning of something is, if you don't know what the context is supposed to be. I think Rowling should have provided more background information to make things clearer. You are correct that Rowling obviously didn't think that was needed. So, going on what Lily said, it seems her friendship was crumbling for a long time, Snape was a bigot, he thought using the Dark Arts on people was a bit of fun, and he was just as much of a bully as James Potter. So maybe from her perspective Snape was getting his comeuppance, and thus she wasn't as sympathetic as one might expect if he were pure and innocent. Harry's perspective would be different, because all he sees is an unprovoked attack.

I think the difference in Lily's and Harry's perspectives is this: Lily lived it; Harry got a peek at the past through a tiny window.

Mrs. Sirius - Aug 21, 2007 9:20 pm (#775 of 1104)
Edited Aug 21, 2007 10:21 pm

It's just that we get that excuse for characters all the time -- "maybe there's something else they did, said, felt that we don't know about that would explain their action and make it better (or worse)." wynnleaf and Mrs Brisbee

I see this as related to the line Harry repeats about Dumbledore's behavior. Both Hermione and Ron try to explain away Dumbledore's friendship and behavior with Grindenwald at age 17 by saying he was young. And both times Harry's remembers or replys "our age". On second thought this happened also in OoTP when Harry goes through the floo network to speak to Sirius about the underpants attack. Harry does not accept the youth of his father or DD for unacceptable behavior.

mona amon - Aug 22, 2007 7:47 am (#776 of 1104)
Edited Aug 22, 2007 8:53 am

On second thought this happened also in OoTP when Harry goes through the floo network to speak to Sirius about the underpants attack. Harry does not accept the youth of his father or DD for unacceptable behavior.

Yes, Harry seems a lot more mature than either of his parents at that age.

LOL, Mrs Sirius, 'the Underpants Attack' is a great alternative name for Snape's Worst Memory!

I couldn't help but wonder at Snape's reaction if he had known that Harry was far more sympathetic of his plight than Lily had been. (Wynnleaf)

I feel he would have just blocked it out! He desperately wanted to loathe Harry.

legolas returns - Aug 22, 2007 9:41 am (#777 of 1104)
Edited Aug 22, 2007 10:42 am

Harry applied strict moral standards to people that were unquestionably always on the "good side" e.g Dumbledore/his father. He seems unable to cut them any slack.

Harry has never applied the "our age" to Draco Malfoy. After HBP he felt a little bit of sympathy and he felt more when he saw what Voldemort was forcing him to. He never questioned (in the text) Snapes wrong decisions at the same age. He felt sympathy for Snape because of his fathers actions. I would love to have seen his reactions/change in opinion after the battle had finished and things had gone back to normal.

wynnleaf - Aug 22, 2007 11:25 am (#778 of 1104)

I think Harry tended to judge people when his own age by comparing them to what he would do or feel in their place. He compares the Marauders to himself during the Worst Memory scene and the Marauders come out negatively in his mind because he knows he wouldn't do that. When he compares himself to teenage Snape, he has so much empathy for many aspects of Snape's life that teenage Snape comes out more on the positive side for Harry. Harry compares Draco to himself in a very negative way, until he sees how Draco was being forced to do things by LV. Since Harry knows how terribly awful LV actually is and how scary it is to be around him, he gains sympathy for Draco. Draco's parents being threatened, when Harry realizes how bad it is to be without parents, also garners sympathy for Draco.

legolas returns - Aug 22, 2007 12:27 pm (#779 of 1104)

I suppose its a case of

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

I am sure that it would be possible to argue until the end of time who was more culpable than the other. Didnt JKR say that Snape was more culpable than Voldemort because somebody loved him.

Luna Logic - Aug 22, 2007 12:55 pm (#780 of 1104)

legolas return: Didnt JKR say that Snape was more culpable than Voldemort because somebody loved him. I wish I could fond that exact quote, because I believed she said also in the same interview that Snape had never loved anybody. (Sorry, I'm off topic )

wynnleaf - Aug 22, 2007 1:33 pm (#781 of 1104)

legolas return: Didnt JKR say that Snape was more culpable than Voldemort because somebody loved him. I wish I could fond that exact quote, because I believed she said also in the same interview that Snape had never loved anybody. (Sorry, I'm off topic )

She did not say that Snape had never loved anyone. She was commenting on the question of someone loving Snape. After a lot of consideration, many people think perhaps she meant that Voldemort had no understanding of love at all and was more or less a complete psychopath, whereas Snape did understand love, and therefore he was more culpable in that regard. As to whether she meant Snape was more culpable because it was someone he loved who he got killed, or something else, no one knows.

Narcissa's Nemesis - Aug 25, 2007 2:41 am (#782 of 1104)
Edited Aug 25, 2007 3:44 am

In response to mona amon's comment 'he(Snape)desperately wanted to loathe Harry'.

I think loathe is perhaps too strong a word as there's a lot more going on with Snape that we as readers don't find out until the end. Harry embodies the one person Snape really hated and also the one he really loved. Snape looks at Harry and, because of Harry's resemblance in appearance to James, outwardly emits, yes ok, an appearance of loathing, but inside I have a theory that because of Lily (who he still sees in Harry's eyes)and his own guilt over her death Snape wants to help Harry and may actually on some very deep level hold some affection for him.

journeymom - Aug 27, 2007 10:38 am (#783 of 1104)

VLW- I disagree. Snape had no affection for Harry, ever. He protected Lily's child, for Lily's sake, but nothing more.

I like the idea that Snape subconciously cared for Harry for Harry's sake. But he didn't, and that's what makes the character Snape all the more interesting.

Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 27, 2007 3:23 pm (#784 of 1104)

Journeymom I agree, I don't think Snape had any affection for Harry. I had hoped in OoP he would after seeing how awful Harry's life was. In DH when DD asked him and Snape's reply was to produce his Patronus that says it all. You would think after knowing Petunia as a child he would have had some sympathy for Harry! LPO

wynnleaf - Aug 27, 2007 5:17 pm (#785 of 1104)
Edited Aug 27, 2007 6:18 pm

I'm not sure. I don't think the book is clear either.

JKR said that Snape wouldn't have cared about protecting Harry were it not for loving Lily. Okay, that makes sense. However, as time goes on Snape becomes interested in saving people he doesn't like (Lupin), and to protect the students overall, and that almost certainly hasn't got anything directly to do with Lily.

Further, Snape seemed pretty appalled at DD's telling him that Harry had to die. The date of that meeting was in the middle of Harry's 6th year. It was at that point that DD asked if Snape had grown to care for Harry and Snape responds with the patronus of the doe. But the problem here is that while Snape seems to want to assert that he's doing it all for Lily, we now know that he was doing a lot that couldn't be traced directly to loving Lily, and therefore he wasn't doing it all for Lily.

So what about Harry? Was he only protecting Harry for Lily's sake, but willing to put his life in jeopardy for others for some other reason (other than Lily)?

I don't think Snape ever liked Harry or cared for him with anything resembling affection. But I think Snape had long since ceased to be solely motivated by his love for Lily. She may have been some sort of symbol of an Ideal for him, but he was no longer just doing things for Lily.

Therefore it seems likely that his actions to protect Harry, while motivated in part directly from his love for Lily, had also become motivated by whatever sense of rightness or other motive that drove his willingness to protect others.

Chemyst - Aug 27, 2007 7:41 pm (#786 of 1104)

I think Snape's motivation began changing during the Occlumency lessons. As horrible as the experience was for both Harry and Snape, they both seemed to have gained some understanding and personal growth. Harry's thoughts are described for us. With Snape we have to guess a bit, but one clue was Snape asking about Aunt Marge's dog Ripper; it was a real question and not a smirk. He may have seen more Voldemort in Marge than he saw Lily in Harry.

Luna Logic - Aug 27, 2007 11:58 pm (#787 of 1104)

Chemyst :one clue was Snape asking about Aunt Marge's dog Ripper; it was a real question and not a smirk. He may have seen more Voldemort in Marge than he saw Lily in Harry.
And he may have seen a bit of himself, young Severus, in Harry.

I like aso your idea Snape's motivation began changing during the Occlumency lessons. It makes me wonder again about the motivation of the long detentions in HBP (given that surely those motivations were rather complex).

mona amon - Aug 28, 2007 3:28 am (#788 of 1104)
Edited Aug 28, 2007 4:33 am

I agree Luna. I feel Severus wanted to keep Harry around him for a while, now that they would soon be parting ways, and now that Severus thought the kid would have to sacrifice himself. Otherwise, given the nature of the detentions, it would have made more sense to have Harry do them in Filch's office.

journeymom - Aug 28, 2007 9:02 am (#789 of 1104)

Therefore it seems likely that his actions to protect Harry, while motivated in part directly from his love for Lily, had also become motivated by whatever sense of rightness or other motive that drove his willingness to protect others. --Wynnleaf

I'll go for this. You're right, in later years not all of Snape's actions could be attributed to his love for Lily. He probably didn't like the discomfort stemming from his concious when he allowed people to be needlessly murdered.

legolas returns - Aug 28, 2007 2:29 pm (#790 of 1104)
Edited Aug 28, 2007 3:46 pm

Sorry this is kind of rambling.....

I have just been going through the Princes Tale and also looking at HBP. In HBP Hagrid overhears Dumbledore/Snape beside the forbidden Forest. Hagrid tells Harry this after Ron was poisoned on his birthday (1st March). This is the conversation where Snape is upset with Dumbledore for telling Harry stuff that he wont tell Snape/Dumbledore taking it as fact that Snape will kill him. Snape compares Harry to his father but Dumbledore points out Harry is more like his mother. That evening Dumbledore finally confides in Snape that Harry has a fragment of Voldemorts soul in him and he must die. The sectumsempra incident happens a few chapters later.

I dont know whether this puts a different spin on events or not but here are a few things I am currently pondering

Sectumsempra is officially classified as Dark Magic-Georges ear is removed by the curse and cant be regrown.

Harry used the curse without knowing what the curse was which was stupid.

What upset Snape more (this isnt a multiple choice but more a random download of my random thoughts)?

1)Harry getting praise for potions when it was not getting it on his own merits. Him being like his Dad.

2)Harry using a spell that was dark magic. Showing himself not to be like his Mum-feeling truely disapointed in Harry.

3)Harrys inability to close his mind and lie effectively infront of Snape. Snape knew where Harry got the book and spell from anyway. Harry had not learned anything in the Occulumency lessons. Snape felt that his time had been wasted. Thinking Harry would not be able to control himself/his emotions and go to his death and hide the reason why he was doing it.

4)Did not want Harry to make the same type of mistakes as he did

5)Stopping Harry winning at Quidditch/Spending time with Ginny.

6)Harry was ashamed of what he had done and was sorry. Did Snape not realise this/not care because it gave him a chance to punish Harry.

7)Did he really get a kick from pointing out that Harry was as bad as his Dad? His Dad used a lot of curses and hexes and other dodgy stuff

8)Harry lying to him full stop.

9)Snape is concerned what the fragment of Voldemorts soul in Harry may tell Voldemort

10)Snape might think that it was the Voldemort soul fragment that triumphed and was trying to stop this happening by shaming him so much that his soul would take charge.

11)All of above

12)None of the above/something different.

Snapes reaction to Dumbledore shows that he is still doing it for Lily and is not in the least bit fond of Harry. To Snapes credit he is shocked at what Dumbledore is suggesting.

Wonder how Snape would have reacted to Harry managing to block out Voldemort? Choosing when to look into Voldemort mind when he needed to without Voldemort realising.

Soul Search - Aug 28, 2007 2:57 pm (#791 of 1104)

legolas returns,

I agree reviewing HBP after Snape learns Harry must die might be an interesting exercise. Your list is good; I will ponder it, too.

I do note Snape showed no remorse or pity for Harry. His actions toward Harry were the same as we would have expected before Snape learned of Harry's destined demise.

wynnleaf - Aug 28, 2007 4:36 pm (#792 of 1104)
Edited Aug 28, 2007 5:39 pm

Snape in Sectumsempra after hearing that Harry must die.

First, we have to think of what Snape saw when he ran into that bathroom after hearing only cries of "murder!" This amount of water mixed with blood would look like some kind of psychotic murderer had just attacked. (I know this having seen an incident with only 1 freely bleeding wound and only 1 gallon of water). Draco had what were apparently major injuries and Snape had to take him to the hospital wing after performing emergency procedures just to stop the bleeding. Snape would most likely assume at first that Harry did know what the curse would do. And by the way, if Draco died, so would Snape.

Harry was upset about the drastic nature of the wounds, but by the time Snape came back and started to question Harry, Harry seems pretty focused on keeping Snape from discovering the origin of the spell, not with "how is Draco?" or any other such worry of that sort. He does his usual lying to Snape with Snape knowing perfectly well he's lying. Since Draco certainly didn't tell Snape about the Crucio, Snape would think that Harry knowingly pulled this curse in a typical school time hexing war. And then was more interested on covering up for himself than the victim.

So what was Snape upset over? Well, as I said, there was more than just Harry at stake here. Draco's life had been threatened, and Snape's as well although Harry didn't know it.

Why the detention records? Could be several things. Could be Snape wanted Harry to stop focusing on petty school time hexing wars (like James and Sirius engaged in), and see what a waste of oneself that kind of thing was. Could be Snape wanted to control Harry's movements more by the long term detention. Snape would certainly have been angry at Harry using Snape's work to gain such a potions reputation, but Snape could have gotten that book back if he really wanted it. The fact that he left it with Harry is interesting and implies that he, for whatever reason, actually decided to let Harry keep it. So maybe within his motivations there included the desire for Harry to learn as much as possible.

Snape really didn't seem to want Harry using Dark Magic. The fact that he mentions this here, as well as in the Flight of the Prince (when he had more to think about than Harry's propensity for Dark Magic), indicates that he did care about Harry not using Dark Arts spells. I don't think there's much way to tell why he cared, but he did apparently see it as important.

By the way, after the initial incident, I don't see Harry particularly focused on what he did with Sectumsempra, as much as what it cost him in terms of taunts from others, the disapproval of friends, loss of Quidditch, etc.

TomProffitt - Aug 28, 2007 5:45 pm (#793 of 1104)

Could be Snape wanted Harry to stop focusing on petty school time hexing wars (like James and Sirius engaged in), and see what a waste of oneself that kind of thing was. --- wynnleaf

We see a lot of serious injuries in books that are mended extremely quickly (particularly when compared with Muggle remedies). Between flying on brooms at eleven years old, Hagrid's Care of Magical Creatures classes, Quidditch, and the Tri-Wizard Tournament, I've come to the conclusion that the Wizarding World just doesn't look at serious injuries the same way we Muggles would. I think the style of Rowling's writing in general underplays the severity as well.

That said, while I am in no way minimizing what Harry did from the stand point of right & wrong, I think that Snape did not view it as quite as serious a breach as we may at first think. It is very hard to compare injuries in a magical world with the same in the muggle world.

I don't think Snape's reasoning is quite so introspective as wynnleaf phrases it. I think he chose the punishment with the goal of hurting Harry overriding any desire to teach Harry.

Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 28, 2007 6:14 pm (#794 of 1104)

In most instances Harry identifies with James. He sees himself like his father and so do others. Snape obviously did to. Snape and Lily were friends and may have had double potions together. Some of the things Snape invented could have been in collaboration with Lily (the non-dark magic). I think Snape wanted to hurt/punish Harry for not being more like Lily. His comment about Harry not using Dark Magic stems from two things: Harry not becoming the next Dark Lord and Harry being Lily's son. I do not recall any comment or memory of her using dark magic or tormenting people. Dumbledore defiantly saw Lily's compassion and kindness in Harry. Snape could never get past the physical characteristics. It must have been torment to see Lily's eyes looking out from James' face. LPO

rambkowalczyk - Aug 28, 2007 7:10 pm (#795 of 1104)

Maybe Snape didn't want Harry to use Dark Magic because Lily wouldn't have liked it.

mona amon - Aug 28, 2007 7:55 pm (#796 of 1104)

I feel that Snape acts very much like any other teacher would have done in the situation, control the damage, deal sternly with the perpetrator, warn him, punish him, inform the other authorities about what he has done.

I think he chose the punishment with the goal of hurting Harry overriding any desire to teach Harry.

This is how I see it too. But I also read into it an unconscious desire to keep Harry around him. He did not like him, but his presence had become in some way important to him.

And by the way, if Draco died, so would Snape. (Wynnleaf)

I do not think it works that way. He only promised to protect Draco 'to the best of his ability' and he was doing that. If, in spite of his efforts Draco had come to harm, surely Snape does not have to die for that?

wynnleaf - Aug 28, 2007 9:03 pm (#797 of 1104)
Edited Aug 28, 2007 10:04 pm

And by the way, if Draco died, so would Snape. (Wynnleaf)

I do not think it works that way. He only promised to protect Draco 'to the best of his ability' and he was doing that. If, in spite of his efforts Draco had come to harm, surely Snape does not have to die for that? (mona amon)

That could be correct. Still, in the heat of the moment when Snape ran into that room and saw Draco covered in his own blood, he would have to be thinking both how to save Draco as well as of his own life being tied to Draco's safety. Or if he didn't think about it just that moment, he's bound to have thought of it after dropping Draco off in the hospital.

Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 29, 2007 5:48 pm (#798 of 1104)

We learn so much about James from lots of people. Only in Snape's memories do we learn about Lily's personality. It is sad that Harry could not have learned more about his mother. Petunia never spoke of her. I think Snape could have told Harry so much about Lily. LPO

Solitaire - Sep 1, 2007 4:42 pm (#799 of 1104)

Since Draco certainly didn't tell Snape about the Crucio, Snape would think that Harry knowingly pulled this curse in a typical school time hexing war.

If Snape is using Legilimency on Harry to ascertain that he is lying, wouldn't he also be able to see that Harry used the spell in self defense against Draco's Crucio! spell? Wouldn't he also see that Harry truly did not know what the spell did? Perhaps this is the reason for what I consider his relatively lenient punishment--lenient, knowing Snape as we do--given the seriousness of Draco's injuries.

As to why Snape continued to protect Harry, it seems straightforward. In The Prince's Tale, Dumbledore says to Snape: "You know how and why she died. Make sure it was not in vain. Help me protect Lily's son." Based on the snippets of dialogue we see between Dumbledore and Snape, the implication is that Snape promises. Does he--perhaps off camera--take an Unbreakable Vow to protect Harry? It would explain a lot.

LPO, I have always thought it ironic that the most complete information Harry learns about his mother comes from, of all people, Snape. I like, too, that all of his memories of her contribute to her image as a lovely person.

Solitaire

wynnleaf - Sep 1, 2007 9:01 pm (#800 of 1104)

If Snape is using Legilimency on Harry to ascertain that he is lying, wouldn't he also be able to see that Harry used the spell in self defense against Draco's Crucio! spell? Wouldn't he also see that Harry truly did not know what the spell did? (Solitaire)

I always assumed in the various descriptions of instances of legilimency of Snape toward Harry, that Snape was seeing the memories that were playing through Harry's head at the time. Since, in Sectumsempra, Harry does not recall the actual attack while Snape is using legilimency on him, I assumed that Snape didn't see that. He was focusing on where Harry learned the spell and that's what Harry's thoughts reflect.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:51 am

mona amon - Sep 2, 2007 4:56 am (#801 of 1104)

Does he--perhaps off camera--take an Unbreakable Vow to protect Harry? It would explain a lot.

No way! IMO, the Unbreakable Vow involves death and counts as Dark Magic. Dumbledore wouldn't mess with such things.

Xenophilius - Sep 2, 2007 5:23 am (#802 of 1104)

Soli - Perhaps this is the reason for what I consider his relatively lenient punishment--lenient, knowing Snape as we do--given the seriousness of Draco's injuries.

Its probably the worst punishment that Snape could impose. Despite all of Snape's warnings (hopes), Dumbledore would not expell Harry for any reason. Under Dumbledore as headmaster, physical mistreatment of the students would not be tolerated. I know, Umbridge got away with corporal punishment, but during the OoP year Dumbledore was isolating himself from Harry and may not have known about that special quill.

wynnleaf - Sep 2, 2007 7:56 am (#803 of 1104)

Expulsion is not physical punishment. In COS, the only time Snape really recommended expelling Harry (rather than suspension which is quite different and milder), Dumbledore told Harry and Ron that if they ever did such a thing again as the flying car incident, they would be expelled.

Further, McGonagall told Harry he was lucky to not be expelled over the Sectumsempra incident, clearly showing that she felt the offense could merit that punishment.

As to why Harry wasn't expelled... I don't think anyone ever got the story on why Harry used the curse. Draco certainly wouldn't confess to the Crucio and Harry didn't tell anyone in authority. But I doubt if Harry would have been expelled by that time for much of anything. It was just too dangerous for him to be put out of Hogwarts. And Snape, now that we know he was intent on protecting Harry, would have agreed with that.

Solitaire - Sep 2, 2007 9:20 am (#804 of 1104)

Personally, I did think the punishment was crummy. But I expected even worse from Snape, if that's possible. I'm not sure what I did expect ... I just expected something even worse.

Re Snape and Legilimency ... based on Snape's description of the talent back in OotP, it seemed to be far more than simply mind reading. I got the idea that the Legilimens could truly probe the far recesses of the mind and see more than just what the victim was musing about at the time. Then again, Snape has never truly seemed interested in motives where Harry was concerned. If he had been, perhaps he might have handled many things differently over the years.

Solitaire

wynnleaf - Sep 2, 2007 12:27 pm (#805 of 1104)

Then again, Snape has never truly seemed interested in motives where Harry was concerned. If he had been, perhaps he might have handled many things differently over the years. (Solitaire)

I completely agree. Snape seems to have assumed he knew Harry's motives and doesn't ever seem "clued in" to Harry's true motivations, lessening the likelihood that he ever looked deeply into Harry's mind.

NFla Barbara - Sep 2, 2007 1:03 pm (#806 of 1104)

You see what you expect to see, Severus, said DD.

LV was blinded to certain forms of magic because he did not value them, and therefore did not look for them; Snape was blind to Harry's real nature because he did not look for anything other than what he had already decided was there.

wynnleaf - Sep 2, 2007 2:13 pm (#807 of 1104)

I'm not sure how Snape's being blinded about Harry has anything to do with LV's blindness about love other than that many of the characters in the series are blinded in various ways about others. Harry, for instance, is completely blinded about Snape, regardless of the numerous pieces of evidence he had of Snape's working to protect him and other students and regardless of Dumbledore's assurances. Harry's focus is entirely on a certain set of facts -- which are true, but which blind him to all of the rest of the evidence.

NFla Barbara - Sep 2, 2007 3:32 pm (#808 of 1104)

I didn't mean they were exclusive examples, wynnleaf! You are right that there are many others. That was just one that sprang to mind when thinking about Snape being blind to Harry's essential nature. It's ironic that Harry was so bad at closing his mind, and yet Snape still could not really get inside his head.

Nicoline Vance - Sep 5, 2007 9:28 am (#809 of 1104)

An open question:

Do you think that Harry has changed his opinion of Snape or does Harry value bravery so much that he does admire what Snape did to follow Dumbledore's plan?

Are these mutually exclusive? Do you think we are given enough in canon to truly answer the question?

Choices - Sep 5, 2007 10:19 am (#810 of 1104)
Edited Sep 5, 2007 11:22 am

I think it's both - we saw Snape through Harry's eyes and I think Harry feels about Snape much as we do now. Harry knows what kind of person Snape was, but he also realizes that in spite of everything, Snape was brave and did what he had to do. Snape was both brave and honorable in that, but he still was not a happy, pleasant person - that was obvious. Snape can be admired even if he was not liked.

Joanna Lupin - Sep 5, 2007 10:44 am (#811 of 1104)

I agree with Choices 100%.

I need some help figuring out the two-fold connection between Harry and Voldemort. Harry was hit with the AK and he didn't die, because he was tethered to life by Lily's protection living on in Voldemort. Correct? Now, a few questions spring to mind.

1. Had Harry managed to kill Nagini before he went to the forest, would Harry die? Would they both die?

2. Had Narcissa not lied for Harry and Voldemort tried again, would Harry survive again?

3. Would Harry survive any number of AKs as long as Voldemort continued casting them, with Nagini alive, I mean?

Soul Search - Sep 5, 2007 11:53 am (#812 of 1104)
Edited Sep 5, 2007 12:55 pm

Harry had about eight years from seeing Snape's memories in "The Prince's Tale" to naming Albus Severus. Eight years to think about Snape and his true role in the events of Harry's life.

Now, while I would expect some mellowing after discovering Snape was acting on Dumbledore's orders, there was nothing in "The Prince's Tale" to change Harry's opinion of Snape's basic character nor Snape's feelings toward Harry. In fact, Snape's blind obsession for Harry's mother should have darkened his opinion of Snape. Only Snape's "bravery" stands out, so that must be it.

Personally, I would have chosen Albus Dobby over Albus Severus. Or even Sirius Dobby over both.

I wonder how much trouble Harry had convincing Ginny to name their second son Albus Severus.

legolas returns - Sep 5, 2007 12:08 pm (#813 of 1104)

Dobby *wobbley lower lip*-sniff.

wynnleaf - Sep 5, 2007 12:55 pm (#814 of 1104)

Soul Search,

I think if Harry had seen anything awful about Snape's love for Lily, he wouldn't have named his son after him. Even JKR, in talking about it, doesn't talk about it like a wrong kind of love. To have an unrequited love is not a "blind obsession." In fact, we don't get any hints that there was an obsession after their friendship broke up, until Lily's life was in danger. So it's very likely that many years of the intense focus is a great deal because of his guilt and wanting to make up for it, rather than some sort of stalker kind of obsessive love.

Soul Search - Sep 5, 2007 2:15 pm (#815 of 1104)
Edited Sep 5, 2007 3:16 pm

wynnleaf,

I was more trying to interpret how Harry would view Snape's obsession with his mother from what he saw in "The Prince's Tale." The scene where he produced the Doe patronus for Dumbledore, showing that he still cared for Lily, and only Lily.

Harry had a lot of buildup for a patronus demonstrating romantic love with Tonks' changed patronus in HBP. It was mentioned again in Deathly Hallows. Snape was still obsessed with Lily after she married James, gave birth to Harry, and had been dead sixteen years. Maybe it wasn't "stalker" obsessive, but it was still abnormal.

Nicoline Vance's question was:

Do you think that Harry has changed his opinion of Snape or does Harry value bravery so much that he does admire what Snape did to follow Dumbledore's plan?

My response was that Harry couldn't respect Snape's character, and certainly his feelings toward Harry, enough to name a son after him, so it must have been Snape's bravery he honored.

Madame Pomfrey - Sep 5, 2007 2:56 pm (#816 of 1104)

I need some help figuring out the two-fold connection between Harry and Voldemort. Harry was hit with the AK and he didn't die, because he was tethered to life by Lily's protection living on in Voldemort. Correct? Now, a few questions spring to mind.

1. Had Harry managed to kill Nagini before he went to the forest, would Harry die? Would they both die?

Had Nagini been killed first,I think Voldemort would have died in the forrest,not Harry.I think Harry would still have the choice to come back but Voldemort being out of horcruxes would have died.

2. Had Narcissa not lied for Harry and Voldemort tried again, would Harry survive again?

I think as long as Voldemort was alive and had Harry's blood,Yes,he would survive.

3. Would Harry survive any number of AKs as long as Voldemort continued casting them, with Nagini alive, I mean? Joanna

Harry was in possession of all 3 Hallows.If legend be true he was Master of Death.I don't think the Elder Wand would kill its true master.Also,as long as Voldemort was alive with Lily's blood protection flowing through his veins I don't think Harry could die.I'm not sure about this,but it seems to act almost like a horcrux,keeping Harry bound to earth.

Gees,with Voldemort's having Harry's blood and Harry having Voldemort's soul fragment the prophecy should have read "neither can die while the other survives."

Nicoline Vance - Sep 5, 2007 3:02 pm (#817 of 1104)

Gees,with Voldemort's having Harry's blood and Harry having Voldemort's soul fragment the prophecy should have read "neither can die while the other survives." Madame Pomfrey

Very funny, but true! They are like the old egg-shaped toys, Weeble-wobbles. "Weebles wobble, but they won't fall down."

NFla Barbara - Sep 5, 2007 5:00 pm (#818 of 1104)

I have to disagree that Snape's feelings for Lily were "not normal."

Of course, Snape was not the most social creature...maybe if he had been, or if he had been capable of the kind of casual pairing up that we see with Harry, Ron, Ginny et al., he would have found someone else and moved on. But the fact that he didn't isn't necessarily revealing an "obsession."

And based on that, I disagree that Harry would have found Snape's feelings for his mother as abnormal. After all, Harry has found the person he thinks is probably his future by the time he's 17. Just to get a male point of view, I asked my husband, and he said "why would Harry think that was abnormal?" -- so it's not just me being sentimental. ; )

I was going back through some old chapter posts relating to HBP -- and I don't have my copy here at home, so I can't get specific examples from the book at the moment -- but there was some very interesting discussion on the forum back when HBP came out about how Harry perceived the HBP before he knew it was Snape -- how his feelings for him were, in a sense, quite friendly. When I get to HBP on my re-read of the series (I'm on OoP at the moment) I will look for examples, but it got me wondering whether having that little insight into Snape's personality was helpful to Harry in letting go of his old antipathy.

Chemyst - Sep 5, 2007 7:07 pm (#819 of 1104)

I was more trying to interpret how Harry would view Snape's obsession with his mother from what he saw in "The Prince's Tale." The scene where he produced the Doe patronus for Dumbledore, showing that he still cared for Lily, and only Lily. – Soul Search

If I used that scene as my sole criteria for judging, Harry may have seen Snape as more pathetic than brave. It is hard to be angry at someone you truly pity.

wynnleaf - Sep 5, 2007 7:39 pm (#820 of 1104)

But I don't think Harry would name his son after Snape if he just pitied him.

Bringing up the HBP potions book is a good thought. Harry liked the writer of those notes. Of course, he didn't know it was his harsh potions teacher at the time. But over 8 years, Harry might not only ponder the memories he had of Snape and Lily, but he might also ponder the fact that his mother actually liked Snape, were it not for his interest in the Dark Arts. His mom, like Harry, had liked the kid who created the hex for long toenails and muffliato, and improved all those potions and wrote "just shove a bezoar down his throat." So Harry might decide it was okay to like the Half Blood Prince, and to realize that after a few years of mistakes, Snape had spent the rest of his life trying to make up for it because he had loved Harry's mother.

And maybe Harry realized that he must have grown beyond just doing things for Lily's sake, because Harry knew that Snape had tried to save Lupin, even though Harry knew he didn't like Lupin at all, and he'd tried to save Dumbledore, and had saved Katie Bell, and protected Neville, Ginny and Luna and none of that had much at all to do with loving Lily. So I imagine Harry finally decided Snape had changed, even if the change didn't include being nice and fair to Harry.

maria cloos - Sep 8, 2007 7:11 pm (#821 of 1104)

I agree, wynnleaf, I don't think that Harry would name his son after Severus just because he thought he was brave.

We can see how Harry's view changed about him based on what we saw and based on what we have deduced on the Snape thread.

Here's another piece for thought:

Imagine this: Harry and Ginny discuss names for a boy and certainly decide that their next son will be Albus. There's no contest in that. The child is born. He has Lily's eyes. As Harry looks at the baby he remembers a man who died to protect "her eyes." It takes no small leap of imagination to think that Harry would want to let Severus live on in Lily's eyes.

Ah, a boy with the name of Severus with Lily's eyes...is there anything more poignant than that?

Holly T. - Sep 10, 2007 6:48 am (#822 of 1104)

Maria, I love that scenario. Although, with Muggle babies, sometimes they're born with one color eyes and they'll change. Maybe it's different for wizards (either that, or my son is a metamorph like Tonks).

maria cloos - Sep 13, 2007 10:06 am (#823 of 1104)

Lol, Holly.....that's true....babies eye color does often change. Never really thought about it. Wow, well if your son't a metamorph maybe he'll do well for auror training!

Holly T. - Sep 13, 2007 10:36 am (#824 of 1104)

Actually it does not bode well as my son is an aspiring Death Eater!

Mrs. Sirius - Sep 13, 2007 9:26 pm (#825 of 1104)

I agree with Choices 100%.

I need some help figuring out the two-fold connection between Harry and Voldemort. Harry was hit with the AK and he didn't die, because he was tethered to life by Lily's protection living on in Voldemort. Correct? Now, a few questions spring to mind.

1. Had Harry managed to kill Nagini before he went to the forest, would Harry die? Would they both die? I don't think that Lord Voldemort would have died here because there was "the little bit of soul" left that was in LV and Harry did not offer any defense, he didn't send a curse at LV. -BUT, JKR did pointedly keep Nagini alive at this point....

2. Had Narcissa not lied for Harry and Voldemort tried again, would Harry survive again? Harry was master of the elder wand, it would not have killed Harry.

3. Would Harry survive any number of AKs as long as Voldemort continued casting them, with Nagini alive, I mean? Yes, again LV is using the elder wand of which Harry is the master.

Mrs Brisbee - Sep 14, 2007 2:40 am (#826 of 1104)
Edited Sep 14, 2007 3:41 am

But did the Elder Wand know Harry was its master at this point? The last it knew some Draco kid with a hawthorn had wand sent it flying over the battlements of Hogwarts. At what point does the wand know that Harry, not Draco, is master of the hawthorn wand? In the forest Harry has the hawthorn wand on him, stowed in pocket, but the Elder Wand doesn't "see" Harry with the wand in hand until the battle with Voldemort in the Great Hall, so I don't know that it considered Harry its master right then. It might have. It might just magically know who its master is supposed to be without needing physical evidence, but then again it might have been clueless. I find the whole thing confusing.

mona amon - Sep 14, 2007 3:00 am (#827 of 1104)

But did the Elder Wand know Harry was its master at this point? The last it knew some Draco kid with a hawthorn had wand sent it flying over the battlements of Hogwarts.

LOL!

I too feel that the Elder Wand would not have recognised Harry as master until he used the Hawthorn Wand against it. It only recognised the Hawthorn Wand as the wand that had defeated it (and refused to work against it). This is because Draco never took posession of the Elder Wand after disarming Dumbledore of it.

It is only when Harry catches the wand after disarming Voldemort of it that he truly becomes its master.

Well, something like that!

Solitaire - Sep 16, 2007 10:01 am (#828 of 1104)

The Elder Wand surely recognized the Hawthorn Wand as the one which had "conquered" it. I do not think it necessarily "knew" it was Harry that was now its true master ... it just knew that the wand it was being used against (the Hawthorn Wand) had defeated it ... and so whoever was now holding that wand (which happened to be Harry) was its true Master. I guess it will not work against its true Master.

Solitaire

maria cloos - Sep 23, 2007 10:24 am (#829 of 1104)

Although I posted this on the Elder Wand thread it fits this discussion as well:

Disarming: We see numerous instances of people being disarmed. We also see that wands do not just "change loyalties" upon each disarming. The difference would seem to be the ultimate intention of the person doing the disarming. In a practice situation you are not trying to devoid the person of a wand permanently....it just that, practice. Even in a duel situation it seems that if you disarm someone and that person retrieves his or her wand from you the wand's loyalties still lie with the original owner.

Using another's wand: There are a few examples we should look at. Neville, in particular, has used other people's wands. His first wand had been his father's and it seemed to have worked decently for him (although we see his talent increase once he has a wand of his own after his father's is broken.) In the DoM he picks up Hermione's wand and uses it with the same amount of flair as he did his father's. Why? I think that Hermione wanted him to use her wand to continue the defense of the group. It would be her intentions that the wand would still be carrying out. Additionally we see Harry have difficulty using the wand that Ron stole from the snatchers (because Harry did not successfully overcome the wand's owner) but that he was using Hermione's wand with no difficulty (again due to Hermione's wishes).

The Elder Wand and its owners: As Ollivander tells us, the owner of a wand must be overcome in order for the wand to change allegiance to the person who overcomes the original owner. Let's look at the specific instances when we see the Elder Wand change hands. #1) Antioch- The wand is stolen by another while he is asleep. **For good measure the thief kills him. #2) Gregorovitch- He had possession of the wand (we will have to assume for arguments sake that he is the master of the wand). Grindelwald showed up at his shop and overcame him by stealing the wand from his possession (stunning Gregorovitch in the process) and began using it. #3) Grindelwald- We know that DD fought a duel with Grindelwald and that he was defeated and sent to Nurmengard. We DO NOT know that Grindelwald was actually defeated during the duel (or if he was defeated, how). This may have been something that occurred later (more on that below). #4) DD- Upon their arrival on the tower, Draco comes upon DD and Harry. Now, in that moment DD uses his wand to immobilize Harry and is not fighting against Draco (which is significant). Draco therefore disarms DD successfully. Unlike most duel situations, DD never retrieves his wand and Draco was intending to overcome him. #5) Draco- The Elder wand has now given its allegiance to the person who overcame its previous owner, although Draco is obviously unaware of this. Moments before Harry and his mates disapparate Harry overcomes Draco by snatching the three wands he holds. Again, this was with the intention of overcoming Draco, and Draco never retrieves his wand from Harry. Note- LV tried to steal the wand out of DD’s tomb. But he was not overcoming the wand’s owner in any way. He was robbing DD, not Draco (who was the wand’s master).

Is the Elder Wand unbeatable? It is interesting to note that the description of the wand says that it must "always win duels for its master." Have we ever seen the wand beaten in a duel? No, we have not. We do not see the duel between DD and Grindelwald, and we never see another duel between the Elder Wand and a foe. The only exception to that is between DD and LV, but as that duel never comes to a conclusion I don't think we can use it for an example (DD was not trying to kill LV, and LV stops to possess Harry and then flees). So we cannot say one way or another that the Elder Wand will “always win duels for its master” as we’ve never seen a duel to its conclusion involving that wand.

So how does the Elder Wand act at the end of DH?: There has been a great deal of speculation about what happened in the forest. Here it is piece by piece: Harry's intention upon entering the forest is to sacrifice his life to save everyone else. As he faces LV he knows he will die, it is what he "wants." LV does the AK and both he and Harry fall to the ground. There are two souls as we enter King’s Cross: Harry’s and the piece of LV’s that resided within Harry. Just as a horcrux works to keep part of the soul earthbound so does Harry’s blood living on in LV allow him to return to the earth. Why did LV fall to the ground? He and Harry were tethered together not only by the horcrux but by the shared blood. I think this is the reason LV collapsed. Now, LV uses crucio on Harry. Why doesn’t it work? I don’t believe it was because Harry protected himself (as he did for the others) but because this was not what he wanted. What did he want? He wanted LV to believe he was dead, but he did not want to feel the pain associated with the curse….the wand therefore obeyed him. During his duel with LV the wand would not kill Harry, its master, and so any spell that Harry would have shot at it would have worked. He therefore chose the spell he feels most comfortable with and does best.

Does this make some sense?

Joanna Lupin - Sep 24, 2007 4:48 am (#830 of 1104)

Kind of. However, the unbeatable wand stuff bothers me. We do hear about one instance when the Elder Wand loses a duel. Dumbledore told us that 'he won the duel, he won the wand'.

Mrs. Sirius - Sep 24, 2007 4:57 am (#831 of 1104)
Edited Sep 24, 2007 6:07 am

It actually is a conundrum: The only way to get the unbeatable wand is to beat the person who has it, but you can't beat the person who has it because it's unbeatable.

Harry beat Draco, because be cause Draco didn't have the elder wand with him. But Draco "beat" Dumbledore's elder wand with his own wand with a simple Expleriamus.

Joanna Lupin - Sep 26, 2007 4:48 am (#832 of 1104)

Permit me to stray slightly to a different aspect of the story. In chapter 'A Place to Hide' of DH, when Harry is experiencing pain in his scar, Hermione says (quote from memory) 'But it was supposed to have stopped!' and Harry replies 'It did... for a while. I think it's started opening again.'

Why? Why is Harry suddenly able to see into Voldemort's mind again? In HBP, DD told Harry that Voldemort feared the connection between them, and that's why he started applying Occlumency against Harry. Has he stopped now? Does he think that with DD gone Harry's access to his mind poses no threat to him. As arrogant as he was, it's possible, but I think it's the other way around.

We don't see Voldemort even attempting to use the connection to his advantage, and it makes me think that he isn't aware that Harry has again gained access to his mind. The connection between them has grown in strength so much that Harry breached defences around Voldemort's mind without him realising it.

DD says 'Connection between them grows even stronger. Parasitic growth.' What exactly does he mean?

rambkowalczyk - Sep 26, 2007 5:28 am (#833 of 1104)

Voldemort became aware of Harry in the fifth book because Harry reacted strongly to Mr. Weasley's death and Voldemort felt that reaction. Maybe because at that time Voldemort wasn't actually there in the MOM, but was possessing the snake which was a horcrux. Maybe in that state Voldomort was more readily aware of Harry since at that time there were 3 parts of Voldemort together.

I think in all the other instance Harry was only in Voldemort's mind only and since Harry didn't react Voldemort was unaware of his presence.

maria cloos - Oct 1, 2007 12:04 pm (#834 of 1104)

Joanna,

I think that LV was getting sloppy with his occlumency. He had been purposely keeping Harry from his thoughts the year before (consciously). In LV's arrogance he probably thought that since he then had total control of the wizarding world in England he didn't need to worry about Harry (except to find a way to defeat him). He had been terrified of DD and so executed a great more caution before DD died. As many do, once they are within the throes of power, he became a bit giddy. It is interesting to note, too, that over the year Harry does learn to master occlumency. But like he said at Grimmauld Place, he was willing to use the information that he gained from "dipping" into LV's mind. And when necessary he chose to delve into LV's mind.

In response to you, rambkowalczyk, LV knew full well that Harry had access to his thoughts (even if he couldn't actually feel it). He just used that knowledge to manipulate Harry. I don't know that it was the "three-fold" connection, I think it was more that it was the way DD described it. He simply got so deep into what LV was doing that he felt Harry's presence. At the time that Harry entered LV's mind Lv was involved in the ultimate act of violation. Such a violation is extremely intimate (almost a blasphemy against the very word), but probably true none-the-less. This is then an invasion of the soul, and yes, I would imagine that would be felt by the "victim." So in that moment LV recognized that there was someone else there.

Hmm...the more I think about it, rambkowalczyk, the more I like your version better. Yikes.

Joanna, your second question: Lv was too caught up in his own dilemna to worry about what Harry was actually doing. Because Harry was only briefly dipping into his mind, he was probably unaware of it. Also, he was so terrified of what could happen if he actually "tried" to connect with Harry. DD said that he was quite sure that LV would never try to possess Harry again, after what he endured at the Ministry. He explains it to Snape in saying that Lv couldn't endure to touch a soul such as Harry's. Since we are speaking of souls and not just minds, this makes all the difference. LV will avoid Harry's mind at all costs, if he can help it. Again, LV is too ignorant to understand that any lapse on his part may be a gain on Harry's part.

As for the 'parasitic growth" statement: A parasite attaches itself to a host and feeds off of it. Usually with parasites they begin slowly and grow (feeding off of the host). The connection between Harry and LV starts off with Harry being aware of when LV is angry or feeling particularly murderous. Throughout OotP this begins to develop and Harry suddenly becomes a "homing beacon" for any intense change of emotion from LV. I think that this is what DD is referring to. Harry may not be the best wizard in the world, but he is extremely intuitive. He makes his best moves based on intuition and allows his heart to guide him. DD knew that in revealing to Harry that LV had left a piece of his soul in Harry, that he would not be terribly surprised by the fact. He knew that Harry would be able to feel it intuitively.

Does this help give some sense to the events? I always feel like I have a grasp of what happened, but then I put it into words and it doesn't seem so clear anymore.

Joanna Lupin - Oct 1, 2007 12:21 pm (#835 of 1104)

Yeah, thanks, I think I now get the 'parasitic growth' statement. Man, it really is troublesome when you're non-native and have to fathom the precise meaning of JKR's wording. LOL

Solitaire - Oct 2, 2007 6:19 am (#836 of 1104)
Edited Oct 2, 2007 7:21 am

Maria, I tend to agree that LV was just too arrogant regarding Harry's access to his mind. I do not believe it ever occurred to him that Harry would begin to control this access as he did in DH. Now that Harry finally knows what is happening with these flashes of access, he no longer fears them or allows himself to be controlled by them ... as he did in OotP. He has learned to control this access to get information that he actually needs rather than letting it control him. I do not believe such a possibility ever occurred to LV.

Solitaire

PeskyPixie - Dec 1, 2007 1:58 pm (#837 of 1104)

Perhaps this has already been mentioned before, but Harry's defence of Ron to Malfoy on the Hogwarts Express is reminiscent of Lily's protection of Severus from James and Sirius on their first train ride. I agree with Dumbledore that Harry's deepest nature is more similar to his mother.

Victoire Weasley - Dec 2, 2007 4:39 pm (#838 of 1104)

Are you referring to the one in SS/PS on their first ride? In any case, I would agree with you on that one. Lupin and Sirius both say that Harry is not like James. Not that they don't have similar characteristics, but that he is more like his mother.

PeskyPixie - Dec 2, 2007 5:41 pm (#839 of 1104)

Yes, that's the scene I'm referring to. You've got to trigger my memory on when Lupin and Sirius tell Harry he's not like James. I don't remember that at all.

Victoire Weasley - Dec 3, 2007 8:53 am (#840 of 1104)

My mind was drawing a blank, then I remembered, here it is:

You're less like your father than I thought, he said finally, a definite coolness in his voice. "The risk would've been what made it fun for James." OOTP p.305 from Percy and Padfoot"

This is when they're talking in the fire just after the start of the term. Sirius doesn't really say "you're not like your father" and he is upset at Harry, but it does support the idea that Harry is more like Lily in character.

I can't remember where I came up with Lupin, maybe he doesn't say anything. I'll see if I can find it.

Mrs. Sirius - Dec 6, 2007 8:20 am (#841 of 1104)

Yes, Harry has his mother's eyes and her character. James is cocky, he "struts", the quidditch player, he seeks attention.

But Harry is kind and considerate. He takes to Neville's defense right from first year. He like Luna and prefers her friendship And from the start, the attention has made him uncomfortable, he has never sought the attention and has shied away from it, first year and especially 4th and 5th.

Victoire Weasley - Dec 6, 2007 9:40 am (#842 of 1104)

Yes, good point Mrs. Sirus. I think this has a lot to do with him being brought up at Privet Drive. He was humbled from the very beginning and became the opposite of Dudley. Kind, caring and supportive of others and un-selfish.

Chemyst - Dec 7, 2007 9:03 pm (#843 of 1104)

Then, after DH, it seems as if Dumbledore even manipulated Harry's character formation. He didn't want Harry growing up in the spotlight, getting all the attention– perhaps he should have been more careful what he wished for because the Dursley's certainly fulfilled that wish!
In PS, I thought DD was being considerate for Harry's sake; after DH it looked as though DD knew the greater good needed a humble hero.

PeskyPixie - Dec 7, 2007 10:02 pm (#844 of 1104)

Part of Harry's personality is of course attributed to his miserable upbringing. However, I feel a bad childhood can go either way. Some desire to inflict the pain they themselves have felt onto others; others, like Harry, learn to empathize because of it. He is 'good' by nature. If he wasn't I think it's entirely possible he could've turned snotty upon discovery of his fame.

But Draco reminds him of Dudley and turns him off, right? So is it mostly 'nature or nurture'? Hmm, it's late. My thoughts are getting all jumbled.

Mrs. Sirius - Dec 8, 2007 7:32 am (#845 of 1104)

...I feel a bad childhood can go either way. Some desire to inflict the pain they themselves have felt onto others;

Yes, Pesky, that is what Riddle shows us.

Solitaire - Dec 8, 2007 12:39 pm (#846 of 1104)

Yes, if Riddle had lived with relatives like the Dursleys, you can bet they would probably have been dead ere long--Uncle Vernon, at least, from his "emotional magic." Even when Harry was as angry as possible, the worst he seems to have done is inflate Aunt Marge. I suspect Riddle would have killed her.

Solitaire

Choices - Dec 8, 2007 12:49 pm (#847 of 1104)

That is a really interesting thought. I wonder if emotional magic is powerful enough to kill or can it just inflict minor damage? Surely, without a wand, emotional magic could not be "concentrated" enough to kill. I wonder....?

PeskyPixie - Dec 8, 2007 1:09 pm (#848 of 1104)

Riddle is somehow able to make Billy Stubbs kill his rabbit, or make the rabbit commit suicide. That's certainly more powerful than the emotional magic we watch Harry (or even child Severus) perform. Riddle somehow manages to direct his emotional magic to do horrific things.

Orion - Dec 8, 2007 1:34 pm (#849 of 1104)

But Riddle didn't have loving parents for the first year of his life. One often underestimates how important this time is. Riddle would possibly have been the same as Harry, given the same circumstances, crazy Gaunt genes or not.

Choices - Dec 8, 2007 3:52 pm (#850 of 1104)

PeskyPixie - "Riddle is somehow able to make Billy Stubbs kill his rabbit, or make the rabbit commit suicide."

I believe it was Tom Riddle himself who killed the rabbit by hanging it from the rafters.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:53 am

Solitaire - Dec 8, 2007 6:39 pm (#851 of 1104)

Riddle seems to have a stronger sense of self when we first see him. He does not seem intimidated or in awe of Dumbledore, the way one would expect an 11-year-old child to do. He also seems far less surprised than Harry to find he is a Wizard, noting that he knew he was "special." I would not put any degree of evil "emotional" magic past him!

Solitaire

shepherdess - Dec 8, 2007 6:48 pm (#852 of 1104)

..crazy Gaunt genes or not.~Orion

I wonder how much that accounts for in the differences between Harry and Riddle?

PeskyPixie - Dec 8, 2007 10:52 pm (#853 of 1104)

I wasn't being serious about a rabbit deciding to take its own life, however, I hadn't thought of Riddle personally hanging the little fella (I believe he is found hanging from the rafters? ). I assumed that Riddle 'prepares' the rabbit for hanging then somehow uses his emotional magic to raise it high into the air and hang it.

Hmm, if Harry is genetically 'good', is Voldemort genetically 'bad'?

shepherdess - Dec 9, 2007 11:34 am (#854 of 1104)

I'm not sure I believe anyone is genetically bad; I was thinking more of genetically "crazy". Was there some kind of mental deficiency that ran in the Gaunt family that made them (or some of them) a little...um...abnormal (for lack of a better word)?

Oh my, I suppose this should go on another thread.

Choices - Dec 9, 2007 12:45 pm (#855 of 1104)

Shepherdess, I definitely think that years of inbreeding, along with years of isolation, made the Gaunts a wee bit on the crazy side.

PeskyPixie - Dec 9, 2007 12:47 pm (#856 of 1104)

What I meant by the terms 'good' and 'bad' is that some people are just naturally nicer than others and will react differently to the same situations. Harry and LV have completely different personalities.

I do wonder if LV is doomed from a combination of brilliance, ambition, genetic 'craziness' and lack of love and influence in the formative years of his life? Harry is surrounded by love in the first year of his life. Had this been the case for LV, would it cause him to act differently despite being later orphaned and treated miserably by his foster family?

This needs to move to the LV thread.

PatPat - Dec 10, 2007 3:50 pm (#857 of 1104)

But Riddle didn't have loving parents for the first year of his life. One often underestimates how important this time is. Riddle would possibly have been the same as Harry, given the same circumstances, crazy Gaunt genes or not.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree wtih this. Yes, nurture is extremely important, but so is nature. JKR has told us that Tom Riddle is a Sociopath. Harry is what he is both because of his upbringing and because of his genes; specifically Lily's genes. The same goes for Voldemort. I just don't see that Tom Riddle would have turned out better just because he had a nice first year of life. Empathy is something that is very difficult to teach. Sometimes it's either you have it or you don't. Harry does, naturally. Tom Riddle doesn't.

PeskyPixie - Dec 10, 2007 6:13 pm (#858 of 1104)

I agree with that, PatPat. Riddle and Harry are opposites by nature. I've written about this on the Lord Voldemort thread; the only thing that can be argued in Voldy's favour is that maybe some loving guidance would have prevented him from choosing 'homicidal maniac' as a profession. I don't agree with JKR's rather simplistic idea that all would be well for Tom if Merope had just loved him. This one needed more than just love.

As for Harry, I find in him a true greatness of spirit that he's able to be 'good' despite the rotten luck fate deals him from a young age. 'Nature' wins over 'nurture' (or the lack of it) in Harry's case.

PatPat - Dec 10, 2007 8:15 pm (#859 of 1104)

Yayyy!! P.P and P.P agree again!

PeskyPixie - Dec 10, 2007 10:44 pm (#860 of 1104)

Yay! Harry and Draco or James and Severus should learn from us!

PatPat - Dec 11, 2007 7:18 am (#861 of 1104)

Definitely!

PeskyPixie - Dec 13, 2007 11:39 am (#862 of 1104)

I can't find the exact thread for this, but as it concerns Harry I'll post here.

JKR says that with the destruction of Harrycrux, Harry loses his ability to speak/understand Parseltongue. I think she goes on to say that this is a real relief to him. I would miss being able to hold a conversation with a snake! And Harry uses his ability to do a lot of good.

Choices - Dec 13, 2007 11:53 am (#863 of 1104)

Yes, but speaking Parseltongue would be a constant reminded of Voldemort. I can see why Harry wouldn't miss being reminded of the emotional and physical pain he experienced when inhabited by a part of Voldemort.

PeskyPixie - Dec 13, 2007 11:56 am (#864 of 1104)

I understand Harry's feelings about it. I was speaking for myself! It must be incredible to understand another animal and communicate with it in its own language.

Luna Logic - Dec 13, 2007 1:24 pm (#865 of 1104)

Yes, it must be...(I would not choose snake's language first!)

I wonder if Harry would be thinking, sometimes, about the snake of the zoo... (and of the reverse, too).

Orion - Dec 13, 2007 1:36 pm (#866 of 1104)

That one was one of the biggest disappointments of the later interviews where JKR kept shooting things down. Parseltongue! Imagine! Not even DD speaks it. It was worse than Hagrid never to marry. Does JKR really have to rule into the characters' afterlives (I mean after-book-lives) like a mother-in-law who can't let go?

PatPat - Dec 13, 2007 5:26 pm (#867 of 1104)

Well, that's kind of unfair, Orion. JKR was responding to a specific question about whether Harry lost his parseltongue ability after he lost the soul-bit. She responded honestly with what she envisioned! What else is the poor woman supposed to do? We insist we want her to answer our questions and then, when she does, we don't like the answer. We are all free to ignore these interviews and keep our own ideas about what happens in the characters' lives after the series is over. But we can hardly criticize her for answering direct questions as honestly as she can!

And, yes, I am aware I am off topic, so, before one of the hosts yells at me, I will bring it back to Harry! I have no problem with Harry losing the ability to speak parseltongue. Actually I don't know if we are absolutely sure that Dumbledore doesn't speak parseltongue. Was this ever confirmed? But, even still, though it is a cool ability (though I agree with Luna. Snakes would not be my first choice of an animal I wanted to communicate with!) Harry only had this ability because of the piece of Voldemort's soul inside him. It's not like it was a talent of his own, like flying or DADA. It makes sense that he would lose it when the soul bit was vanquished.

Choices - Dec 13, 2007 5:56 pm (#868 of 1104)

I'm not positive, but I don't think it was confirmed that Dumbledore spoke Parseltongue, but that he did understand it.

PeskyPixie - Dec 13, 2007 6:14 pm (#869 of 1104)

Come on guys, why so prejudiced against snakes? From the interaction between Harry and the snake at the zoo, they're quite interesting beings! Now, a basilisk controlled by the heir of Slytherin is a completely different case ...

Chemyst - Dec 14, 2007 12:48 am (#870 of 1104)

I am with Orion on this one. And it is just not realistic to "undo" an interview with our freedom to keep our own ideas. And I think it's fair to criticize an author for answering questions for which she/he hasn't really thought through all the ramifications.

For instance, the loss of the ability to understand language is usually caused by brain damage. Another explanation could be a deliverance from demonic possession where a foreign spirit had taken over the use of someone's vocal chords; but in such cases it is the foreign intelligence that controls the speaking, not the host body. So her interview answer left us with a new dilemma: If Harry could control the speech, (as I'd always assumed he did,) then this was not a classic case of possession by a foreign entity. Therefore, his loss of the ability to speak Parseltongue meant that the soul extraction also left him brain-damaged. I don't think most fans want a brain-damaged Harry either.

Generally, Harry's selective aphasia would mean that something damaged or disrupted the parts of his nervous system that allowed him to acquire that ability to communicate. And then by author fiat we are told no, he was restored to pristine condition by removing a soul bit. It must be magic! It certainly isn't logic.

PatPat - Dec 14, 2007 6:01 am (#871 of 1104)

ummm, OK, Chemyst, but you are speaking from a purely Muggle standpoint. We are talking about the magical world. Harry did not even know he could speak Parseltongue, so clearly this is not a normal situation of speaking a foreign language. In fact, the first few times he did it, he did not even hear the language himself. It was not until others told him that he was speaking in snake language that he realized he could control it if he tried. It's clear, to me at least, that it is the soul bit that is giving Harry this ability and, therefore, logical that he would lose it when the soul bit was vanquished. This is JKR's world and she is free to interpret it any way she wants. We can disagree certainly, but, if we are going to continue to ask her questions then we should be prepared to accept her responses.

Orion - Dec 14, 2007 1:26 pm (#872 of 1104)

It's just that speaking such an uniquely rare language (for humans) is so precious, and losing it is so sad. And snakes are beautiful, fascinating and cool animals. (Cats you understand anyway. Ever had problems to find out what cat wants?) I agree that JK Rowling can't do much but answer a polite question as honestly as she can - I blame those who ask. Every answer will limit the possibilities and narrow them down.

PatPat - Dec 14, 2007 3:14 pm (#873 of 1104)

LOL, Orion. I'm sure snakes are cool. But I have been deathly afraid of them my entire life! It's kind of how Ron feels about spiders! Not rational maybe, but there it is. I envy you for being able to see their beauty!

And I agree with you that it is sad that Harry had to lose this very rare and special ability. But I can see the logic in him losing it.

Soul Search - Dec 14, 2007 3:23 pm (#874 of 1104)

Orion,

Every answer will limit the possibilities and narrow them down.

I agree. Let's not ask any more questions.

wynnleaf - Dec 14, 2007 8:40 pm (#875 of 1104)

Well, it's one thing for JKR to give clarification for things she did explain in the book, but many people didn't understand -- like about how the horcrux worked in Harry. It's another when people ask her things that she may not have considered before and she gives an off-the-cuff answer and then our imaginations get hamstrung trying to accommodate a quote that JKR may not have considered more than a few moments.

PatPat - Dec 15, 2007 6:44 am (#876 of 1104)

Well we can hardly blame JKR for that. Can you imagine the uproar if the answer to every other question was: "hmmm. Good question. I hadn't considered that. I don't know."? People have a fit when she doesn't get to their questions much less if she doesn't answer them at all when asked. She's doing the best she can, trying to satisfy millions of fans the world over. Let's give the poor woman a break.

And as for the parseltongue answer, I have a feeling that was not an "off-the-cuff" answer. That had to be something she had considered because she made it very clear from book 2 that this ability came from Voldemort. To me, her answer is logical. Harry would lose the ability once the soul bit is vanquished. But that's just my opinion. I do agree with Orion that it is sad that Harry had to lose such a unique ability, and one that he managed to do good things with, but that is also part of war. Much is sacrificed for the greater good.

wynnleaf - Dec 15, 2007 6:59 am (#877 of 1104)

Actually, PatPat, I agree that JKR can hardly help it if people keep asking her questions and she wants to be accomodating. Although I really don't see what's wrong with "I haven't thought that one out. I don't know." Does she have to appear to have thought out every last detail?

But what I feel is probably more realistic would be that fans don't feel that everything a writer says about their books is just as "canon" as the books themselves. Many, many writers don't say anything about their books other than commenting on what is actually published. And a large number of literary critics believe that once a writer's work is published, the only "canon" is the published book(s), not the writer's person commentary.

Orion - Dec 15, 2007 7:17 am (#878 of 1104)

She could say, for instances, "I have thought that question through and know what happens afterwards, but I don't want to interfere with your own thoughts. From now on the characters are free. You can think up every fashion of after-book-stories you want. Please understand that I don't want to determine what people think."

wynnleaf - Dec 15, 2007 7:48 am (#879 of 1104)

She could say, for instances, "I have thought that question through and know what happens afterwards, but I don't want to interfere with your own thoughts. From now on the characters are free. You can think up every fashion of after-book-stories you want. Please understand that I don't want to determine what people think." (Orion)

I agree. If you only want to imagine things in your own head, you can still do that. But the way things stand, if you want to talk about the HP series with a lot of other people in the fandom, you have to face the fact that a great deal of the fandom feels that everything JKR says about her characters, even if it's kind of contradictory, and even if it's an off-the-cuff remark (which I agree the Parseltongue remark was probably not off-the-cuff), it's still considered "canon." And that's difficult, because years down the road I don't think the average reader is going to be tracking down every JKR quote they can find, so "canon" will most likely eventually become only the published books.

Besides, every author has to decide what, from the entire world they imagine, they will include in a book. But once they make those decisions, I think that's what is canon - what the author decided was important enough to go in the books. If it wasn't important enough to be in the books, it should be left to the reader's imaginations.

Allison R - Dec 15, 2007 8:10 am (#880 of 1104)

PatPat, I agree that it does make sense. If the ability to speak Parseltongue came from Velcro-Voldy and not from within Harry himself, as soon as that was removed the ability would be gone also.

Orion, excellent answer! I wish someone would suggest it to her.

PatPat - Dec 15, 2007 8:15 am (#881 of 1104)

Actually, we agree on this point. I do not think that every single remark by JKR should be considered canon. Many readers do, but I think that's unfair as well. That's holding JKR to an impossible standard. To keep absolutely every detail straight and make no mistakes, especially when you may be faced with a question you had not anticipated is nearly impossible. I read that the publishers actually have continuity specialists for these books to try to keep the countless details accurate. And still there are mistakes. We can hardly expect this one poor woman to do so!

EDIT: Cross posted with Allison R. ***waves*** Thanks, Allison! I also like Orion's answer! Of course, we are seriously off topic now and will probably get reprimanded soon. So, back to Harry Potter!

Chemyst - Dec 15, 2007 4:58 pm (#882 of 1104)

I have a feeling that was not an "off-the-cuff" answer. ~ PatPat

I don't disagree with you… I think she knew her intended outcome was to have Harry completely free of all things Voldemort. But I do get the impression she that she never gave a lot of thought to some of the consequences and implications. Language, how it is formed, how it is perceived, the entire neurological process is incredibly complex. Harry was able to direct it and speak his own thoughts; not Voldemort's. Further complicating things is that Ron was able to learn at least one phrase of the language, and that was totally without a soul bit.

In the big scheme of things, it does not matter piddlely-squat. But for me it makes more sense to say that without the soul bit, Harry lost the language over time because he never practiced it anymore– "If you don't use it, you lose it." So as a free-thinking reader, that is what I'll go with.

PeskyPixie - Dec 16, 2007 12:00 pm (#883 of 1104)

Tolkien thought out his created world quite well. It's always a shame to have to sort through the comments JKR makes about her world and decide which have some thought behind them and which are off the top of her head.

Personally, I understand the logic behind losing the Parseltongue. I'm just saddened by it as it's an ability I would love to have myself and also because Harry does so much good through his understanding of snakes. Plus, it would be an awesome tool for an Auror to have. I realize it's a 'relief' to not have any connection with Voldy, but honestly, Parseltongue is the least of his worries. He certainly doesn't seem traumatized by his ability as a kid.

ETA: Ron's use of Parseltongue is one of the many bits in DH which needed some more editing, IMO.

Soul Search - Dec 16, 2007 12:32 pm (#884 of 1104)

PeskyPixie,

Ron's use of Parseltongue is one of the many bits in DH which needed some more editing.

I didn't have a problem with Ron opening the Chamber in DH.

Ron was with Harry when he opened the Chamber in Cos. He knew of the tap that didn't work and the snake on the tap. He heard Harry's initial attempts, which came out in English, and then he heard the sounds of Parsletongue Harry used to open it.

Ron had recently heard the sound of the Parsletongue Harry spoke to open the locket.

It took Ron a couple of tries, but he was able to mimic the sounds Harry made, and thereby open the Chamber. Ron did not speak "Parsletongue," he just mimicked the sounds Harry made.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Orion - Dec 16, 2007 12:39 pm (#885 of 1104)

The nice thing about Ron speaking Parsel is that it makes this language less uncanny and less connected with Voldy. Suddenly it's a normal language that also people without a horcrux behind their eyebrows can learn. Hey - you can learn it! Some people should give courses.

PeskyPixie - Dec 16, 2007 1:01 pm (#886 of 1104)

LOL! Exactly, Orion.

In addition, if Parseltongue is a 'learnable' language (e.g. Ron) and not a rare ability I don't really understand how Harry could lose his ability to understand and speak the language with the elimination of Voldy's soulbit? Maybe he no longer understands it fluently, but surely he must remember a bit?

Orion - Dec 16, 2007 1:03 pm (#887 of 1104)

Yes...

PatPat - Dec 16, 2007 2:01 pm (#888 of 1104)

Parseltongue is not a "learnable" language. Ron did not learn to speak parseltongue. He merely imitated one sound that Harry made and it took several tries. He did not understand really what was said nor could he understand a snake if he was faced with one. Without meaning, the language is not really being learned. He was merely able to imitate a sound that he heard. I could imitate the barking of a dog. That doesn't mean that I have learned dog language.

PeskyPixie - Dec 16, 2007 2:16 pm (#889 of 1104)

See, I could buy that, although I feel it is sloppy story-telling on the writer's behalf as it removes the mystique surrounding Parseltongue for me. However, JKR's claim that Harry's ability to speak and understand Parseltongue leaves him with the elimination of Voldy's soulbit unsettles me. Surely some of the sounds Harry hears from snakes throughout the years remain in his memory? It just seems weird that Ron can duplicate a phrase from this language but Harry loses it completely after using it (i.e. controlling it) so many times.

ETA: On some level, all languages are 'learnable', but as snakes are not social creatures it is difficult to interact with one and understand what each hiss means. Hence, Parseltongue is a rare genetic gift. Researchers of social animals often learn to 'speak' the language of the animal they study.

Then, is Harry's ability to converse with serpents akin to a trance of some sort? That's the only way I can reconcile both JKR's comment and Ron's ability to mimic Harry.

shepherdess - Dec 16, 2007 5:21 pm (#890 of 1104)

Two points come to my mind.

1. Ron only has to learn one command in Parseltongue. That's vastly different from learning to speak or understand the language.

2. Ron only has to speak the command well enough for an object (faucet) to accept it. And that could be vastly different from "pronouncing" it clearly enough for a listening snake to distinguish it from (an)other word(s) in it's language.

So, I'm not sure Ron's feat was such a huge accomplishment.

PatPat - Dec 17, 2007 5:20 am (#891 of 1104)

Exactly, shepherdess. I agree completely. Ron simply imitated one sound. As for Harry, I'm not sure it was really a trance, but it was certainly not a normal case of speaking a language. Normally, when we speak a language, we understand it, but we also "hear" in our minds the words and the meaning. When Harry spoke or listened to Parseltongue, he "heard" English. There were times he didn't even realize it was Parseltongue that was being spoken. He was just able to understand (e.g. "The House of Gaunt" chapter in HBP). To me anyway, this indicates there was something else allowing Harry to speak and understand the language that was out of his control. Clearly this was the soul bit.

Mrs. Sirius - Dec 22, 2007 10:23 pm (#892 of 1104)

In addition, if Parseltongue is a 'learnable' language (e.g. Ron) and not a rare ability I don't really understand how Harry could lose his ability to understand and speak the language with the elimination of Voldy's soulbit? Maybe he no longer understands it fluently, but surely he must remember a bit?

Also, remember, when Harry was told he spoke Parseltongue in COS, his reaction was to the effect of "I spoke another language?"

Also a couple of times, he has to look at or imagine a snake in order to make the sounds come out. Not the sound of a person who actually "speaks" the language or is in control of it.

Orion - Dec 23, 2007 2:54 am (#893 of 1104)

Upon reading the previous comments, I come to the conclusion that Harry's command of Parseltongue is different from its normal use. In general, you can learn it, it's nothing special or outrageous, it's only rare because few people actually wish to speak to snakes, so it's almost died out among humans. So Ron can imitate a sound of it, without seeing a snake, and fully aware of speaking another language.

Whereas Harry was imbued with full command of the language as a toddler by his Harrycrux. He doesn't notice when he speaks it, and he has to be face to face with a snake to speak it. Parsel is only magical, mysterious and eldritch in Harry's case, otherwise it's perfectly straightforward.

I love the scene in which Ron can speak Parsel very much. It pulls back the red curtain and suddenly it's broad daylight and the mystery is de-mystified. It's almost as good as LV lying on the ground, looking very dead and thin and not superhuman anymore.

haymoni - Dec 25, 2007 9:34 am (#894 of 1104)

I disagree.

If you can learn it, more wizards would be able to speak it.

It seems to me to be a rare talent, a gift, to be able to speak with snakes.

I think Ron just made the noise and it fooled the door to the Chamber.

If anything, it shows that Ron pays attention.

PatPat - Dec 25, 2007 11:33 am (#895 of 1104)

I agree with haymoni. It is not a learnable language. Ron simply imitated one sound.

PeskyPixie - Dec 27, 2007 8:47 pm (#896 of 1104)

What is language? Sounds which have meaning for those who 'speak' it. I always assumed Parseltongue to be a non-learnable language because snakes are not social animals who bond and communicate with people through hissing (although a herpetologist or a plain animal junkie should be able discern a snake's mood from its hisses). Thus, it is a rare genetic gift to be able to converse with serpents in their own tongue.

PatPat, your explanations from a few weeks ago make sense to me. Harry does not retain any vestiges of Parseltongue because he never really 'knows' it. I also understand why Ron is able to imitate it. It's not great story-telling on JKR's part, IMO, but it does make sense now.

PeskyPixie - Feb 2, 2008 7:01 pm (#897 of 1104)

I've been toying with whether I should post the next bit or not. It is most certainly not a popular view, and it may seem morally ambiguous on my part, to some. However, I'll take the plunge.

While I fully understand and appreciate the literary reasoning behind Harry never killing, I also wonder why it is regarded as heroic to set free a known murderous maniac? Harry's mercy indirectly results in Teddy Lupin growing up without a father. Plus, who knows what else this nut has done after his encounter with Harry?

BTW, I draw my example from HRH's decision to set Dolohov free with modified memories. I accept the trio's decision on the grounds that killing is a frightening act, especially for people so young. Apart from the age issue I find no reason to accept the release of a dangerous Death Eater as noble or strategic. If anything it puts the lives of innocent Muggles, Witches and Wizards in jeopardy.

rambkowalczyk - Feb 2, 2008 7:48 pm (#898 of 1104)

Got a little confused, so let me clarify; Dolohov killed Lupin or Tonks? Is that in the book or was it something JKR said?

But to your main question which is should Harry have killed Dolohov mainly because it was known that he was a vicious killer.

I'll say no for three reasons.

one Even if Harry killed Dolohov then, there would be no guarantee that that someone else wouldn't have killed Lupin.

two Who is to say that Dolohov couldn't have had a change of heart and have been crucial in the defeat of Voldemort. Granted it didn't happen.

It is somewhat analogous to Harry sparing the life of Peter. Dumbledore points out that the consequences of any one single act can be so very complicated. One could argue that maybe Harry should have just allowed Sirius to kill Peter since it turned out that Peter's life was more or less wasted being in the service of Voldemort, but in fact it gave him a chance to change before he died. (a chance he chose not to take).

In my mind not killing represents hope for the future. It may not always pan out as in the case of Peter Pettigrew but I think it's better to hope people will change rather than to kill them to prevent some possible murder.

three Killing would have damaged Harry's soul and Harry's soul needed to be whole in order to defeat Voldemort.

Steve Newton - Feb 2, 2008 8:31 pm (#899 of 1104)

The last specific information that I recall about Lupin, that I recall, is that he is dueling Dolohov. We are not explicitly told that Dolohov killed Lupin but it would seem to be a reasonable bet.

PeskyPixie - Feb 2, 2008 9:16 pm (#900 of 1104)

JKR mentioned in an interview that Lupin is killed by Dolohov. Apparently we were supposed to understand this as we are told that he is fighting Dolohov and the next time we see him he's dead. I can't remember whether Dolohov kills Tonks as well.

Even if Harry killed Dolohov then, there would be no guarantee that that someone else wouldn't have killed Lupin. -rambkowalczyk

This type of argument gets one nowhere. Is Paris an unimportant character because even if he had completely chickened out of the Trojan War someone else would have killed Achilles? Is Eowyn wrong to fight and kill the Witch-King and his Fell-Beast because Theoden and his horse are already toast? At the end of the day Dolohov kills Lupin. In literary Potterworld he is Lupin's murderer. Knowing this I wonder, would I not want a predator removed from society because he/she has destroyed the life of a loved one and I don't want it to happen to anyone else? Would it do to rationalize such an individual's release because there are many like him/her who could have just as easily committed the same act? Personally, no.

Obviously in a time of war a warrior such as Lupin will be a target, especially as he is in the losing army. Because of this I do not completely agree with Harry's decision to release a Death Eater of Dolohov's caliber onto Voldy's ranks.

Who is to say that Dolohov couldn't have had a change of heart and have been crucial in the defeat of Voldemort. -rambkowalczyk

A beautiful thought, very noble and almost worthy of Gandalf, I'd say. However, I'm grateful that certain Muggle groups with Death Eaterish agendas were stopped using force as I shudder to think of the even greater impact they may have had if the world had simply allowed them to continue to roam free practicing random acts of cruelty, in the hope that someday one of them may experience a change of heart.

"One could argue that maybe Harry should have just allowed Sirius to kill Peter since it turned out that Peter's life was more or less wasted being in the service of Voldemort, but in fact it gave him a chance to change before he died. (a chance he chose not to take). -rambkowalczyk

One more Death Eater on whom mercy is wasted. Oh well, at least Harry tried.

In my mind not killing represents hope for the future. It may not always pan out as in the case of Peter Pettigrew but I think it's better to hope people will change rather than to kill them to prevent some possible murder. -rambkowalczyk

'Some possible murder'? Murder is part of Dolohov's job description. He is no cowering Pettigrew.

You see, I admire Harry's noble decisions in the story. They make him a true 'hero'. However, I have a habit of always wondering what I would feel if I were in that fictional scenario myself. In a situation where LV is winning the war, I'd want Dolohov, Rookwood, Avery, Mulciber, Malfoy, Bellatrix and the other 'inner circle' Death Eaters out of action ASAP and leave hope of their future for the future.

Killing would have damaged Harry's soul and Harry's soul needed to be whole in order to defeat Voldemort. -rambkowalczyk"

As far as I can remember 'killing' does not rip souls apart, 'murder' does. Perhaps there is no difference between the two to some, but there is to me.

The ideal situation for Harry would be to have Dolohov and Rowle arrested, tried and sentenced. However this is not possible at that time. Azkaban is in the Dark Lord's hands as is the Ministry. Harry should know this; he has just fled from the gate-crashed wedding. I find it poor judgement to practice catch and release and hope for the best with Death Eaters as deadly as Dolohov.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:56 am

Swedish Short-Snout - Feb 3, 2008 3:02 am (#901 of 1104)

I think JKR said that Bellatrix killed Tonks.

Could Harry have killed Dolohov and Rowle? I'm thinking of what Crouch Jr said when he teached them about Unforgivable curses - something like that if the whole class had tried to AK him he wouldn't get more than a nosebleed.

Perhaps he could have killed them with Sectumsempra. Or why not transfigurate them into chickens? That way they're alive but can't do any harm. They could live with the Weasleys' chickens until the war is over. Then they could be turned human again and sent to Azkaban.

Mrs Brisbee - Feb 3, 2008 8:03 am (#902 of 1104)

I think PeskyPixie covered very well the reasons to eliminate Death Eaters like Dolohov when the opportunity presents itself. He is a known murderer (he murdered Ron's uncles, Gideon and Fabian. Harry had been gifted the watch of one of the victims by the victims' sister a mere few days ago). Dolohov is part of Voldemort's inner circle, and still does the Dark Lord's bidding. Dolohov is a deadly threat to anyone who cross his path.

Also, Voldemort's resources are finite. There is only a certain number of wizards in the world. A loss of any witch or wizard on either side represents a measurable percentage of that sides power. If one's strategic intent is to weaken Voldemort's side then killing his Death Eaters makes sense.

So now, here are some practical reasons not to kill Dolohov.

The Trio aren't sure at that time how they were tracked. If it is the Trace, then the enemy know that they all left from the wedding party. They fled the wedding because Voldemort's forces were arriving, and it is a good bet that many wedding guests are in custody, including most of Ron's family and some Order members. Killing two Death Eaters when it endangers the lives of many captured Order members is a poor tactical exchange. It turns out not to be the Trace, but the Trio haven't had time to figure that out yet.

The cover up becomes more difficult. The Trio don't know how much time they have. A memory charm only needs to be done on the two Death Eaters who will then report they found nothing. Murdering or disappearing them is more complex, because the Trio will have to modify the memories of anyone on the street who might of seen them and could be questioned by investigators. If questioners discover that Ron was there, his ghoul's cover is blown and his family (many of them Order members) is in grave danger.

The press is already insinuating things about Harry. They don't really need a headline the next day proclaiming that Harry is the suspect in two murders and is a dangerous fugitive on the run.

There is something to be said for focus. The Trio are not following a strategy of weakening Voldemort by taking out his forces, but rather a strategy of weakening him by taking out his Horcruxes. The former is still a noble strategy, but it could attract a whole lot of unneeded trouble that would interfere with their ability to pursue their actual goal.

wynnleaf - Feb 3, 2008 8:24 am (#903 of 1104)

I think this question is a good one for illuminating the differences between what might be the more advisable choice in a practical way, versus the literary choices that necessitate Harry to remain a person who has never killed anyone. I had always been certain that Harry would not directly kill LV, but would somehow get LV into a position where his death would follow from something LV had done, rather than Harry. The reason I felt Harry couldn't be allowed by JKR to directly kill LV is the same reason why she couldn't have Harry kill anyone else. She had to keep him this pure, idealic hero. Well, of course, he's not idealic in the sense of being perfect -- he's willing to use unforgiveables, for instance. But she had to keep him from killing, so that his soul, from whatever perspective one might consider, would still remain whole.

Certainly I agree that practically it was a "mistake" in the sense that Dolohov would and did come back and kill more, but that, in a literary sense, isn't the point. Harry must be shown to give mercy, rather than kill in practicality.

I'm reminded, by the way, of the film The Last of the Mohicans. The French general, Montcalm, has just negotiated with the English fort to allow them to surrender and take all of their people and leave peacefully. Supposedly, those particular English soldiers are supposed to go home and not fight again. The Huron brave, Magua confronts Montcalm and points out that surely the General knows that, in fact, those English soldiers won't go home. They'll regroup and later fight again. Montcalm comments that yes, practically he knows this to be true, but still he must do the honorable thing and allow the English enemy to surrender and leave the field. Magua doesn't agree with this and gathers his braves together. Unknown (kind of) to Montcalm, Magua takes his braves along the trail following the English forces and attacks them, killing them all (except the protagonists and their friends, of course). Magua is not seen as doing something practical or expedient, but instead as a brutal man with no honor. At least, honor from the Western perspective. JKR is working from the Western perspective, so it's natural that she'd have Harry choose to do something along the lines of Montcalm's decision.

Soul Search - Feb 3, 2008 8:58 am (#904 of 1104)

Mrs Brisbee, I liked your practical analysis, and agree. I would add that others, the Order, are supposed to be carrying the fight to the death eaters, although we don't really see much of that.

I do think, however, that wynnleaf has correstly assessed the literary reasoning. Harry's task is to destroy Voldemort via his horcruxes and then be in a position so Voldmeort ends up killing himself. I got the idea that had Harry's soul had been sullied with killings, he could not have returned from King's Cross. Something like that, anyway.

Magua is, of course, a very practical fighter. But that was a very different world.

Orion - Feb 3, 2008 10:30 am (#905 of 1104)

I don't understand this discussion. Even if someone is a murderer, you can't simply kill him! You would be a murderer yourself. Especially when, in the Harry Potter wizarding universe, there are other ways to make sure a captive murderer doesn't go on murdering - modifying his or her memory, for example. (Inhuman? Better than death, isn't it?)

wynnleaf - Feb 3, 2008 12:37 pm (#906 of 1104)

Even if someone is a murderer, you can't simply kill him! (Orion)

Correct. With Peter Pettigrew, in POA, Harry saved his life, but not to let him go. Harry thought Peter would be taken by the authorities, tried, etc. and put into Azkaban.

Still, it would be better to have done something with Dolohov to keep him from going back to his DE activities. In true war situations, if there was absolutely nothing else to do with him, he might have been killed (especially if those capturing him were on some kind of secret espionage mission).

Michael Franz - Feb 3, 2008 1:55 pm (#907 of 1104)

With regards to the Parseltongue issue, I've always viewed it to be a supernatural ability rather than a simple language. If it were not, even Muggles could learn to talk to snakes. If Parseltongue can be spoken just by Ron imitating the sounds, then all you'd need is a tape recorder to get into the Chamber of Secrets.

Hello. My name is Tom Riddle. My voice is my passport. Verify me.

Michael Franz - Feb 3, 2008 2:01 pm (#908 of 1104)

Especially when, in the Harry Potter wizarding universe, there are other ways to make sure a captive murderer doesn't go on murdering - modifying his or her memory, for example.

That's exactly what they did to a murderer on Babylon 5; they called it "death of personality." But no one in the Harry Potter universe has ever done anything like this that we know of. They can make people forget certain events, and they can even make someone believe they are someone else. But can they really change the nature of a man? If they can, why do they have Azkaban? Why does Dumbledore "wish he could" change Voldemort's nature instead of doing it?

Orion - Feb 3, 2008 2:14 pm (#909 of 1104)

You're right, Michael. What Hermione does is very drastic, and doesn't go well with Azkaban and Dumbledore's wish. Is is quite inconsistent. Can you or can't you? Can you do it only with muggles?

rambkowalczyk - Feb 3, 2008 4:34 pm (#910 of 1104)

Even if Harry killed Dolohov then, there would be no guarantee that that someone else wouldn't have killed Lupin. -rambkowalczyk

This type of argument gets one nowhere... Because of this I do not completely agree with Harry's decision to release a Death Eater of Dolohov's caliber onto Voldy's ranks. Peskie Pixie

I will ignore this argument because I believe your main point is why should Harry have let a known killer go free when there is a reasonable expectation he will kill again and I will stick to arguing against this. Originally I thought you were trying to say that Lupin would have been spared.

Who is to say that Dolohov couldn't have had a change of heart and have been crucial in the defeat of Voldemort. -rambkowalczyk

I shudder to think of the even greater impact they may have had if the world had simply allowed them to continue to roam free practicing random acts of cruelty, in the hope that someday one of them may experience a change of heart.

This is somewhat hyperbole as I am not arguing that there shouldn't be punishments for people who commit heinous crimes. But short of killing them, there was nothing that could have been done by Harry. Mrs Brisbee expressed different reasonings than I did, that were probably more consistent with Harry's thinking at the time. For instance, I am not saying that Harry thought that sparing Dolohov would have made Dolohov change his mind about anything.

However I do think that JKR wanted to show that we do not have to kill our enemy to defeat him or her.

For instance, Dumbledore did not kill Grindelwald to defeat him. He was imprisoned presumably for life for his crimes. When Voldemort meets up with him in prison, I get the feeling that Grindelwald feels remorse for his crimes and has had a change of heart--something that would never have happened if he was killed immediately after his trial. Now if Grindelwald had escaped and tried to rise again by resorting to his old ways, people would have criticized Dumbledore for his choices.

One more Death Eater (meaning Peter Pettigrew) on whom mercy is wasted. Oh well, at least Harry tried. Peskie Pixie

Can I assume that this is sarcastic? If so we really have a fundamental difference of opinion because like Dumbledore I think Harry made the right decision. (I don't mean for this to come out rude or snippy. I have read what you've written and understand you are pursuing a line of questioning)

If Harry were to kill Peter or Dolohov then Harry is acting as judge, jury and executioner and as such can make mistakes that can't be undone such as killing a potentially innocent person. If Harry wanted to prevent future murders, Harry should have killed Sirius Black in the Shrieking Shack. Harry might have decided that having been wrong about Sirius, he could be wrong about Peter and there was no need for hasty action.

Consider Dumbledore's action towards Draco. Draco has twice tried to commit murder and it was merely luck that he didn't succeed. We can argue that Draco was in desperate straits but does it justify what Draco did? Who is to say that Dolohov wasn't in exactly that type of situation? Dumbledore spared Draco even though there is no guarantee that Draco will never kill again. Dumbledore says Draco isn't a killer but is Dumbledore correct? It depends on Draco's choices.

Steve Newton - Feb 3, 2008 5:03 pm (#911 of 1104)

Actually, Harry would not be acting as judge, jury and executioner. He would be acting as a combatant in a brutal civil war meeting a known combatant from the opposition.

Mrs. Sirius - Feb 3, 2008 10:39 pm (#912 of 1104)

Without a trial and conviction, killing someone is murder. We know that they do have trails we have seen them. So if the trio killed Dolohov it would be at minimum vengeance if not out murder.

That's exactly what they did to a murderer on Babylon 5; they called it "death of personality." But no one in the Harry Potter universe has ever done anything like this that we know of.

Wouldn't the Dementor's kiss be the equivalent of that?

Julia H. - Feb 4, 2008 4:56 am (#913 of 1104)

Lots of things could be done to Dolohov but I don't think HRH can afford to spend too much time on these ideas. They do not know what is happening, how they have been found or whether there are any other DE's on their way to them. Complicated memory charms and transfigurations when they may be in a trap any minute? Honestly, even killing him in cold blood (since this is not a battle and Dolohov is defenseless) would take a significant amount of time since they have never killed and we know from the books that it is not an easy thing to do - they may not be at all sure that they would succeed. They are teenagers, they do not have the skills and practical attitudes ("the nerve"?) that experienced soldiers have. Their priority is to get away at once, eliminating their traces as much and as quickly as possible.

That is the practical side of the problem but there is also a theoretical side. When Harry learns about the prophecy, he does not at all feel happy or proud ("Wow, I am the Chosen One!"), rather he feels he is "a marked man", someone who will either become a victim or a murderer. It is of course the choice that every soldier must face in any war but that does not mean it is easy. Not for Harry at least. On top of that all, starting to kill means becoming even more similar to Voldemort - and he has already had his problems with the various things they share. The point that he is not a murderer is quite often made in the books. When he tries to use Unforgivable Curses, he usually fails. Snape, I think, is right when he - not very kindly - points it out to Harry that Unforgivable Curses are not for him. In DH Harry himself makes it clear that he rejects the idea of "blasting people out of his way" even if it is a case of self-defense. Though he does not know (Snape does), there is a bit of Voldemort attached to him: it is quite possible that killing would strengthen that little monster inside Harry, and who knows where that might lead? Even if he does not explicitly know about the monster, he may instinctively feel that it would be especially risky for him to kill.

So there are reasons why Harry does not want to kill but JKR may also have her own reasons for keeping his hero's hand clean. HP (as most fairy tales) is ultimately about the fight between good and evil and, in my opinion, it is also about the triumph of love over hatred. The war takes place in many battlefields, including the real one and the one inside people's minds/souls (though "why on earth should that mean that it is not real?") and we do get to see people fight a real battle and kill in order to conquer evil and we even see that the act of killing may even be a way of self-sacrifice for the greater good. However, to really have the principle of good/love conquer the principle of evil/hatred so that the plot should not be just the victory of the better strategy over the worse one, there must be a hero who remains pure enough to oppose LV at the other end of the good-evil scale.

rambkowalczyk - Feb 4, 2008 4:57 am (#914 of 1104)

That's exactly what they did to a murderer on Babylon 5; they called it "death of personality." But no one in the Harry Potter universe has ever done anything like this that we know of.

Wouldn't the Dementor's kiss be the equivalent of that?

Not exactly. Dementers leave you brain dead. In Babylon 5, the convict is given a new personality that doesn't remember the old. The plot in the Babylon story line was that the relatives of victims did not feel closure because not only did the convicted not go to jail, but could never apologize or acknowledge what he or she did in the past.

PeskyPixie - Feb 4, 2008 7:31 am (#915 of 1104)

Great points, all. Very busy right now, but I look forward to getting back to this discussion tonight.

Solitaire - Feb 4, 2008 7:04 pm (#916 of 1104)

it is quite possible that killing would strengthen that little monster inside Harry, and who knows where that might lead? I agree here. I also think it is interesting that the "little monster inside" doesn't override Harry's natural inclinations, despite the control we see exercised over him in OotP. I think it says something about the strength of Harry's true character ... despite the assertions of some who feel he is weak.

Solitaire

PeskyPixie - Feb 4, 2008 8:10 pm (#917 of 1104)

Mrs Brisbee, a very well thought out argument.

Certainly I agree that practically it was a mistake" in the sense that Dolohov would and did come back and kill more, but that, in a literary sense, isn't the point. Harry must be shown to give mercy, rather than kill in practicality." -wynnleaf

I believe I addressed this as well in my previous post. I understand and appreciate Harry Potter, the literary character's, decision to never kill; the story would not carry the same message if he did. I think I mentioned that I wasn't examining the text from this perspective.

I don't understand this discussion. Even if someone is a murderer, you can't simply kill him! -Orion

If you read my previous post carefully I think it will become apparent that I'm not suggesting knocking on the front door of Malfoy Manor, then zapping Lucius when he opens it. The situation I bring up is very specific. You have before you a known murderer (and a highly skilled adult Dark wizard at that) who has tried in the past to murder many of your friends who happened to be kids, and yourself. In fact the only reason he's here is to kill your friends and wrap you up in a package, stick on a bow and deliver you to the Dark Lord. The Ministry and Azkaban are both under said Lord's control and you have no clue of the status of the Order of the Phoenix as most members are at the gate-crashed wedding. We all know that the Dark Lord can break through Memory Charms. In this specific war situation, of kill or allow a mass murderer (who's also a great warrior on the Dark Lord's side) to walk free, is releasing Dolohov among civilians the most intelligent thing to do?

"This is somewhat hyperbole as I am not arguing that there shouldn't be punishments for people who commit heinous crimes. But short of killing them, there was nothing that could have been done by Harry. -rambkowalczyk

That's exactly my point. Is this the extreme case where 'elimination' is the only option? We know that Mad-Eye 'brought them in alive whenever he could', meaning that there are rare occasions when you're left with no choice but to eliminate a thoroughly nasty piece of work. It all boils down to whether one wants Dolohov's death on one's conscience or the weight of his past and future atrocities? Personally, I'd go with the former as the latter would most certainly enter my mind and destroy me over time.

For instance, Dumbledore did not kill Grindelwald to defeat him. He was imprisoned presumably for life for his crimes ..."" -rambkowalczyk"

Because there is a prison where he may be placed. (I was pretty sure that I had presented my views quite clearly, but from the number of misinterpretations I've come across maybe I need to go back and see for myself whether anything needs to be clarified) It is very obvious that Grindelwald (perhaps due to his fondness for Dumbledore?) learns to feel remorse for his misdeeds over time; his soul has been saved, IMO. This is the ideal situation for all Death Eaters. (I feel especially bad for Bella as she was greatly motivated by love for the wrong person) However, in a situation where the 'bad guys' have taken over the prison and Ministry, is it right to set a evil git on his merry way so he can one day feel remorse?

One more Death Eater (meaning Peter Pettigrew) on whom mercy is wasted. Oh well, at least Harry tried. -PeskyPixie

Can I assume that this is sarcastic? If so we really have a fundamental difference of opinion because like Dumbledore I think Harry made the right decision.

I was hardly being sarcastic, the exact opposite, actually.

If Harry were to kill Peter or Dolohov then Harry is acting as judge, jury and executioner and as such can make mistakes that can't be undone such as killing a potentially innocent person. If Harry wanted to prevent future murders, Harry should have killed Sirius Black in the Shrieking Shack. Harry might have decided that having been wrong about Sirius, he could be wrong about Peter and there was no need for hasty action. -rambkowalczyk

I don't view Dolohov as a 'potentially innocent person'. In fact, I really can't make sense of the 'coffee shop-Shrieking Shack' analogy. Why should Harry want anybody dead when they can be handed over to the Ministry, await trial and receive a just sentence?

I am honestly flabbergasted by the number of people who equate killing in a truly desperate war situation with murdering at will. Just because I believe that Dolohov shouldn't be released near the beginning of DH doesn't mean that I advocate 'Harry's Morality Squad' to march about taking out alleged Death Eaters at random.

Consider Dumbledore's action towards Draco. Draco has twice tried to commit murder and it was merely luck that he didn't succeed. We can argue that Draco was in desperate straits but does it justify what Draco did? Who is to say that Dolohov wasn't in exactly that type of situation? Dumbledore spared Draco even though there is no guarantee that Draco will never kill again. Dumbledore says Draco isn't a killer but is Dumbledore correct? It depends on Draco's choices. -rambkowalczyk

The first kill is a huge leap; Dolohov is long past this point. Dumbledore does not want to be this milestone for Draco. However, his decision to favour Draco's soul over the lives of other students is still questionable. Other measures could have been taken, but this is hardly the place to discuss them.

" ... to really have the principle of good/love conquer the principle of evil/hatred so that the plot should not be just the victory of the better strategy over the worse one, there must be a hero who remains pure enough to oppose LV at the other end of the good-evil scale. -Julia

Once again, I agree, but this is not the focus of my argument.

Could Harry have killed Dolohov and Rowle? I'm thinking of what Crouch Jr said when he teached them about Unforgivable curses - something like that if the whole class had tried to AK him he wouldn't get more than a nosebleed."" -Swedish Short-Snout"

I've wondered this as well. I feel a combination of youth, innocence and mercy spares Dolohov and Rowle.

Or why not transfigurate them into chickens? That way they're alive but can't do any harm. They could live with the Weasleys' chickens until the war is over. Then they could be turned human again and sent to Azkaban. -Swedish Short-Snout

The best idea yet! Why not Transfigure them into chickens, put them in a Charmed cage and stick them into Hermione's beaded purse until they can be moved to a great magical coop in Auntie Muriel's backyard to wait out the war? This can be done to all Death Eaters who will then be unable to fight for Voldy and will be released to the Ministry only after his downfall. I like it.

I think it says something about the strength of Harry's true character ... despite the assertions of some who feel he is weak. -Solitaire

I hope you're not referring to my post? If so, that is not what I wrote at all.

Orion - Feb 5, 2008 3:40 am (#918 of 1104)

We seem to enter mined territory here because there are rather a lot of political issues (strictly banned on this forum, for which I'm eternally grateful) linked with the question whether or not it's within your ethical rights to kill a criminal who has just tried to kill you but is now unconscious and unarmed. The discussion touches the questions of death penalty, self defense, war and the treatment of prisoners, and I leave this discussion now because I can feel the ground sizzle beneath the soles of my feet.

Solitaire - Feb 5, 2008 7:09 am (#919 of 1104)

Nope, Pesky ... I was referring generally to sentiments and attitudes about Harry that I've seen expressed here before (not necessarily recently) by some posters. I couldn't even point to a specific post, as I was thinking about discussions in the past.

Orion ... wise choice to let it be, although I agree that it is almost impossible to read the novels and not feel an inclination to discuss those issues.

Solitaire

Steve Newton - Feb 5, 2008 7:29 am (#920 of 1104)

Solitaire, you mentioned the "little monster inside." I had had great hopes for this little monster, well, hopes at least. I thought that having been exposed to Harry's love for the last 15 years might have changed it and perhaps offered some redemption for Voldemort. No go.

Mrs Brisbee - Feb 5, 2008 7:37 am (#921 of 1104)

I tended to concentrate on the practical considerations because I wanted to make the point that Harry & Friends were simply not being Stupid For Plot Reasons. I suspect that there are times in the book when that does happen, but I also see good practical reasons for them to do what they did here. Of course it doesn't negate the moral discussion, or the metaphorical necessity of Harry never becoming a killer.

They are teenagers, they do not have the skills and practical attitudes ("the nerve"?) that experienced soldiers have. Their priority is to get away at once, eliminating their traces as much and as quickly as possible.-- Julia H.

A very good point. Soldiers get training, plus the support of their peers and commanding officers, to do a very difficult job. I'm actually glad three teenagers on their own don't immediately think of killing as a way to remove obsticles-- even in a war situation where it might be the best solution. I don't think it is natural for people to default to killing even under difficult circumstances.

That is the practical side of the problem but there is also a theoretical side. When Harry learns about the prophecy, he does not at all feel happy or proud ("Wow, I am the Chosen One!"), rather he feels he is "a marked man", someone who will either become a victim or a murderer. It is of course the choice that every soldier must face in any war but that does not mean it is easy. Not for Harry at least. On top of that all, starting to kill means becoming even more similar to Voldemort - and he has already had his problems with the various things they share. The point that he is not a murderer is quite often made in the books. When he tries to use Unforgivable Curses, he usually fails. Snape, I think, is right when he - not very kindly - points it out to Harry that Unforgivable Curses are not for him. In DH Harry himself makes it clear that he rejects the idea of "blasting people out of his way" even if it is a case of self-defense. Though he does not know (Snape does), there is a bit of Voldemort attached to him: it is quite possible that killing would strengthen that little monster inside Harry, and who knows where that might lead? Even if he does not explicitly know about the monster, he may instinctively feel that it would be especially risky for him to kill.

Another excellent point. Harry is perhaps more vulnerable because of that soulbit.

PeskyPixie - Feb 5, 2008 9:06 am (#922 of 1104)

There's no need to leave the discussion, Orion. I'm sure we can handle it appropriately. I understood your opinion to be that once one's enemy is disarmed/unconscious, the rules of chivalry must be honoured and the enemy can no longer be harmed. That's a totally valid point which does not enter the grounds of Muggle politics.

Personally, I don't consider Dolohov to be unconscious at this time (he's drinking in the conversation between HRH), but it is very nasty to kill someone in this state. I would argue that it's only permissible to do so when there is no other means of containing this filthy mass murderer who will most definitely re-join the Dark Lord's army when the Body-Bind wears off.

Solitaire, glad you understood that I don't consider Harry to be weak.

ETA: Not that it matters, but JKR agrees that there are extreme circumstances (e.g. war, self-defence, to protect one's family) where killing is not necessarily an 'evil' thing to do. She clearly distinguishes this from Voldy and the Death Eaters' murders.

Solitaire - Feb 5, 2008 11:02 am (#923 of 1104)

Yes, Voldemort is certainly presented as a character who is irredeemable. Even Dumbledore--who looks for good in everyone and tries to give everyone the benefit of the doubt in the most condemning circumstances--seemed to sense almost from the moment he met him that there was an evil "essence" present within Riddle. In today's society would such a man--one who had killed repeatedly without remorse and threatened further murders--once taken into custody, be given the death penalty? Should he lose his life? Or should society wait and endure the carnage, until such a monster eventually brings himself down? But I digress ... and this is Harry's thread. If such a discussion takes place, it should probably be elsewhere.

Solitaire

PeskyPixie - Feb 5, 2008 12:35 pm (#924 of 1104)

Solitaire, I'm posting your thoughts regarding Voldy on the Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort thread. Hope to see you there!

PeskyPixie - Feb 7, 2008 12:07 pm (#925 of 1104)

They left me all alone. Where did everybody go? (Place that quote if you can!)

PeskyPixie - Mar 2, 2008 10:04 am (#926 of 1104)

I was quite enjoying our previous discussion, but anywho ...

When Harry threatens to kill Sirius in PoA, and upon Lupin's arrival feels that he 'lost his chance' to kill his parents' betrayer, does he even know how to kill with a wand? I've wondered about this moment since learning of the AK in GoF. What would make Harry even think he could kill Sirius in the Shrieking Shack?

Orion - Mar 2, 2008 11:23 am (#927 of 1104)

Same discussion as with McGonagall - does she even know how to cast an effective AK? And how on earth should anybody be able to practice it? Sirius would have had a big nosebleed.

Funny you mention that. Sirius was obviously never in any great danger. Much ado about nothing?

Julia H. - Mar 2, 2008 1:37 pm (#928 of 1104)

What would make Harry even think he could kill Sirius in the Shrieking Shack? (PeskyPixie)

Anger perhaps? Also the belief that they all were in mortal peril at the moment - he probably thought it was killing or being killed. He may have also thought at the moment that it was his duty to kill the man who had betrayed his parents and may have wanted to be up to this task, his perceived duty. Still, he would not have been able to do it. Of course, it is possible to kill a person without magic but it is not easy either. Harry could have had a rather embarrassing experience if Lupin had not arrived on time.

Steve Newton - Mar 2, 2008 6:12 pm (#929 of 1104)

You don't have to do AK to kill. I'm pretty sure that Sectumsempra would be adequate for the job. Also in OOTP Stunning spells seem to almost kill McGonnagall. Close up and personal would, I think, do the trick.

Mrs. Sirius - Mar 2, 2008 9:03 pm (#930 of 1104)

Like Ron says in PS/SS, (something to the effect of) if nothing else punch him in the nose and run, The Midnight Duel.

Orion - Mar 3, 2008 8:34 am (#931 of 1104)

Harry could have had a rather embarrassing experience if Lupin had not arrived on time. (Julia)

Harry: "Avada Kedavra! AVADA KEDAVRA!!! AVA... oh, to hell with it..."

Julia H. - Mar 3, 2008 8:46 am (#932 of 1104)

LOL and LOL! (Although Harry did not know the AK spell then.)

PeskyPixie - Mar 3, 2008 11:27 pm (#933 of 1104)

He knew neither AK nor Sectumsempra at the time of the incident with Sirius in PoA. I guess he would have to settle for punching him in the nose and running off.

Honestly, what else could he do?

Anna L. Black - Mar 4, 2008 1:42 am (#934 of 1104)

Sending sparks on every part of his body he could find?

Choices - Mar 4, 2008 4:55 pm (#935 of 1104)

He could do Petrificus Totalus and then beat him to death with a baseball bat (good old Muggle fighting). LOL

Julia H. - Mar 7, 2008 1:39 pm (#936 of 1104)

Such ideas... Seriously speaking, Harry would never touch an immobilized person, not even for the sake of rightful vengeance. His decision about Wormtail makes it clear that he does not even opt for murder when others would do it for him.

Robert Dierken - Mar 21, 2008 7:03 pm (#937 of 1104)

I wonder if an AK-47 would work?

Joanne Reid - Mar 24, 2008 8:11 am (#938 of 1104)

HI,

However, Hermione was also there. We can't be sure, but we do know that she knew about the Unspeakable Curses. She must have also known about Stupefy, as well as Petrificus Totalis.

Might she have added her curses to Harry's to incur a lethal combination?

Joanne

Solitaire - Jun 16, 2008 9:52 pm (#939 of 1104)
Edited Jun 16, 2008 10:53 pm

I am posting on this thread --I reached the Present Students Group Section Folder by stealth--to see if I can get the thread to appear on the main page, under Present Students. So far, Neville is the only student visible, and the Group Section Folder is MIA.

Solitaire

Edit: Well, it didn't work. I guess it can't, since the Group folder is gone. Hmmm ...

journeymom - Jun 19, 2008 2:20 pm (#940 of 1104)

I'll post with you!

Solitaire - Jun 19, 2008 5:22 pm (#941 of 1104)

Aw, thanks, Journeymom. I'm in OotP right now, reliving the CAPSLOCK Harry. I notice, though, that Mrs. Weasley is CAPSLOCK rather frequently, too. LOL I'm also noticing that Harry really seems hurt more than angered by Dumbledore's apparent indifference to him. Well, I'm just under halfway through, so I may change my mind farther along.

Solitaire

Joanna Lupin - Jun 21, 2008 2:45 am (#942 of 1104)

I think you're perfectly right, Solitaire. Harry strived for affection and he thought he did have it, but it turned out he was disillusioned. Of course he was hurt. We see it even more powerfully in DH when Harry thinks he was no more than a pawn in Dumbledore's hands.

rassannassar - Jul 30, 2008 8:14 am (#943 of 1104)

What did Harry end up doing as a career? I'm sure Jo said it in the interview she gave after the last book came out, but I can't find it.

Choices - Jul 30, 2008 10:20 am (#944 of 1104)

According to the JKR interview, Harry finished school and heads the Auror Dept. at the MOM.

rassannassar - Jul 30, 2008 7:56 pm (#945 of 1104)

I actually ended up finding a completely separate interview on the Leaky Cauldron's Pottercast and she said that Harry and Ron never went back to finish school but went straight into the Auror Department and revolutionized it. She said that Hermione, of course, did go back for her N.E.W.T.s. Thanks

Solitaire - Jul 30, 2008 8:17 pm (#946 of 1104)
Edited Jul 30, 2008 9:18 pm

I would imagine that, by the time they have destroyed the Horcruxes and killed Voldemort--something no one in the Ministry was ever able to do--the trio are probably presumed by the Ministry to be fairly competent in most areas. I'm sure they could probably use a bit more instruction in Potions (especially now that the Prince's book has been destroyed in the Fiendfyre), Herbology, and Transfiguration. However, they probably know more DADA and general charms and spells than most of the kids who've taken their 7th year in those classes.

Solitaire

rassannassar - Jul 30, 2008 8:41 pm (#947 of 1104)
Edited Jul 30, 2008 9:43 pm

Probably. But when you've got Hermione to help you with anything you don't know, and you consider that everything else is probably downhill once you've killed Voldemort, it's probably not all that important.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Although the time-stamp is Pacific Daylight Time, I live in the Eastern Time Zone of the U.S. Here, as in most of the world, it is now Harry's birthday. I would like to be the first to say

Happy 28th Birthday Harry!

PeskyPixie - Jul 31, 2008 10:37 am (#948 of 1104)
Edited Jul 31, 2008 11:37 am

While I appreciate Harry's experience with the Dark Lord and his horcruxes, isn't there probably a lot more to being an Auror which Harry (and Ron? ) are not aware of? Perhaps they picked it all up during Auror training?

Stringer - Jul 31, 2008 10:53 am (#949 of 1104)

Happy Birthday to Harry and JK!!! May you live long and prosper!

wynnleaf - Jul 31, 2008 3:28 pm (#950 of 1104)

I certainly hope Harry and Ron still had to go through auror training, even if they didn't have to take their NEWTs. And JKR wasn't too clear about whether Ron really joined Harry in the aurors, or whether he joined George in managing the joke shop. Or perhaps he started as an auror and then switched jobs.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:26 pm

Mrs. Sirius - Oct 11, 2008 10:06 pm (#951 of 1104)
Edited Oct 11, 2008 11:12 pm

In an interview with JKR out yesterday, she says that Harry survived because she felt it was important to show in the everyday life, an ordinary survivor.

Wow! She wanted Harry not to be an extraordinary person, the super hero going from adventure to adventure, but a regular soldier returned from battle and living the normal life (she said years previously she did not Harry to be the "damaged" survivor).

I am amazed by her all the more. This is the story of life, an ordinary man is pulled into war, fights the battle to protect the people he loves and fight against evil. When the war ends the soldier must return home, to the every day life, the mundane problems, a civilian.

legolas returns - Oct 13, 2008 1:30 pm (#952 of 1104)

I doubt his working life as an Auror would be dull . He would never be seen as ordinary.

I agree with her that it was important to show Harry returning to normality e.g getting married and raising well adjusted kids.

PeskyPixie - Oct 15, 2008 9:28 am (#953 of 1104)

I was really sad in LOTR that Frodo was the soldier who had to give up a normal life in order for others to live in peace. Thus, it's very inspirational that Harry is able to lead a normal life after the things he's been through during his teen years, and that he uses his experiences positively to prevent the rise of another Dark Lord.

wynnleaf - Oct 16, 2008 6:28 am (#954 of 1104)

Dumbledore says, I think in OOTP, that it's practically a miracle that Harry was able to turn out as well as he did given his background. After all that he goes through in the series, it's kind of miraculous that he'd live a "normal life". That is, he might have a normal job -- but does he? The Ministry allows him to go straight to being an Auror without NEWTS, and then doesn't he basically get to take over the auror department, which in the past seems to have been run by much older and probably more experienced aurors.

I just don't see Harry's post-DH life as being truly normal, not after the life he's had and the fact that the wizarding world is clearly willing to allow him a lot based on his defeat of LV. Yes, Harry does get married and have a family, so in that sense he gets probably his greatest wish. But I still wouldn't necessarily say he's normal.

Mrs. Sirius - Oct 16, 2008 7:35 am (#955 of 1104)

Absolutely, wynnleaf. I am sure there were night sweats and insecurities, moments of isolation, PTSS. But he had to go through the daily life, the daily drudgeries. IMHO, the true heroes in life are the people who do just that, firemen, policemen, teachers.

The auror department is really nothing more than glorified police men. Aurors just carry a slightly bigger wand. It isn't cloak and dagger, not people with all the flash. They face everyday problems, work kids. There are studies that show people who are married, whatever the quality of that marriage (barring abuse) are in better physical and mental health, and live longer than those who aren't in long term relationships. So showing Harry in a family shows that in the end, he was alright. He survived.

Julia H. - Oct 16, 2008 12:34 pm (#956 of 1104)

Harry will never be what one could call an "average wizard/auror/father". He will always have his past, his experiences, his memories, his famous name. Yet the fact that he has a normal family now and that he can raise his children in a healthy way is a great achievement and change in his life and perhaps in the whole wizarding world as well. Harry's children (and his friends' children) have a chance to grow up in a normal way. Harry's parents had no chance to raise children in a normal, peaceful way. Even while they were alive, they had to fight, later hide - that is not "normal"- and then they died very young. Others of their generation - those we know about - had rather sad lives, too. Sirius's life was nowhere near normal. Lupin found happiness with Tonks after a lot of suffering and then they died. Snape's life was a series of psychological traumas and their consequences. The Longbottoms lost their lives long before they died. The Weasleys managed to raise a relatively healthy family - but they, too, had to endure hardship, anxiety, fear, secret fights and serious family problems and finally a terrible loss.

In comparison with that, Harry, Ginny, Ron and Hermione and probably Bill and Fleur and others have a chance to live in peace - and it is very important that they have been able to find peace inside as well as outside. I am sure Harry still remembers all the people he loved and lost and he can hardly have forgotten the experiences of his childhood and his teens. However, he is not traumatized by these experiences (and I think he could be). To me at least, it seems he can remember with peace in his heart and he has found happiness and new loved ones in his family. IMO, that is what "normal" means in his case. He is probably still special in the wizarding world but his life is finally his own now.

Solitaire - Oct 16, 2008 7:31 pm (#957 of 1104)
Edited Oct 16, 2008 8:32 pm

Harry will certainly never be average, simply because of the life he has lived. That does not mean, however, that he cannot live a "normal" life.

Through the Resurrection Stone he is able, if briefly, to connect with four of the most important people he has loved and lost--they are with him on his journey through the forest, supporting him--and I think that helps him achieve some closure and let them go. Snape's memories enable Harry to let go of anger he has felt for years, and Harry's conversation with Dumbledore at King's Crossing also gives valuable information. Both help prepare him for the final battle and bring closure to those two relationships which have troubled Harry from time to time. By the time Voldemort has fallen, Harry's heart is at peace with those he loved who have gone on. He is finally able to forgive Snape and give him his due before the Wizarding world.

In the end, Harry does get what he saw in the mirror--he is surrounded by a family who love him. It may not be his birth family, but everyone in his life is part of a family he chose and who chose him. How incredible to feel so loved! The Weasleys considered him another son/brother long before he married Ginny. I think Harry has a great shot at a "normal" life.

Solitaire

Orion - Oct 17, 2008 8:39 am (#958 of 1104)

The difference between Harry and people like policemen or soldiers or other people with PTSS is that he is his own boss, rudely speaking. If you're in a situation where you are in control at least of your own actions, then you are not as hopeless than when you are sent into a lethal situation by your commander, and maybe you resent this decision, but you can't help it.

Harry has also the added bonus that everything went right in the end. IMHO, PTSS is more a problem for people who get out of terrible, life-threatening situations in which they lost everything, barely got out with their lives and didn't succeed in anything. There is nothing remotely consoling about having endured torture or similar injustices, and you gain nothing by such things. But Harry manages to get rid of Voldemort, people jubilate and thank him profusely, and he isn't maimed for life, so he can sleep well at night and relax when everything is over.

Liz Mann - Oct 17, 2008 9:56 am (#959 of 1104)
Edited Oct 17, 2008 10:58 am

PTSS is more a problem for people who get out of terrible, life-threatening situations in which they lost everything, barely got out with their lives and didn't succeed in anything.

I don't think a traumatic situation has to result in the person losing everything or not gaining anything in order for it to result in PTSS, and neither does having a silver-lining to the whole experience prevent it. Soldiers who come home from a war that was successful can still suffer from it. It's not so much about the context of the experience as about the experience itself. Harry has been through lots of things that can cause PTSS - the graveyard in GoF, Sirius's death, Dumbledore's death, walking into the forest etc. A lot of people would suffer PTSS from just one of these things and Harry's been through all of them. Harry's a strong person, much stronger than most, but I think he had to get over the things he went through pretty quickly because he always had other problems and situations to focus on. Once the war was over he would have had a lot of opportunity to reflect on what he'd been through and to start to feel the full effects of it all. I also think that after the war was over he would have had a hard time getting his head around the fact that it was over.

shepherdess - Oct 17, 2008 10:41 am (#960 of 1104)

I also think that after the war was over he would have had a hard time getting his head around the fact that it was over.~Liz

He does have that "saving people thing". Who's he going to save now? And from what?

Liz Mann - Oct 17, 2008 12:40 pm (#961 of 1104)
Edited Oct 17, 2008 1:40 pm

Lol. I didn't mean that. He does become an auror after all, they'll be plenty of people to save. I meant, often times after someone has been working hard towards something for a long time, once it's achieved they find it hard to get their head round it. It's like, what do you do when your lifetime ambition or perceived purpose has been fulfilled? And when you've been in fight mode for several years you can't just turn it off at will. I expect there probably would have been a lot of mornings when Harry, Ron and Hermione woke up and had their thoughts immediately go to wondering where the Horcruxes were and where they were going to go next before realising it's all over.

Chemyst - Oct 17, 2008 9:05 pm (#962 of 1104)

Harry will never be what one could call an "average wizard/auror/father". He will always have his past, his experiences, his memories.

There is an Obliviate charm for that.

Solitaire - Oct 18, 2008 8:52 am (#963 of 1104)

Those memories, painful though many of them may be, are a part of the warp and weft of who Harry is at his core. I do not think he'd want to lose them, do you?

Mrs. Sirius - Oct 18, 2008 9:20 pm (#964 of 1104)

The point I think is that he has an extraordinary past. He deal the unusual hardships, survives and the like an actual war soldier, the war ends and he must come home and deal with the ordinary world, daily.

(e.i. get up, go to work, change and feed the baby, put out the trash, walk the dog, ok ok the hippogriff.)

PeskyPixie - Nov 21, 2008 10:40 pm (#965 of 1104)

Harry's very fortunate that he doesn't 'lose it' after the war is over as he spends his adolescence in an unbelievably stressful environment.

wynnleaf - Nov 22, 2008 6:06 am (#966 of 1104)

Of course, given the 19 year break until the epilogue, I suppose he could have "lost it" for awhile and we just don't see that part. There's a big window of opportunity for the reader to imagine something like that if you want.

Solitaire - Nov 22, 2008 9:24 am (#967 of 1104)

I don't think he did lose it. I think that finally having all of the missing puzzle pieces fit together was probably enough for him. What always freaked Harry out during the series was not knowing what was happening to him, or not understanding why it was happening. No matter how painful a thing was, he was always able to find a way to cope with what he learned.

There were obviously some painful things in his past and in his parents' pasts that he had to accept. Many of us learn difficult things about our families after they are gone and we cannot ask for explanations ... and we are able to move on. Harry had extraordinary strength of character, I think, for one so young. I'm sure that after the final battle, it took a period of months or even years for him to digest everything he'd experienced. I wouldn't even doubt that he may have gone back for a few conversations with Dumbledore's portrait ... and maybe even Snape's! I certainly would have done so.

I think Harry's friendship with the Weasley family (more than just with Ginny herself) must have contributed a great deal to his stability of mind. They all understood what it was to lose a loved one--and Molly, in particular, had experienced the loss of siblings as well as a child. She actually considers herself a sort of mother to Harry by the middle of the series, and I'm sure she took pains to help him heal from his losses of friends and family.

In many ways, I would think Harry was finally able to properly grieve and pay respects to his parents when things were finally over, because he finally understood the depth of their love and the depth of his loss. I can't imagine it was an easy "recovery," but the big stress (Voldemort) that had dogged him from the time he entered the magical world was over.

I would like to know what Harry sees in the Mirror of Erised after 19 years.

Solitaire

wynnleaf - Mar 25, 2009 5:41 am (#968 of 1104)

Could someone please offer me an explanation for this?

Why did it do Harry the slightest bit of good to go back to the Dursleys between HBP and DH? What protection was there after his birthday was over? None, right? And if there was no protection after his birthday, what was the point of staying there for a few weeks.... in order to what?

In the years past, he stayed there for a few weeks so that it would still be his home and the "protection" would continue to last for the following year. But during that summer, there wouldn't be any lasting protection from staying at the Dursleys. So what was the point in staying there at all?

Further, why stay there until his birthday?

Harry only stayed for a couple of weeks or so in HBP. And yet the protection was secured. So why did Harry have to wait there for so long in DH?

Also, if the whole point in their leaving in The Seven Potter's scene was as follows:

‘We can’t wait for the Trace to break, because the moment you turn seventeen you’ll lose all the protection your mother gave you. (Mad Eye)

But what use was the protection at all?? How did leaving while Harry was "protected" help protect him? Why not just leave after he turned 17?

I don't get that at all.

We’re choosing to break it early, because the alternative is waiting for You-Know-Who to come and seize you the moment you turn seventeen. (Mad Eye)

Well, so what? LV, with the DEs, was still trying to "seize" him. How did being protected help at all? As far as I can tell, the main thing it did was hamstring all of the "Potters" and make them all unable to fight back during the chase. But then Harry did fight back, so shouldn't his use of magic have alerted the Ministry and the Trace?

The whole point of the "protection" just seems wasted to me in DH, except as a device to stage an escape from Privet Drive.

Solitaire - Mar 25, 2009 5:59 am (#969 of 1104)

Perhaps that is all it was--a staging device. That would be an interesting question to ask Rowling herself.

Mrs. Sirius - Mar 25, 2009 7:52 am (#970 of 1104)

His security is assured, guaranteed if you will, until his birthday. He was always in mortal danger from Voldemort. As long as he was at 4PD there was no way LV could touch him, and even for that one month it was good to extend his protection.

Mrs Brisbee - Mar 25, 2009 10:01 am (#971 of 1104)

I don't see that it was imperative that Harry went back there, seeing as how the protection was about to expire. But it wouldn't hurt as long as there was a safe way out, which the Ministry prevented. It still would not have been too bad, as it would be impossible for Voldemort to camp an army in the neighborhood if he wanted to do anything else with his time. It's only because the Order was betrayed that it ended up as such a disaster.

wynnleaf - Mar 27, 2009 8:15 am (#972 of 1104)

As long as he was at 4PD there was no way LV could touch him, and even for that one month it was good to extend his protection. (Mrs Sirius)

Why was that good? Knowing exactly where Harry was meant that LV was bound to mount some campaign to get to him the moment the protection expired, which meant that Harry would have to be removed from Privet Drive in some sort of highly dangerous action. And that's exactly what happened and one Order member died and another was injured.

Harry could have gone to the Weasleys right off, been secured just as he was later in the summer behind their various charms and protections, and not have had to be removed from Privet Dr.

Steve Newton - Mar 27, 2009 8:27 am (#973 of 1104)

I think that there was some question as to the security of the Weasley's. Peter had lived there for quite a number of years and had access to wands. In POA, I think, the first time Harry visits, there is a specific mention of Ron and Harry going into Ron's room and seeing Scabbers laying beside Ron's wand.

Of course, this wouldn't explain why it was safe later.

rambkowalczyk - Mar 27, 2009 11:58 am (#974 of 1104)

I suppose as far as the story is concerned Dumbledore wanted Harry to stay at the Dursleys and because Harry trusted Dumbledore, Harry did what Dumbledore asked.

Now in view of wynnleaf's argument why would Dumbledore have insisted on this after year 6? My guess is that he wanted Harry and the Dursley's to come to an understanding because Dumbledore knew Harry would have no reason to come back. Maybe he thought the Dursley's would apologize or something and it would give Harry a chance to forgive.

As it turned out it was Dudley who made the overtures.

wynnleaf - Mar 27, 2009 12:06 pm (#975 of 1104)

ramb,

Yes, I could see DD, not knowing the danger that Harry would be under the following summer, thinking that Harry should go back to the Dursleys one more time. And Harry, after DD's death, as well as the rest of the Order, assume that there must be some worthwhile reason or DD wouldn't have had that in his plan.

If DD had known just prior to his death what the situation would be like, would he still have said Harry should go to the Dursleys? Hard to say. The price, in terms of lives and injury, was rather high.

Thom Matheson - Mar 27, 2009 12:25 pm (#976 of 1104)

Wynnleaf, if Harry had not gone back, or had no intention of going back, then the enchantment would have broken then and there. I think that two thinks happened. 1) No one knew that Harry would not be going back to Hogwarts for his 7th year, so this was just another summer holiday, ie: go back for a bit, renew the bond and then whatever. 2) If Harry had not gone back, the enchantment is broken as I said above but this would also put the Dursley's in danger as well. Arrangements had to be made for their safety as well as Harry's.

Julia H. - Mar 27, 2009 12:32 pm (#977 of 1104)

I seem to remember someone somewhere saying once that the protection perhaps had to be extended until the summer of Harry's 17th birthday for the Dursleys' sake. Perhaps not only Harry but the Dursleys were protected as well by the same magic and had the protection been broken for Harry a year earlier, it would have been broken for them, too. Of course, they could have been moved to a safe place a year earlier just as well - but then again, perhaps the blood protection was better while it lasted...

Having said that, I think it could be taken for granted that Voldemort would not hesitate to have DE's guard the neighbourhood of 4PD days or even weeks before Harry's 17th birthday as he would probably give priority to capturing Harry over any other plans of his.

wynnleaf - Mar 27, 2009 2:11 pm (#978 of 1104)

Julia's correct. The protection ended when he turned 17, regardless of whether or not he was planning to return to Hogwarts.

Thom Matheson - Mar 27, 2009 5:35 pm (#979 of 1104)

Sorry guys I didn't explain it well. I was assuming that after all that happened at the end of the school year with the funeral and all, the logical thing was Harry just went home as he always did. Not until later did they figure a real plan to get him away, so the time was used to "stash" Harry until something more suitable could be arranged. Had he just gone to the Burrow, never to come back to Privet Dr. the enchantment would have broken and left the Dursley's vulnurable to Voldemort to seek and attack them for information. I hope that clears up my thought.

mona amon - Mar 28, 2009 1:21 am (#980 of 1104)

I agree with you Thom, and with Mrs Sirius. The Privet Drive protection was foolproof for as long as it lasted, far safer than any alternate protection that the Order could provide. As it turned out, the DEs were able to break through the protection at the Burrow just five days after Harry got there.

So I think DD's instructions to the Order would have been something like, keep Harry at Privet Drive for as long as possible. After that, protect him to the best of your ability, but allow him to work out his own plan as to how to evade Voldemort, fulfil the mission he had entrusted him with, and ultimately try to destroy him.

Ludicrous Patents Office - Apr 2, 2009 7:18 pm (#981 of 1104)

The protection was a bit of a let down to me. I expected a big fight or something at the Dursleys since so much was made of. Maybe it is connected in someway to Harry's blood saving him from Voldemort. He had to let the protection last until he was 17. LPO

Snuffles - Jul 31, 2009 1:22 am (#982 of 1104)

Happy Birthday Harry. Have a great day.

HungarianHorntail11 - Jul 31, 2009 3:21 am (#983 of 1104)

SNUFFLES!! Hi! How are you? So, is Olivia grown and married yet?

Happy Birthday, Harry!

jose043 - Jul 31, 2009 5:39 am (#984 of 1104)

Happy Birthday Harry and many more to come.

Stringer - Jul 31, 2009 7:34 am (#985 of 1104)

Happy Birthday Harry! Hope you have a brilliant day!

Dryleaves - Jul 31, 2009 8:59 am (#986 of 1104)

Happy Birthday, Harry!

Solitaire - Jul 31, 2009 8:59 am (#987 of 1104)

Happy Birthday, Harry Potter!!

Snuffles, it's so good to see you!!

Honour - Aug 8, 2009 1:57 am (#988 of 1104)

Hey guys do you know what has always confused me? Why was Harry not a total nutter? He was bought up in an abusive home for goodness sake! He had an aunt that hated him totally! Such was Petunia's hate for her sister that she transferred all that ill feeling to Harry. She made him sleep in a cup-board under the stairs! And we are to believe that her attitude did not affect him? It is also inferred that Vernon physically abuses Harry and that he is Dudleys personal "punching bag".

The emotional abuse seems horrific at no.4! I even equate Harry's up-bringing to Severus' Even Voldermort who was an orphan did not suffer the abuse that Harry experienced, so why didn't Harry turn out dark? We know that he barely remembered his parents, so where was the positive influence in Harry's younger years to make him grow up a relatively well rounded boy?

Orion - Aug 8, 2009 3:57 am (#989 of 1104)

I agree, Honour. There was a discussion not long ago that the one year he spent with totally loving parents gave him so much Urvertrauen that it lasted for a lifetime (and actually little children remember a lot more than we give them credit for, if you put adults under hypnosis and see what they remember, sometimes they remember things from before birth). But it was really only one year and so much abuse would make a Voldemort out of even the most balanced and peaceful baby in the world.

Julia H. - Aug 8, 2009 4:17 am (#990 of 1104)
Edited Aug 8, 2009 5:42 am

Dumbledore comments on how unusual Harry is.

Yes, Harry, you can love... Which, given everything that has happened to you, is a great and remarkable thing. You are still too young to understand how unusual you are, Harry. (HBP)

So, on the one hand, Harry is unusual. (I agree with Orion.) On the other hand (and there have been many posts about that), he was loved, really and truly loved in the first fifteen months of his life, an all-important circumstance in a decisive period of personality development. He probably inherited good genes as well: Both James and Lily appear to have very strong personalities, and they both seem to come from normal, loving families.

Apart from that, even if Harry does not remember his parents, he probably knows (deep down) that they loved him (at least he and his parents are united in the loathing with which the Dursleys regard all of them). That is a conviction Tom Riddle could not have had since he knew that his parents had never known him; and Snape was neglected, maybe abused, by his own parents, therefore he could not find comfort in the idea that there had been someone else once who must have loved him much more. It is mentioned that, for a long time, Harry was dreaming about an unknown relative who would turn up one day and take him away from the Dursleys, who were not his real family. I think Harry has the ability to find strength in such things, to find strength in himself, when everything else fails. It is a valuable ability.

Solitaire - Aug 8, 2009 7:51 am (#991 of 1104)

he probably knows (deep down) that they loved him

Yep! He probably heard that a lot from the Dursleys. **she says sarcastically** Actually, I do not think Harry knew anything of the sort "deep down" ... that is, until his eleventh birthday, when the truth burst upon him. In fact, I believe the Dursleys would have allowed him to think exactly the opposite, because for Harry to have known the extent to which he was loved would have given him hope. Personally, I think the Dursleys wanted him to feel unloved and hopeless, as though he came from some parents who were some sort of "undesirables." They never talked about his parents, except in the unpleasant instances we have seen in the book.

I agree with Dumbledore ... given the upbringing he had from ages 1.5-11, it is amazing that he turned out to be emotionally healthy.

Chemyst - Aug 8, 2009 8:03 am (#992 of 1104)

And here I always thought it was explainable simply by saying that that his mother's sacrifice included emotional as well as physical protection...

Dryleaves - Aug 8, 2009 9:35 am (#993 of 1104)
Edited Aug 8, 2009 10:37 am

Maybe the fact that the Dursleys are so horrible to Harry makes it possible for him to think of his parents as having loved him, though the Dursleys make negative comments about them or just don't mention them. He protects and defends them against the same people who are being horrible to himself. After all, the Dursleys are against Harry and his parents, something that might make Harry feel as if he and his parents are allies, that they belong together and are different from the horrible Dursleys. He also dreams of other relatives coming to claim him. Maybe Harry would have been more prone to believe the Dursleys had they been good to him, but still told him negative things about this real parents (for example because they were afraid he would not love them back otherwise).

Snape knows his parents really are his parents, but I think he still has a dream of someone to belong to, who loves him, and sees Lily as an answer to this dream. He might also have dreams of himself being special.

And here I always thought it was explainable simply by saying that that his mother's sacrifice included emotional as well as physical protection... (Chemyst)

Well, as the Dursleys' treatment of Harry never seems to really reach him, that is perhaps the best explanation. And I agree with DD and others, that it is amazing that Harry turns out so well.

Julia H. - Aug 8, 2009 11:30 am (#994 of 1104)

He probably heard that a lot from the Dursleys. (Solitaire)

Of course, I did not say that. I meant exactly what Dryleaves said:

Maybe the fact that the Dursleys are so horrible to Harry makes it possible for him to think of his parents as having loved him, though the Dursleys make negative comments about them or just don't mention them. He protects and defends them against the same people who are being horrible to himself. After all, the Dursleys are against Harry and his parents, something that might make Harry feel as if he and his parents are allies, that they belong together and are different from the horrible Dursleys.

Harry also has the opportunity to see that parents typically love their own children. The Dursleys dote on Dudley (granted: in the wrong way), and Harry can see other families as well. There is no reason why he should not suppose that his parents would love him, too, if they lived. The fantasies about other relatives also indicate that he thinks there could be people (family members) who could love him, but he has the misfortune of living with the Dursleys.

Perhaps the mysterious strangers who sometimes greet him in the street reinforce his basic confidence in the world that is outside the Dursleys' house.

It is also remarkable that while Harry does not believe it very easily that he is a wizard, he has no problem believing that his parents were great people and heroes.

Solitaire - Aug 8, 2009 2:09 pm (#995 of 1104)

I did not say that.

I know, Julia. I noted my "sarcastic voice" so that it was clear to all. You did, however, say that you thought Harry knew deep down that he was loved. I disagree here, simply because I think the Dursleys would have taken every opportunity possible to make Harry feel that his parents were irresponsible and that he had not been loved. They certainly squelch every dream he has about anything unusual that is positive, so I suspect any normal dream he confided about his parents would be stepped on, as well.

As far as Harry having seen other families who treated their children appropriately ... I guess I do not understand how this would have happened before he entered Hogwarts. Harry was generally left with Mrs. Figg instead of being taken on outings with the Dursleys, so he would not have had many opportunities to see any other normal, loving families. The only way he would have seen any normal, appropriate parent-child interaction is if it came to the Dursley house to visit (since it certainly did not live there). Somehow, I think that's unlikely. Again, JM2K ...

Julia H. - Aug 8, 2009 3:25 pm (#996 of 1104)

I think the Dursleys would have taken every opportunity possible to make Harry feel that his parents were irresponsible and that he had not been loved. (Solitaire)

I can see that, but I don't see why Harry would believe them. He did not exactly trust the Dursleys. I really think Harry had some subconscious memories of being loved once. If he could dream about the flying motorbike, why could not he "remember" being loved?

BTW, we see the Dursleys tell him how horrible people his parents were, yet Harry never for a moment doubted what Hagrid said about them. I can't recall a scene in which the Dursleys said Harry's parents had not loved him - it is perhaps possible that something as subtle as "love" was not frequently a topic between them (except when it was about Dudley) - their minds were revolving around things like a well-paid job, an expensive car, promotion in the workplace. But even if they did say that, Harry had an independent mind.

As far as Harry having seen other families who treated their children appropriately ... I guess I do not understand how this would have happened before he entered Hogwarts.

Harry went to a Muggle school. I'm sure there were plenty of occasions when he saw families there or when he heard other children talk about their parents. Also, if nowhere else, at school they must have talked (read) about topics like family, love between a mother and a child, Mother's Day.. I don't know. Harry could not be locked away so much that he could not pick up at least the general concept of parental love.

Solitaire - Aug 8, 2009 3:57 pm (#997 of 1104)
Edited Aug 8, 2009 5:02 pm

I don't think Harry would have had much of an opportunity to hear "normal" kids talk about family things at school, because he was too busy trying to keep away from Dudley and his gang. I agree that Harry found Hagrid's positive report about his parents far easier to believe than the Dursleys' nasty and negative comments. However, I wonder if he would have thought positively about his parents if no Hagrid who loved them had ever appeared.

When presented with an opposing opinion of his parents, he accepted it. That simply goes to the heart of his desire for a loving family, I think. I find it interesting, though, that Harry blew up Aunt Marge over her disparaging remarks about his parents, especially Lily. Why now? Surely he had heard plenty of negative talk about his parents over the years. I think he just accepted it, until he was presented with an alternative.

Julia H. - Aug 8, 2009 4:18 pm (#998 of 1104)
Edited Aug 8, 2009 5:21 pm

I don't think Harry would have had much of an opportunity to hear "normal" kids talk about family things at school, because he was too busy trying to keep away from Dudley and his gang.

During the breaks, probably; but, in schools, there are in-class discussions about topics like "family", discussions relating to something the children have read, there are Mother's Day celebrations, where even Harry can see lots of mothers. At least that is my assumption - but I don't know for sure how it is in Britain. In my country, family is a continually recurring topic in classes for children between six and nine.

Also, TV, radio... even Mrs Figg can mention how her cats care for their offspring. This is becoming absurd, but IMO parental love is a topic difficult to completely avoid. But let's suppose Harry sees no one else but the Dursleys. Petunia does not love Harry but she loves Dudley. How easy would it be to conclude "my mother would love me, not Dudley"?

As for blowing up only Marge... by that time Harry had known the truth for two years, and yet he did not blow up the Dursleys. Marge is very, very provocative... and Harry's magical power may have grown over the years. Adolescence may also count as a period of stronger emotions.

Solitaire - Aug 8, 2009 6:06 pm (#999 of 1104)
Edited Aug 8, 2009 7:13 pm

he did not blow up the Dursleys. Marge is very, very provocative

Julia, I was talking about Marge, as she has certainly been around for many years. It interests me that he never blew up at her in any way before. I put it down to his not having known anything about his parents. Harry had heard zero information about them before Hagrid came, so I do not believe it is impossible that Harry probably heard things like his parents were irresponsible, and that is why he was an orphan, etc. I suppose it is possible that in nine or ten years Aunt Marge had never said anything disparaging about Lily and James ... but I also think it is highly unlikely. You must understand, too, that I personally do not consider the interactions between Dudley and his parents to be normal and healthy.

I suppose it is also possible that Harry could have heard things about normal families in school, but I'm not sure he would have actually observed normal parent-child interactions, not having any actual friends of his own. If he'd had friends he visited occasionally, I would think differently. I visited friends in their homes and saw how their parents acted with them. Harry never did.

I suppose I don't really know how much kids learn much about each other's home lives in school, based on my own teaching experiences. My own students do not talk much about families in class, because we don't have time for a lot of visiting. They will spill about siblings, aunts, and uncles (mainly bad things), but most don't say much about their own parents. They will write about them in journals and essays, but that is only to me and with the knowledge that it is private.

Harry seems intrigued by the warmth he sees among the Weasleys in the first encounter on Platform 9 and 3/4 ... a suggestion to me that, perhaps, he has not seen many such interactions before.

Once again, Julia ... as with Snape and the other characters, I suppose I filter things through my own experiences. I guess that this is something about which we will have to agree to disagree ... but that's okay.

Edited by me

Julia H. - Aug 9, 2009 1:59 am (#1000 of 1104)
Edited Aug 9, 2009 3:08 am

What I wanted to say was not that Harry knew any normal families the way he knew the Weasleys later. I did not mean that he knew much about normal families. Only that he knew (in general) that parents typically loved their children - and he could conclude that his parents must have loved him, too. He may not have consciously known how that love was expressed in a normal, healthy way until he met the Weasleys; but he had had first-hand experiences of parental love - which I think was a very strong love expressed continually and very clearly - and I don't think these experiences could completely disappear from his psyche. Knowing the general concept of parental love coupled with his subconscious memories of being loved once could be enough to make him at least able to imagine that he would be loved if his parents were alive.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:32 pm

Honour - Aug 9, 2009 4:36 am (#1001 of 1104)
Edited Aug 9, 2009 5:37 am

Could it though? There is no cannon to suggest that Harry experienced any other examples of parental "love" other than what he saw with the Dursleys. It is mere supposition to assume that Harry saw any interaction between family members at school either, as he was considered to be by the neighbourhood to be "that weird Potter boy", o.k. maybe those aren't the exact words, will have to go look up what folk called that orpaned and ungrateful Potter boy who had long sticky out hair, wore clothes which were always too large for him and seemed to always be picking on that nice Dursley boy! - Trying out my sarcasm pen too Solitaire, what do you think? : )

Back to the normal pen, question, off the top of my head, can only remember that Lily's love protection charm lives in Harry's blood. Dumbledore says something to the affect that when Petunia accepts Harry into her house she seals the charm, blood of the same blood sort of thing, and that he also mentions that as long as Harry considers Privet Drive to be home then the protection charm stays intact. But I am sure Harry starts to consider Hogwarts more of his home, shouldn't the protection charm have been undone? ... (muttering to self about something else I have to look up, should have stopped typing after the first paragraph! ... May as well go and re-read the whole 7 books again ... : )

Julia H. - Aug 9, 2009 5:19 am (#1002 of 1104)
Edited Aug 9, 2009 6:35 am

There is no cannon to suggest that Harry experienced any other examples of parental "love" other than what he saw with the Dursleys. (Honour)

It is interesting, I thought it was established in canon that Petunia and Vernon loved (not just "loved") Dudley in their own ways. I know, I know, it was an abnormal, unhealthy family, and they loved Dudley in a stupid, harmful way - but it was a sort of love and it was in sharp contrast with what they felt about Harry. I think they loved Dudley enough to make Harry realize what he was missing.

It is mere supposition to assume that Harry saw any interaction between family members at school either, as he was considered to be by the neighbourhood to be "that weird Potter boy"... (Honour)

It is a mere supposition based on a number of real life schools that I have seen. I really don't understand why the fact that Harry was generally considered to be weird or even worse would stop any normal parent from interacting (and "normally") with their own children.

Just yesterday, I took my son to a playground where there was a rather "weird" kid, who tried everything from taking away another child's balloon to turning the bin upside down and whom I had to ask at one point to leave my son alone. I consider myself a fairly "normal" parent (I know you have no means to verify that ). Did I stop interacting with my child just because the "weird" kid was there? Of course not. I interacted with him in the usual way.

So my question is: Could Harry live eleven years and totally escape the idea that most parents loved their own children and treated them much better than he was treated by his aunt and uncle?

Solitaire - Aug 9, 2009 9:46 am (#1003 of 1104)
Edited Aug 9, 2009 10:48 am

Julia ... Uncle! **waving white flag** I concede it is possible that Harry might have seen isolated examples of some parents in the park interacting appropriately with their children, and he may have worked out that his parents would have been this way.

On the other hand, I still believe that, had it not been for his introduction into the Wizarding World and people who loved his parents and knew they loved him, it may not have been enough to outweigh the continual reinforcement he received that he was a worthless and unloved nothing. I still say it's a good thing Harry found out when he did, before irreparable damage was done. In fact, the average kid probably would have needed years of therapy. I guess Lily's protection extended to his heart and soul as well as to his physical body.

Julia H. - Aug 9, 2009 10:21 am (#1004 of 1104)

Solitaire, I agree it is extraordinary that Harry remained sane and pure-hearted in these circumstances. I was not trying to belittle his ordeal. I was only trying to find out what may have made Harry so special, and I thought there was a complex reason, which I tried to outline in post #990. But I'm fine with the magical explanation, too. If he was the only "Boy Who Lived", he may have been the only "Boy Who Survived the Dursleys" as well - exclusively because of Lily.

Solitaire - Aug 9, 2009 1:47 pm (#1005 of 1104)

LOL @ Boy Who Survived the Dursleys! That was one nasty ordeal, too. I mean, how hard would it have been for Petunia to tell Harry some good things about his mother? She could have said any number of nice things without spilling the magical beans. I suppose Uncle Vernon was the real instigator of the "squash it out of him" plan.

Honour - Aug 10, 2009 1:23 am (#1006 of 1104)

There is no cannon to suggest that Harry experienced any other examples of parental "love" other than what he saw with the Dursleys. (Honour)

Hey there Julia H. I think maybe you misunderstood the above reference. Somethings sometimes get lost in translation Smile

I think we in essence agree on this statement as I said - Harry's examples of parental love was what he saw with the Dursleys, other than this there is no cannon to suggest he saw interaction between other parents, in or out of school, at the park or anywhere else until he was introduced to the magical world.

Nor did I suggest that just because Harry was considered "weird" that this would stop any parent interacting with their own children??? I may have to go back and re-read my post, but I am sure that I would not personally advocate excluding "a rather weird kid" from play at a park even if said child was disruptive, I would probably ask for the childs parents to step in, but then that's just me.

Nor would I expect you to ignore your own child because the "rather weird kid" was around??? Like I said mayhaps my line of thought had morphed into something entirely different by the time it crossed the oceans of the world, I didn't mean to call into question your raising or interaction with your own child rather I was only making comment on how young Harry Potter survived such a rubbish upbringing by such mean-spirited folk and still was able to grow up into a well rounded, well mannered, unaffected and likeable young man. : )

mike miller - Aug 10, 2009 12:06 pm (#1007 of 1104)

I find it interesting that in a series where "choices" plays such a central role; JKR also provides examples if the old "nature versus nurture" agruement. She seems to show a preference for "Nature" but almost always provides the "exceptions to the rule". All of the Black's were in Slytherin except, Sirius.... The Weasley twins versus the Patil twins....Crabbe and Goyle seem chips off the old block....Draco...

My own experience as a parent tells me there's some of both. When we first brought our daughter home from hospital she already had a personality. Interesting debate.....

No doubt Harry is unique in so many ways!

Solitaire - Aug 10, 2009 12:29 pm (#1008 of 1104)
Edited Aug 10, 2009 1:38 pm

Nature vs. nurture is an interesting debate. I marvel all the time at high-achieving kids who come from the most incredibly dysfunctional families. Last year at the AVID conference, one of the student speakers talked about coming from a home where drugs were abused and she was bounced around in foster homes for years. When she landed in AVID, she found there was something better, and she pulled herself together, brought up her grades, and wound up getting a full scholarship to college. There were similar stories the previous year.

Regarding Sirius's defection from the family ways ... I think it may be explained by the fact that he was never blinded by preferential treatment from his parents. It sounds like he was always "the bad sheep" in the family. This would have given him a bit of distance, perhaps, and allowed ideologies different from those of his parents to actually receive a hearing. Regulus, the family golden boy, was beloved and praised, and it is natural that he would follow in his parents' footsteps. Once he realized what that entailed, however, I think he believed that his parents probably didn't know what it really meant. He knew he had to leave Voldemort, and he also knew such a step meant certain death. He took what steps he could to try and at least make his death count for something good.

edited

Julia H. - Aug 10, 2009 2:37 pm (#1009 of 1104)

He knew he had to leave Voldemort, and he also knew such a step meant certain death. He took what steps he could to try and at least make his death count for something good. (Solitaire)

Which means, in a way, Regulus grew up to be OK, as well. He was tragically misled by the wrong principles, but when he understood it, he took responsibility and tried to rectify his mistake and chose death rather than continuing to live in the wrong way. (Something that Lucius was not able to do.) Regulus did not even try to blame his parents though I'm sure he could have.

Solitaire: (off-thread but still on this topic for you in white) --> One can also wonder how Jane and Lizzy in P&P were able to grow up to be such perfect ladies in that family and with apparently no particular education.

Solitaire - Aug 10, 2009 4:21 pm (#1010 of 1104)
Edited Aug 10, 2009 5:22 pm

Julia, check your email! I've sent you a message !!

I think Regulus was probably a good kid. Yes, his values had been screwed up by his parents and (probably) his cronies in Slytherin. However, he was always good to Kreacher ... and I'm guessing he was the only one who was. I say this based on how Mrs. Black treated old House-Elves, because I realize Kreacher was very loyal to her. Sirius, as we know, may not have been overtly cruel to him, but he was not very kind.

Regulus sounds as though he genuinely valued Kreacher and was concerned for his well-being. This says a lot for his general character, I think.

Julia H. - Aug 11, 2009 2:26 am (#1011 of 1104)

Thanks, Solitaire. I sent you a reply.

Regulus sounds as though he genuinely valued Kreacher and was concerned for his well-being. This says a lot for his general character, I think. (Solitaire)

So perhaps Regulus was never fully a DE at heart. He either did not know himself well enough or did not completely understand the DE ideology because he did not immediately notice an important difference between the DE values and his own. Like Snape. (Perhaps we will have to move thread?)

mike miller - Aug 11, 2009 9:08 am (#1012 of 1104)

I think that JKR is giving us examples on both sides of the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate to emphasize the importance and power of our choices.

Harry has every reason to turn out badly. Let's face it, he even has a bit of Voldemort under his skin. Harry, consistently and without fail, choses right over wrong. He may push the the edges a little at times and even contemplate a "less than honorable" course of action. He's our hero and he chooses wisely, beyond his years or his upbringing.

Steve Newton - Aug 11, 2009 12:12 pm (#1013 of 1104)

This has no reference to anything but I can't get the song out of my head and maybe this will help. In DH when Harry is walking to meet Voldemort I hear the song from 'The Man of La Mancha.' "To be willing to die so that honor and justice may live." There, I said it and good riddance!

Solitaire - Aug 11, 2009 3:16 pm (#1014 of 1104)

Oh, good call, Steve!

Solitaire - Aug 17, 2009 1:50 pm (#1015 of 1104)

I'm watching GoF right now, and Harry and Cedric just realized the cup was a Portkey. Just think ... if only they'd grabbed it immediately upon realizing that. It would have zapped them back, Cedric would still be alive, and Voldy would still be sort of ... undead.

legolas returns - Aug 17, 2009 1:54 pm (#1016 of 1104)

Most porkeys are one way only e.g From MOM to Dumbledores office, Stoatshead Hill to Qwidditch World cup and from Safe houses to the Burrow.

Solitaire - Aug 17, 2009 1:57 pm (#1017 of 1104)

Yes, that is true ... except we know that this one was not.

Honour - Aug 17, 2009 3:48 pm (#1018 of 1104)
Edited Aug 17, 2009 4:51 pm

Great catch Solitaire and legolas returns!

I wonder, was there a time when JKR considered that Voldermort would come back through to Hogwarts? Or was this two-way portkey just a one time event / escape exit for Harry. Someone didn't think this through, or did they? Is this where she got the idea about the connecting wardrobes? Maybe, maybe not, o.k. starting to post jumbled mutterings, stop! stop typing! stop it I say! : o( I think I need a lie down...

Solitaire - Aug 17, 2009 4:29 pm (#1019 of 1104)

The vanishing cabinets first appear in CoS. We see one in Borgin & Burkes, and we later see its mate (although we do not yet know it) when Peeves drops and ruins it. We see the broken one again in OP, when the Weasley twins lock Montague in it at school. I have a hunch the connecting cabinets were planned from the beginning. Ditto for the Triwizard Cup. I think Jo had the general plot of all 7 books laid out before she even published the first book.

legolas returns - Aug 17, 2009 10:24 pm (#1020 of 1104)

I would still love to see the way she set out her plans. Didn't she have notebooks with stuff?

PeskyPixie - Aug 18, 2009 1:34 pm (#1021 of 1104)

Okay, now I want to know why Barty Crouch Jr. would design the portkey to return to Hogwarts. Is there any purpose for it? Oh, or maybe he thinks that Harry is going to die at the hands of the Dark Lord (no worries about him coming back), and then with Harry's death the Dark Lord and his Death Eaters could storm into Hogwarts? Harry's escape and Priori Incantatem frighten Lord Voldemort and make him wary, much slower in his actions.

Julia H. - Aug 18, 2009 1:42 pm (#1022 of 1104)

How would Voldemort's victims know that this particular portkey was going back as well?

I have always assumed that any portkey was a "return portkey". It is true that this is the only portkey that we actually see working both ways, but are we told that the other portkeys could not go back if someone wanted to use them on their way back? I may have missed something, but I don't remember anything like that.

PeskyPixie - Aug 18, 2009 1:50 pm (#1023 of 1104)

The portkeys we see later on in the series are set for a specific time (like catching a bus). The triwizard cup portkey is different in the fact that it needs to be touched in order to transport Harry and Cedric to the graveyard. Similarly, Harry just grabs on to it (in his own time) in order to be transported back to Hogwarts. I'm not sure that we witness that elsewhere.

How would Voldemort's victims know that this particular portkey was going back as well?

I'm not quite sure I follow you, Julia. Could you clarify, please?

Julia H. - Aug 18, 2009 2:19 pm (#1024 of 1104)

I think it is James (coming out of Voldemort's wand) who tells Harry to grab the portkey because it will transport him back to Hogwarts. (Is that so?) If portkeys do not usually return, how would he know that this one will?

Ah, the time! Good point! Perhaps portkeys that are not set for a specific time will travel back and forth any time when they are touched. Dumbledore makes a portkey at the end of OotP. I don't think he sets it for a particular time, he just tells Harry to grab it.

PeskyPixie - Aug 18, 2009 2:22 pm (#1025 of 1104)
Edited Aug 18, 2009 3:23 pm

If portkeys do not usually return, how would he know that this one will?

Because as a soul he is privy to the goings-on of both camps. He just can't contact his son under normal circumstances.

I like your interpretation too. Makes sense, without all the soul talk.

Julia H. - Aug 18, 2009 2:42 pm (#1026 of 1104)

It must be nerve-wracking to watch all those twists and adventures and mistakes without being able to contact Harry and tell him what they know.

PeskyPixie - Aug 18, 2009 3:00 pm (#1027 of 1104)
Edited Aug 18, 2009 4:00 pm

I felt this especially when Lily tells Harry (in DH) of how brave he's been. The poor, poor mother has known what is in store for her son and she has had to watch it all. (And dear ol' Sev should have realized that just by being a teensy bit nicer to her son he could have won brownie points with her. )

Madam Pince - Aug 18, 2009 3:50 pm (#1028 of 1104)

Well, if I were Lily, I think I would consider that Sev had earned lots of brownie points, by doing all he did to save Harry's life all those years. Yeah, maybe he could've earned more by being a bit nicer, but still...

rambkowalczyk - Aug 18, 2009 3:52 pm (#1029 of 1104)

I think the Port-key was designed to transport whoever touched it to go to the winner's circle. What Crouch did was put a different destination on it, but because he couldn't change the original destination all he could do was make the Port-Key go to his destination before taking the bearer to the winner's circle.

Solitaire - Aug 18, 2009 6:03 pm (#1030 of 1104)

The Triwizard Cup was originally set, I believe, to transport the winner to a winner's circle or something. Fake Moody's portkey spell obviously pre-empted the one Dumbledore must have put on it first. Okay, I see that Ramb has said essentially the same thing.

dear ol' Sev should have realized that just by being a teensy bit nicer to her son he could have won brownie points with her.

Yep! Not really. I am actually quite sure that Lily knows exactly what Snape has and has not been doing, both good and bad, with Harry.

Steve Newton - Aug 19, 2009 5:16 am (#1031 of 1104)

Well, this particular port key was designed to take the person touching it back to where the crowd, and Dumbledore, was. Crouch had put another spell on top to take them to the grave yard. I figure that once the overlay was gone the original spell did what it was supposed to do.

Betelgeuse Black - Aug 19, 2009 5:23 am (#1032 of 1104)

I'm with you, Solitaire. Lily knows what has been happening. I feel that she would be grateful for his protection but frustrated and angry with his petty cruelty.

I think Lily made her choice a long time ago and she's sticking with it in life after death too. Maybe James was a bully during school, but he had good character traits that shined out once he "deflated his head" a bit.

If you were Harry's parent, how would you feel if you knew about the insults and favoritism in Snape's class? I would want to get the guy fired. I've had a child ridiculed before and I was very angry about it. Before I get clobbered, I would also say that all the detentions Harry got were deserved as far as I can remember. Maybe one or two were not deserved but for the most part, Harry deserved these punishments.

Harry called his protectors with the resurrection stone to help him through the forest. I feel that he didn't call Snape because Harry didn't trust him or see him as a protector. He eventually forgave him but I don't think Harry will ever forget Snape's insults and uneven rule enforcement.

Betelgeuse

Julia H. - Aug 19, 2009 5:53 am (#1033 of 1104)
Edited Aug 19, 2009 6:54 am

To me it seems Harry forgets them - in the sense that he is not going to dwell on these things in the future. If he did not get over that aspect of Snape's personality, he would not name his son after Snape. (You do not name your child after someone you have merely forgiven.) In the Epilogue, what seems to count to Harry is Snape's immense courage (not only in itself but also as a Gryffindor trait) and the acknowledgement that Snape was a true Headmaster of Hogwarts. It suggests that Harry does not remember Snape as an enemy at all, but rather someone whose flaws he has learned to accept and whom he can respect now.

Madam Pince - Aug 19, 2009 7:07 am (#1034 of 1104)

If you were Harry's parent, how would you feel if you knew about the insults and favoritism in Snape's class?

If all I knew was about the insults and favoritism, then yes, I would probably want him fired. If I knew (as I presume Lily's "spirit" would know) about the whole situation, and the fact that the teacher was preparing the kids for basically an all-out war against evil that would be coming within the next few years and which they would be participating in, then I am pretty sure I would take a different view. And you're right, Harry's detentions were mostly deserved (except Umbridge's quill was clearly over-the-top.) As I have said before, in my view the only thing Snape did that was inexcusable was his "I see no difference" comment to Hermione about her teeth -- that was out-and-out mean.

But this is the Harry thread. I think Harry did forgive Snape -- I think that's what the Epilogue is meant to show us. Once he knew the full story, he understood. Harry can be a prat sometimes, (like, oh, say, for pretty much the entirety of OotP) but in the long run his character comes through with shining colors.

Orion - Aug 19, 2009 8:47 am (#1035 of 1104)
Edited Aug 19, 2009 9:48 am

Who for Merlin's sake doesn't forget their teachers' insults some day? In the long run you forgive all of them and think, ah well, I guess we weren't easy as well, actually he was quite funny, blabla. Harry survived a lot of mortally dangerous situations, and compared to being grilled by Voldie Snape's remarks seem positively cute, and that's what Harry apparently comes to terms with. If Harry can forgive him, why can't some forumers? But this is the Harry thread.

mona amon - Aug 19, 2009 5:39 pm (#1036 of 1104)

Well said, Orion! I can't imagine Harry not forgiving Severus for being a mean teacher, especially when he died clutching on to his robes and looking into his eyes and everything.

Madam Pince - Aug 19, 2009 6:23 pm (#1037 of 1104)

I still remember how my second-grade teacher was a real witch. I used to dream that she'd die clutching onto my robes and looking into my eyes...

Did I say that out loud?

Orion - Aug 20, 2009 2:36 am (#1038 of 1104)

ROTFL! Did she ride into the classroom on a broom?

Betelgeuse Black - Aug 20, 2009 12:15 pm (#1039 of 1104)

I had some incidents with teachers that I won't forget. I had many times where I wished for bad things to happen to them. I can forgive them since I know that there were plenty of difficult kids for them to deal with so I just happened to catch them at the wrong moment. We're all human. That doesn't mean I will forget what happened. Snape's treatment of Harry (and Neville) reminded me of some of the stuff I dealt with growing up.

So, to tie this back to Harry....

I can see where Harry would admire Snape for his courage and forgive him for his nasty treatment of him. I don't think he would forget it. I believe Harry has the ability to see Snape's point of view after he saw his memories in the pensieve. Harry can probably analyze the situations like we can. Harry has Lily's insight into people and can understand them better than most people. He would recognize that a lot of Snape's behavior is related to his personal experience.

Betelgeuse

Orion - Aug 20, 2009 1:38 pm (#1040 of 1104)

I still stick to my opinion that if Snape had survived he and Harry would have sat together, ten years later, with tea and biscuits or a crate of butterbeer and remembered fondly the old times with Neville and melting cauldrons and old Dumbledore and stuff. It all gets softened over the years. I'm sure there's not one forumer who crosses the street to avoid a former teacher. Harry is a grown-up, he grew up in the most painful way imaginable.

There's one big thing which Harry has to forgive Snape, and that is the fact that through monumental, abominable stupidity Snape had a role in Lily's and James' deaths. But not something in a classroom - everything there is just school, it's not for real. Nobody tries to kill you in a classroom. The bad things happen outside the safe haven of the classroom. (That's what many students realize after their exams with shock and horror - the extent to which they were pampered during school.)

Julia H. - Aug 20, 2009 2:03 pm (#1041 of 1104)
Edited Aug 20, 2009 3:05 pm

I agree with Orion. There was one big thing for Harry to forgive Snape. If he could do that, the rest can't have mattered any more. But I also agree that Harry eventually understood why Snape had behaved the way he had behaved. After all, Harry took a long excursion into Snape's mind. That is surely something to promote empathy and understanding.

Honour - Aug 20, 2009 5:28 pm (#1042 of 1104)

I think Harry would not need to forgive Severus for his "role in Lily's and James' deaths." I think that by the end of the whole saga Harry understood that the roles that everyone played were crucial to the end result.

IMO If there was anyone to forgive for me it would have to be Dumbledore, but here we see Harry had also crossed that bridge as well.

If there is something that I have learned from these books it is that in life there are choices that we have to make, so each and every individual has to make their own choices whether good or bad, easy or hard, right or wrong. Some of us have the capacity to see further and factor in consequences, alas, many of us only see what is infront of us. The former usually comes with maturity, experience and compassion.

I believe that although Severus gave Voldermort half of the prophesy, and that that prophesy pointed to two children, that it was Voldermort who made the choice to mark Harry.

When it became aparent that Lilly's family were under threat and Severus begged Dumbledore for help, I think that Severus finally realised that his spying and dark lean could result in Lilly's death, some judge Severus quite harshly because he didnot consider Harry or James, but because Severus sees the world through how things affect him, then this is not surprising.

What I found so astounding was that Severus continued to bide by the agreement he made with Dumbledore.

I find it unfair that the stick is always shaken at Severus for ending Harry's parents lives when it was Voldermort who made the choice, Wormtail who told of their whereabouts and Voldermort who did the killing. Choices made by others.

Harry bless his heart, was able to forgive Severus which showed I think that dispite his abusive up-bringing by family members - (of whom I think he forgave as well, and I think Harry found some surprise and I hope peace knowing that his cousin in the end felt kinship towards him) - bullying by fellow students and teachers, Harry could still push through the bitterness and see the contributions that people made for the betterment of the magical world.

Good on ya Harry!

PeskyPixie - Aug 21, 2009 6:44 am (#1043 of 1104)

I don't know, Orion. I must admit that I enjoy being snide when I run into teachers who were pointlessly mean to me as a kid. (Hmm, I guess the Sorting Hat knew what it was doing when it placed me in Slytherin.) Then again, none of those teachers were secretly protecting me. Nor were they efficient teachers.

Regarding the triwizard cup portkey, I've been searching GoF and I don't find any mention that the cup was a portkey to the winner's circle. Can someone please help me out on this?

Steve Newton - Aug 22, 2009 6:12 am (#1044 of 1104)

Pesky, before DH I would have said that it was obvious that the cup was a return port key because there would be no other way to know who touched it first, but, after the snitch information in DH, there is a spell which tells who touched it first, can't remember what, I can no longer be sure. It does make sense but I haven't actually read the book for a couple of years.

Steve, master of the run on sentence.

Solitaire - Aug 22, 2009 11:10 am (#1045 of 1104)
Edited Aug 22, 2009 12:14 pm

all the detentions Harry got were deserved

By detentions being deserved, Betelgeuse, I am assuming you mean Snape's and not Umbridge's. Hers were totally unfair. I can't remember if I agree or not, to be honest; I'd need to look back at a few of the early books. I do remember feeling some were unfair because Harry and the Gryffindors were the only ones punished for some offenses, when equally guilty Slytherins got off Scot-free. This was even MORE true for point deductions than for detentions, IMO. I think it has always been Snape's favoritism that bugged me.

Orion, I think a lot of people do not forget teachers' insults ... ever. It's one of the reasons I try never to speak in anger, even when I'd like to throttle a kid. I may point at a kid and say, "You ... outside ... NOW!" That gets him out into the hall, where he can cool for a minute ... and so can I. When we lash out and say angry, hurtful things, people may forgive us ... but they never forget. You can't un-hear something. It's there.

It's possible that Snape was never the target of a teacher's initially unprovoked hatred, the way Harry was the target of Snape's. Perhaps that is why Snape does not realize how his words affect people ... although he should. He certainly knew how unkind words affected him. Harry did forgive Snape ... but I do not believe it was instantaneous. Harry used Snape's information to defeat Voldemort in the final battle, but I think it took some time and a lot of reflection before he could reconcile it all and come up with a more balanced view of Snape. Perhaps that is why Snape was not really considered at the time Harry used the Stone. After all, Harry was still a teenager, even if he did defeat the greatest evil wizard of his time, and the people he loved most would have been foremost in his mind and heart.

Re the snitches ... they have "flesh memories." I think this is because Quidditch originally used real birds--Golden Snidgets. The Cup would not have needed a "flesh memory" spell, really, because the first person to grab it would have automatically been transported to the winner's circle, had things gone as planned. Harry and Cedric touched it at exactly the same moment by plan. I do not think it would have waited around for anyone else to grab it, as other Portkeys seem to do, so there would have been no dispute. They usually "glow" for a couple of moments, don't they?

Betelgeuse Black - Aug 22, 2009 1:19 pm (#1046 of 1104)
Edited Aug 22, 2009 2:30 pm

I stand corrected on the "all the detentions Harry got were deserved" statement. I did forget about Umbridge when I made this statement. Generally, I was thinking about Snape's detentions. I agree that Snape did play favorites and that is one of the biggest issues I have with him. However, I think most people would agree that Harry did his share of rule breaking. The only detentions I can remember off the top of my head that Snape gave them were:

1. (POA) Ron and Harry calling Snape names after Hermione's teeth grew past her collar and Snape was rude to her.

2. (HBP) Sectumsempra

3. (HBP) Non-verbal spells in DADA class where he doesn't call Snape "sir" and is rude when corrected.

The other detentions I remember were assigned by McGonagall.

On the portkey issue, why did the portkey (triwizard cup) take Harry and Cedric's body to the edge of the maze and not the middle of the maze where they initially grabbed the cup?

I think the portkey issue (plot hole?) is one of those things where each person will need to come up with their own explanation of why it took Harry back to the maze. The theory I use is that somehow the "echo" James Potter bewitched the cup to be a portkey to take them back. Someone else may have suggested it so please excuse me if that is the case. I may have been confunded... kids do that to you, you know.

Betelgeuse (Edited)

Solitaire - Aug 22, 2009 11:22 pm (#1047 of 1104)

I believe they had some detentions in CoS (for things other than flying the car), but I could be wrong.

Betelgeuse, I am not sure that the shadow of James could bewitch the cup. I think it left the graveyard and went to wherever it was supposed to have gone ... before Fake Moody added the additional spell. JM2K

Betelgeuse Black - Aug 23, 2009 6:43 am (#1048 of 1104)

Solitaire,

I know the idea of James bewitching the cup isn't that satisfying. I have not seen another explanation that is satisfying either. It's just my way of making sense of something that isn't well explained. That's why I stated that each person will need to come up with their own explanation of why it took Harry back to the maze.

JKR did not define a portkey as a round trip device. Why would the portkey return them to the outside of the maze instead of the point of origin? My overly logical take on it is that someone else must have changed the function of the portkey. Hey, it is magic, but there must be rules to how it works.

Betelgeuse

Steve Newton - Aug 23, 2009 8:01 am (#1049 of 1104)

I actually don't find this problematical. Most port keys seem to have only one spell on them. The second one gave it 2 shots.

Solitaire - Aug 23, 2009 9:14 am (#1050 of 1104)

Perhaps Fake Moody's spell did something to the first spell.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mona Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:35 pm

Julia H. - Aug 23, 2009 9:26 am (#1051 of 1104)

I offered to carry the Triwizard Cup into the maze before dinner, whispered Barty Crouch. "Turned it into a Portkey."

It seems Crouch does not know about the Cup being originally a Portkey. I still think it likely that the Portkey was a return Portkey because it was not set to start operating at a given time, but whenever it was touched. Alternatively, Crouch may have made it a return Portkey in case Voldemort wanted to send someone back to Hogwarts (like Harry's dead body, for example).

PeskyPixie - Aug 23, 2009 2:23 pm (#1052 of 1104)
Edited Aug 23, 2009 3:24 pm

But Steve, it wasn't a portkey to begin with. It was just a winner's cup/trophy.

The only thing I could think of was maybe Voldy plans to murder Harry then return to Hogwarts with his Death Eaters (therefore, his servant at Hogwarts has made him a duel purpose portkey which will transport Harry to the graveyard, then Voldy and his DEs to Hogwarts). Harry really messes up the Dark Lord's plans by not dying.

Honour - Aug 24, 2009 2:03 am (#1053 of 1104)

I think I asked that very same query oh a couple of few posts ago PeskyPixie, I think I went on to ask if anyone else thought that this may have been a "that's odd moment" for a portkey to be sent to two destinations as there is no canon about other portkeys being used this way.

Then I realised that fake Moody must have just added or rather, over-layed his spell upon the original placed on the key. I think that when the winner touched the cup he/she would be transported to the winner's circle. But when both Harry and Cedric touched the cup together they went to the last spell placed (which was fake Moody's) and when the cup was touched again it went to the "default command" which was the original spell.

Did that make sense to anyone? :[

mike miller - Aug 24, 2009 10:49 am (#1054 of 1104)

I think you have it Honour - 2 spells one on top of the other. Once Fake Moody's "added" spell was "used up" the original spell remained allowing Harry to return to Hogwarts. Makes the most sense to me.

As far as Harry forgiving Snape, it's just another example of how special Harry is. Snape's behavior toward Harry "from day one" was unacceptable. Like so many, he was reminded of James whenever he saw Harry. For someone who valued controlling his emotions, he displayed a serious character flaw in not being able to seperate Harry from James.

Julia H. - Aug 24, 2009 12:33 pm (#1055 of 1104)

A character flaw... or an unhealing wound that he could not control. Regarding Harry, how many of us have had the advantage of taking a journey into the mind and the memories of someone we dislike, experiencing the other person's feelings and viewpoint almost first-hand?

As for the Portkey, the double-spell is a good explanation, but I doubt JKR thought of it, or she would not have had Fake-Moody say (under the influence of the Veritaserum) that he had turned the Cup into a Portkey. At least I think it should mean that the Cup was not a Portkey before Moody's spell.

Honour - Aug 25, 2009 1:42 am (#1056 of 1104)

Hmmmn that's an interesting observation Julie H. I thought that was odd as well and strange. How would everyone in the arena know who had got there first if when the winner touched the cup nothing happened?

Maybe fake Moody didn't know that the cup originally had a portkey spell on it?

Julia H. - Aug 25, 2009 2:24 am (#1057 of 1104)
Edited Aug 25, 2009 3:30 am

Maybe, but it is never explained that he did not know about it and why he did not know about it.

It is clear that there should be a way to identify the real winner in case of a dispute or fraud. But I have a major problem with tasks 2 and 3 in this respect. There is a large audience eager to watch the Triwizard Championship. What exactly do they watch? During the first task, they watch how the champions fight the dragons. Fine. During the second task, however, all they see is the champions diving into the water and coming out an hour later. During the third task, they see the champions disappear in the maze, and then wait for them to emerge again. I understand that the winner needs an audience so that they can get applause - but when you organize an event with an audience, you must entertain that audience. Now, I can imagine Bagman telling them jokes or stories about earlier championships while they are waiting, but it is very poor entertainment for an exclusive event like this. Fouls are rather difficult to prevent in these circumstances, too (even if the Cup is a Portkey).

Madam Pince - Aug 25, 2009 3:33 am (#1058 of 1104)

I agree -- I thought of that too, Julia. For the fans it must've been quite boring. I thought JKR should've shown some version of wizarding cameras or something.

PeskyPixie - Aug 25, 2009 12:16 pm (#1059 of 1104)

Then I realised that fake Moody must have just added or rather, over-layed his spell upon the original placed on the key.

But doesn't this assume that the triwizard cup was a portkey to begin with?

Steve Newton - Aug 25, 2009 12:55 pm (#1060 of 1104)

It sure does and I have no problem with that.

PeskyPixie - Aug 25, 2009 3:41 pm (#1061 of 1104)
Edited Aug 25, 2009 4:42 pm

I have no problem accepting this as a theory (it sure makes the situation work), but is there any reference to it in canon?

Solitaire - Aug 25, 2009 7:09 pm (#1062 of 1104)

I doubt JKR thought of it, or she would not have had Fake-Moody say (under the influence of the Veritaserum) that he had turned the Cup into a Portkey

It only means that Moody might not have known it was Portkey before. It's possible no one knew but whoever put the original spell on it. Ah, I see Honour has made the same observation.

Are you sure the audience can't see what is happening? I thought the maze was in the Quidditch pitch. If it was, then the grandstands are up so high they ought to have been able to see some of what was happening ... right?

We know that the cup is a return Portkey, so someone had to turn it into one. Either fake-Moody, Voldemort, or one of the other DEs made it one, so that Voldy could return triumphantly to Hogwarts with his army of DEs. I don't think that the "shadows" of dead wizards would have performed a Portkey spell without wands. It just doesn't seem likely. Would the term Occam's razor apply here? The simplest explanation suggests that someone associated with the tournament must have made it into a Portkey before Moody got there. Yes, I realize that simple is not always right ... but I guess I can accept it.

Julia H. - Aug 25, 2009 11:43 pm (#1063 of 1104)

I totally agree that this is the simplest and most logical explanation, and it works for me as well. I am just not sure it was thought out by JKR, because I don't see the literary point of Crouch making this mistake or being ignorant that the Cup was originally a Portkey. I think when an author wants a character to be mistaken about something, it should have a reason in the story, and it should be made clear at some point that there was this mistake and what its significance was.

The maze always struck me as an enchanted maze - I seem to remember that Harry could not hear the noises from outside once he was inside the maze. They had to send up sparks when they needed help, even when it was obvious that a champion could not continue the task. Besides, if others had watched them, someone should have noticed something strange was going on (with Fleur being attacked, Cedric Crucio-d by Krum and some obstacles mysteriously removed from Harry's way, as I think Crouch later claimed he had done).

But even if the audience saw the maze, nothing suggests that they also saw into the depth of the lake.

Honour - Aug 26, 2009 1:34 am (#1064 of 1104)

I like simple explanations too! If Dumbledore set the age circle I would think that he placed the portkey spell. Dumbledore trusted who he thought was his friend Alastair Moody, the ex-auror, and probably an impartial person as well as teacher as Moody was not a head of house at any of the schools, to put the Cup in the centre of the maize. Phew! That was a run-on sentence and a half!!!

Maybe JKR didn't let us know about "Moody's Mistake" because it may have spoilt the whole "the Cup is a portkey?" moment in the book?

Not being able to witness the events in the maize and the lake may have contributed to the tensions of the moments? The lake scene wasn't a total loss I think I can remember Dumbledore being spoken to by the head of the Merpeople about the goings on. Same with maize perhaps? Some of the exotic animals? The Sphinx perhaps could report some happenings? ... Another book I have to go back and re-read!!

Julia H. - Aug 26, 2009 2:00 am (#1065 of 1104)

When Moody says he turned the Cup into a Portkey, Harry has already come back from the cemetery. The reader already knows that the Cup transported Harry both ways.

Not being able to witness the events in the maize and the lake may have contributed to the tensions of the moments?

LOL, but what kind of tension? When hundreds of people are together and are bored, it does create tension, but is that what they wanted?

I know that Merpeople informed Dumbledore of what had happened in the lake, but it did not help the audience during the hour they saw nothing. I'm not sure about the Sphinx. It did cooperate with the organizers, but perhaps only because it was in its (her?) nature to ask riddles. I think Fudge notified the Muggle Prime Minister about the Sphinx and the dragons, which suggets that they are in the same category (dangerous animals). Anyway, the Sphinx may have given information at some point, but I think Fake-Moody's plan was possible largely because nobody realized it in time that things were going wrong. That excludes close supervision at least. (Except, of course, supervision by Fake-Moody, which means only his magical eye could see into the maze.)

Honour - Aug 26, 2009 2:18 am (#1066 of 1104)

Tensions of the moments for the reader, you and I and the millions of other people who have read the book.

Without stepping too squarely into the bounds of movie contaimination mayhaps at the winners circle, there was entertainment and music?

The time frames between the start of the task and Harry arriving back with Cedric don't seem like a matter of hours either, more likely one at the most? The same time as it took for the lake task to be done. Between times there would be the sudden appearances of the other contestants, and maybe as was suggested jokes told, school band playing?

Mrs Brisbee - Aug 26, 2009 5:43 am (#1067 of 1104)

I am pretty sure Fake-Moody confessed to turning the Cup into a Portkey to take whomsoever touched it to the graveyard, so I don't have a problem with it already being a Portkey to take whomsoever touched it to the winner's circle, because I don't think what he says contradicts it already being a Portkey.

Wish it had been clearly explained in the book, though.

PeskyPixie - Aug 26, 2009 8:20 am (#1068 of 1104)
Edited Aug 26, 2009 9:20 am

That's my very point. The explanation works perfectly, and I will most certainly use it, however, I think it may have been yet another goof-up on JKR's part. The magic in her world tends to change throughout the development of the series.

Julia H. - Aug 26, 2009 8:38 am (#1069 of 1104)
Edited Aug 26, 2009 9:40 am

I am pretty sure Fake-Moody confessed to turning the Cup into a Portkey to take whomsoever touched it to the graveyard... (Mrs Brisbee)

But he did not say that. He only said he had turned it into a Portkey - not a specific Portkey or a different Portkey or a Portkey to do this or that. Just a Portkey.

I don't think what he says contradicts it already being a Portkey. (Mrs Brisbee)

I see some contradiction, because I don't think you can turn something into what it already is. This is a work of literature, and, if JKR had intended us to think Fake-Moody merely changed the destination of a Portkey, she could have had the character say that, I suppose. In real life, it often happens that people don't say precisely what they mean. In a book, it should not happen without a reason. Besides, Fake-Moody has been given Veritaserum, so he must say exactly what he believes to be true.

Honour, there could be (there must be) some sort of ordinary entertainment, it is just not the same as watching the actual tournament. It's like a Quidditch game that the spectators cannot see. They hear the commentator's jokes, see the Veelas and other things, but not the game itself until one of the Seekers appears with the Snitch.

Cross-posted with Pesky... I agree.

Mrs Brisbee - Aug 26, 2009 8:51 am (#1070 of 1104)
Edited Aug 26, 2009 10:09 am

I definitely think she goofed up by not explaining the Portkey. It is said at the beginning of GoF that Voldemort has a plan based on the Tri-Wizard Tournament, and we find out that all the details of the tournament events have been hashed out before school starts. So why the convoluted plot to get Harry into the tournnament and to the Cup first? The only logical explanation I could come up with is that only a Portkey authorized by the Headmaster would work at Hogwarts, so the only way Voldemort could kidnap Harry was by hijacking an item he knew would be an authorized Portkey: The Tri-Wizard Cup. I think Fake Moody knew this, and his comment about turning it into a Portkey to take the first person to touch it to his master does not contradict this; he's just being specific about the destination of the Portkey he made, and that tells us he didn't put the Portkey spell on the Cup that takes Harry to in front of the stands.

But I agree Rowling doesn't explain any of this in the book, so it is just a deduction, and she might have had something else in mind.

Edit: I'm crossposting too! Smile

But he did not say that. He only said he had turned it into a Portkey - not a specific Portkey or a different Portkey or a Portkey to do this or that. Just a Portkey.

I'm pretty sure he did specifically say that. I'll try to find my copy of GoF later--no idea where it is at the moment. But he says twice that he made a Portkey, once at the beginning of his explanations, where he says the destination, and then again at the end where he is giving a synopsis of his actions in clipped sentences and does not give a destination. That's how I remember it anyway. I'm sure GoF will turn up under a chair somewhere in the next few days... I'll get back to you....

Edit II: Here's the quote: “He asked me whether I was ready to risk everything for him. I was ready. It was my dream, my greatest ambition, to serve him, to prove myself to him. He told me he needed to place a faithful servant at Hogwarts. A servant who would guide Harry Potter through the Triwizard Tournament without appearing to do so. A servant who would watch over Harry Potter. Ensure he reached the Triwizard Cup. Turn the cup into a Portkey, which would take the first person to touch it to my master...."(GoF)

Julia H. - Aug 26, 2009 9:39 am (#1071 of 1104)

Thanks for the other Portkey-quote, Mrs Brisbee. This one sounds better, but I have always thought that a comma before the relative clause means it is a non-defining relative clause... so it does not seem to mean that Fake-Moody turned it into a new type of Portkey - and then there is Fake-Moody's other sentence that I quoted before. I just don't see JKR purposefully outlining any explanation for us at all.

Soul Search - Aug 26, 2009 2:33 pm (#1072 of 1104)
Edited Aug 26, 2009 3:50 pm

... only a Portkey authorized by the Headmaster would work at Hogwarts, so the only way Voldemort could kidnap Harry was by hijacking an item he knew would be an authorized Portkey: The Tri-Wizard Cup.

Very good, Mrs Brisbee.

I, too, have thought the GoF plot to kidnap Harry was way too convoluted. Why not just turn something Harry would touch into the portkey that takes him to the graveyard? Because it wouldn't work! Only the headmaster could make a portkey that went to or from Hogwarts. Perhaps this is related to the Apparating restriction.

Other parts of the story reflect this portkey restriction. In OotP Dumbledore makes a portkey which takes Harry etal to #12 Grimauld Place. And he makes one that takes Harry from the Ministry to his Hogwarts office. Only Dumbledore made any portkeys to or from Hogwarts. So, Dumbledore originally made the Triwizard Cup a portkey, adding his authorization to it.

As Harry is reaching for the Cup, doesn't Voldemort panic and shout "No ..." or something like that? Voldemort knew the Cup would return to Hogwarts. It was part of his plan. Exactly what he had in mind for the return trip can't be certain, since it didn't happen, but he could have returned Harry's dead body for all to see or even taken himself and his Death Eaters to Hogwarts for a killing spree to announce his triumphant return. (Only later did he decide to stay low and take care of Harry first.)

I do think JKR had worked out all the details of this one; she just didn't write excessive detail for us.

I like it when the forum works out some new detail of the storyline, so long after the last book came out. Thanks, Mrs Brisbee.

Solitaire - Aug 26, 2009 3:25 pm (#1073 of 1104)

I don't think you can turn something into what it already is.

What if fake-Moody hadn't known it was a Portkey when he put the spell on it?

Betelgeuse Black - Aug 26, 2009 5:11 pm (#1074 of 1104)

I guess my whole problem with the portkey issue was that it was not explained well. Maybe portkeys are supposed to be two way. If so, why didn't the football Harry took to the quidditch world cup transport the MOM wizards back to Stoatshead Hill after they arrived? If they are two way, why didn't Harry and Cedric just grab the cup in the graveyard and go back to the maze? Sorry, I must be needy tonight since I keep asking these questions. :-)

I agree that the best solution is that the cup was already a portkey that was supposed to take the winner to the "winner's circle". It just isn't that satisfying when JKR doesn't explain things well. She should have known by GOF that we picky fans were going to hen peck this to death. It's been how many years and we're still discussing it?

I think the headmaster being the only one with the ability to get a portkey in and out of Hogwarts is a possibility. However, I think the comment from Phineas Nigellus (sp?) when Harry arrived by portkey from the MOM to DD's office in OotP was not about the portkey directly. He said (paraphrasing) that only the rightful headmaster could get into the office and asked if Harry's arrival meant that DD was returning. I don't think this was a comment on the portkey. It sounded like only DD could get a portkey, or any other entry, into the office. Umbridge couldn't get in.

Betelgeuse

Soul Search - Aug 26, 2009 6:25 pm (#1075 of 1104)
Edited Aug 26, 2009 7:28 pm

I guess my whole problem with the portkey issue was that it was not explained well. (Betelgeuse Black)

I think portkeys were explained well enough for the typical reader, just not to the level of detail we nitpickers demand. After all, GoF was 734 pages. Now, you and I would have read a couple of hundred more, but not everyone.

I seem to recall a TV interview where JKR was asked some detailed question and she pulled out a sheaf of handwritten notes, with little drawings, to show that she had worked out all the details, but just didn't put everything in the book. Makes sense she develops a lot more detail than can be worked into the narrative.

Maybe portkeys are supposed to be two way. If so, why didn't the football Harry took to the quidditch world cup transport the MOM wizards back to Stoatshead Hill after they arrived?

Exactly! The basic portkey is one-way, one use. The portkey they used to get to the World Cup was discarded in a bin after they arrived. A different portkey was made for their return.

I don't think an object is "transformed" into a portkey; rather, the portkey magic is attached to an object. It is used up when activated and the object remains unchanged.

If they are two way, why didn't Harry and Cedric just grab the cup in the graveyard and go back to the maze?

They could have/should have, but Harry's limited experience with portkeys told him it had been spent and wouldn't return. Harry didn't know about overlaying one portkey spell with another. It took the Lily and James spirits telling him it was a portkey that would return him to Hogwarts before Harry went after the Cup again.

I can understand Voldemort learning (from Bertha) how the last Triwizard task would be staged and also understanding about Hogwarts and portkeys. But, how did Lily and James know the Triwizard Cup was still a portkey? Exactly what were they?

Julia H. - Aug 27, 2009 12:09 am (#1076 of 1104)

What if fake-Moody hadn't known it was a Portkey when he put the spell on it? (Solitaire)

In this case, we would lose the bit that only the Headmaster can authorize a Portkey at Hogwarts, and that is why Crouch did not just make a Portkey out of something that Harry would touch but instead he took all the pains to make Harry a champion and to help Harry get to the Cup first; which could be a major explanation for the whole plot. Otherwise, I am just uncomfortable with an author having a character make a mistake with apparently know reason at all, and leaving the reader to think that there was no mistake at all. The average reader just reads the book and moves on and won't bother to put together explanations the author does not even hint at.

I believe that JKR thought of more details than what she eventually put into the book. But I still don't see the reason why (if she wanted the average reader to work out this really neat explanation) she did not have Moody say something like: "I needed a Portkey to transport Potter to the Dark Lord. The Triwizard Cup was the only possibility. I changed its original destination." Or Bagman could have explained to the champions that the Cup would take them into the winner's circle.

Another reason why Moody had to know that the Cup was originally a Portkey was that he said he had offered to carry it into the maze. If the Cup was already a Portkey, he had to handle it with real care and carry it without touching it or it would have transported him into the winner's circle (and then in could have been thrown away like the used Portkeys at the Quidditch World Cup).

Honour - Aug 27, 2009 2:17 am (#1077 of 1104)

Mayhaps he used good old "Wingardium leviosa" or "locomotor" Julie H? Also I think that Dumbledore would have told his good friend 'Alistair' that the cup was a portkey.

I think the Publisher's editors would probably have used their red pen and cut out a lot of detail. Trusting that your average reader would not be trying to figure out the smallest details but rather would be enjoying a jolly good read?

Julia H. - Aug 27, 2009 2:39 am (#1078 of 1104)
Edited Aug 27, 2009 3:46 am

Mayhaps he used good old "Wingardium leviosa" or "locomotor"...

Yes, my point was that he had to know it was already a Portkey for the theory to work. The others would not have let him handle the Cup either without making sure that he knew how to do it. He was able to transport it without touching it, but it would have been risky if he had not known that he was not to touch it.

We can blame the editors, but the bottom line is still that Fake-Moody's apparent ignorance of the Cup being originally a Portkey goes against this brilliant theory.

Mrs Brisbee - Aug 27, 2009 4:26 am (#1079 of 1104)

I agree that Fake-Moody had to have known it was a Portkey. I also agree that the book is not clear on how Rowling intended to explain the Portkey to the stands, because she doesn't, and I think she should have.

Fake-Moody's grammar doesn't bother me, though. The Cup is still the Cup even if it has a Portkey spell on it. Or even if a second Portkey spell is put on it. It will remain a Cup even after the spells are expended. I do agree though that Rowling should have explained this all in the book if it is the case.

Moody only confesses to putting the one spell on the Cup. Portkey spells don't appear to be two-way, and in any case the Cup does not return to its starting point but to a new destination. So whatever the case, there seems to be two portkey spells on the Cup no matter how we interprete Fake-Moody's words.

I can understand Voldemort learning (from Bertha) how the last Triwizard task would be staged and also understanding about Hogwarts and portkeys. But, how did Lily and James know the Triwizard Cup was still a portkey? Exactly what were they?--Soul Search

I think they were shadows of Lily and James, imprinted within Voldemort's wand when he killed them. Imprints taken directly from a soul of a person seem to possess exceptional AI in the Potterverse, like ghosts for example. Maybe because they were stuck in Voldy's wand they could overhear his plans? I know, it sounds weird.

Soul Search - Aug 27, 2009 5:37 am (#1080 of 1104)

Ah hah. Bertha came out of Voldmeort's wand too. She knew the Triwizard Cup was to be a portkey so could figure it would still return Harry to the stands at Hogwarts. She told Lily and James and they told Harry. We didn't see Bertha tell Lily and James because we see what Harry sees and Harry was too busy to notice little things like that.

JKR did introduce portkeys early in GoF. We learned enough to get by and not be too surprised when the Triwizard Cup transported Harry to the graveyard. What more should we ask for?

Julia H. - Aug 27, 2009 5:54 am (#1081 of 1104)
Edited Aug 27, 2009 6:55 am

Now I've got weird images in my mind about all the things that can be going on in a person's wand...

BTW, while we are in a nit-picking mood, I'll mention my son's observation, who said that a whole lot of Crucio-s should have also come out of Voldemort's wand. Indeed, Voldemort had crucio-d Harry and Avery in the cemetery and Pettigrew earlier in the book. (Pettigrew's new hand did come out of the wand.)

We learned enough to get by and not be too surprised when the Triwizard Cup transported Harry to the graveyard. What more should we ask for?

It is perfectly explained why the Cup transported Harry to the graveyard. What remains unexplained in the book is why it transported him back.

mona amon - Aug 27, 2009 6:15 am (#1082 of 1104)

a whole lot of Crucio-s should have also come out of Voldemort's wand

They did, in the form of screams.

Other spells may need a trained wizard to identify them.

Julia H. - Aug 27, 2009 7:30 am (#1083 of 1104)

I'm obviously not a trained wizard (witch) as I thought it was the wand that screamed as it released the magic it had done before. But it is indeed possible that the screams were the Crucio-s. In that case, we only need a trained wizard to identify the Imperius Curse Voldemort had used on Harry.

mona amon - Aug 27, 2009 7:43 am (#1084 of 1104)

It certainly seems like that, and that's what I also thought in the beginning, that the wand was having some sort of labour pains because of all the large figures being forced out of it!

me and my shadow 813 - Aug 27, 2009 9:26 am (#1085 of 1104)
Edited Aug 27, 2009 10:26 am

LOL labor pains!

I am losing the track on this discussion... may I ask two questions? 1)why do you all think the Cup would have to be a Portkey prior to Crouch-Moody's spell(s)? I mean, Dumbledore apparently let a Vanishing Cabinet lay about the school; and 2)why do you all think it is not possible to have a round-trip Portkey with 1 spell for each destination?

PeskyPixie - Aug 27, 2009 9:40 am (#1086 of 1104)
Edited Aug 27, 2009 10:41 am

... only a Portkey authorized by the Headmaster would work at Hogwarts ...

This would make sense. Do we have proof of this statement in canon though? And I don't mean that we only ever see a headmaster of Hogwarts make a portkey. Are we ever clearly told that only a headmaster of Hogwarts can make a portkey? If so, then it is logical that the cup (a portkey to transport the winner to the winner's circle) could be bewitched to go to a different location first, and when touched again would go to its original destination. It all depends on whether we are told of that rule, "only a Portkey authorized by the Headmaster would work at Hogwarts". Unless, it's part of Hogwarts security? Just as no one may Apparate/Disapparate within school property, are we to assume that similar spells exist regarding portkeys? And therefore, it is only logical that Dumbledore must have bewitched the cup himself (to take the winner from the maze to the winner's circle) and 'Moody' just put an additional destination upon the portkey created by Dumbledore?

Soul Search - Aug 27, 2009 10:36 am (#1087 of 1104)
Edited Aug 27, 2009 11:55 am

... only a Portkey authorized by the Headmaster would work at Hogwarts ...

I see it this way.

Hogwarts has a lot of protections. We have direct statements about apparating to or from Hogwarts. What kind of protection would that be if a portkey could be used to get into and out of Hogwarts? None. Portkeys do not work into and out of Hogwarts.

We have some indirect evidence in HBP with Draco spending a lot of time trying to fix the vanishing cabinet. Why bother if a portkey would serve to get Death Eathers into Hogwarts. A portkey wouldn't work, hence the need for the vanishing cabinets.

We have direct evidence in HBP that the Headmaster (or just Dumbledore) can suspend the apparating restriction. He did it for lessons. We have the previous citations for Dumbledore making a portkey to/from Hogwarts in OotP.

So, I conclude, that portkeys carry a similar restriction within Hogwarts as apparating and that the Headmaster, or at least Dumbledore, can circumvent the restriction. It is probably common knowledge, since no one commented on the kids arriving at #12 Grimauld Place via a portkey from Hogwarts.

Now, Voldemort knows this too. Wormtail finds Voldemort in Albania and now Voldemort has the help he needs to regain a body. But, he needs the "blood of an enemy" for the spell and Voldemort will settle for nothing less than Harry Potter's blood. However, Harry is too well protected, especially at Hogwarts, to make getting his blood easy.

Pettigrew brings him Ministry witch Bertha Jorkins, who knows about Barty Crouch Jr. and about the staging of the last Triwizard task. The Triwizard Cup will be a portkey that takes the winner from the middle of the maze to in front of the stands (or whatever.) That portkey will have to be made by Dumbledore so it will work within Hogwarts. All that needs to be done is to overlay another portkey spell on the Cup that takes whoever touches it to the graveyard where Voldemort can perform his ressurection spell. And to make sure Harry is the one to touch the Triwizard Cup portkey.

The Triwizard Cup being an authorized portkey is essential to Voldemort's whole plan. If an authorization wasn't required then Crouch Jr. could have just snuck into Harry's dorm room and turned Harry's toothbrush into a portkey and all the complications of getting Harry selected as a contestant would not have been necessary.

Actually, we could probably come up with a number of ways Fake-Moody could have snatched Harry to the Graveyard. Just wait until he was in Hogsmeade, grab him, and apparate there. I think Voldemort hatched the Triwizard Cup plan because it gave him a portkey back into Hogwarts, that he coud use to wreck all kinds of havoc.

Mrs Brisbee - Aug 27, 2009 10:42 am (#1088 of 1104)

Soul Search sums it up perfectly.

Rowling never states in canon that Portkeys only work in Hogwarts if authorized by the Headmaster, but I find that if I assume that's the way it works based on the evidence Soul Search presented, suddenly the pieces fit together and the plot makes sense.

me and my shadow 813 - Aug 27, 2009 10:56 am (#1089 of 1104)

My problem with the assumption is precisely due to the Vanishing Cabinet remaining in Hogwarts without question for however long.

me and my shadow 813 - Aug 27, 2009 12:05 pm (#1090 of 1104)
Edited Aug 27, 2009 1:07 pm

Moody-Crouch could also possibly have used the Floo Network to bring Harry from his office in Hogwarts to, for instance Wormtail's house, if Vold wanted him to. The extra protection on the school wasn't until after GoF so I don't feel that portkeys would have been any more dangerous than the Floo, which was fully operational during GoF.

After a bit of research, the feasible reason for it having to be a Portkey prior to Crouch-Moody making it one is:

Portkey Office: Portkeys have to be authorized (OP3, OP36); this is presumably the Office in charge of that. Since Portkeys are ordinarily made from objects that can pass as litter - objects that might appear on the Registry of Proscribed Charmable Objects, in other words, and which the Muggle Artifacts Office would have to worry about - it's not surprising that the Portkey Office keeps track of them.

- HP Lexicon

Honour - Aug 27, 2009 10:10 pm (#1091 of 1104)

I really don't know why it is so hard to understand that:

1. Dumbledore would tell his dear friend Alastair Moody, of whom he trusted implicitly, to take the cup by how ever magical means to the centre of the maize. I would even venture to say that wizards and witches would automatically use magic and only muggles would think to carry anything. For canon reference we see Mrs Weasley use magic for everything at the burrow!

2. I think Dumbledore would also have told Moody about the Portkey.

3. As I originally suggested the overlaying of spells is a valid reason as to why the cup first took Harry and Ced to the graveyard and when touched again back to the winner's circle. I think it would work something like "Priori Incantatem" in that the last spell placed would be the first spell and so forth until all spells on the object were released (don't know what other word to use) in reverse order???

O.K. this subject has strained my brain enough for one day I'm going to the Severus thread.

Solitaire - Aug 28, 2009 5:42 am (#1092 of 1104)
Edited Aug 28, 2009 6:44 am

Portkey spells don't appear to be two-way

I don't think anyone is saying it was two-way. There just seems to have been a spell on the cup before fake Moody's spell. If there was, then perhaps the most recent spell takes precedence. I also do not see any reason why there couldn't be a two-way Portkey. We are talking about magic, after all. As to moving the Cup, it seems big enough that a Locomotor spell could have been used on it.

What remains unexplained in the book is why it transported him back.

Actually, it is explained by Lily telling Harry it was a Portkey. What is unexplained, at this point, is who put the spell on it to make it return to Hogwarts.

Shadow, the reason some of us think the Cup was a Portkey even before fake-Moody's spell is that no one can account for how it could have still had an active spell on it for Harry to leave the graveyard. The options seem to be that either it was originally a Portkey to transport the winner out of the Maze--and fake-Moody's spell took precedence over the original spell--or fake-Moody's spell was a 2-way, in which case the intent was for Voldemort to have returned to Hogwarts.

... only a Portkey authorized by the Headmaster would work at Hogwarts ...

What about a Portkey authorized by the Triwizard Tournament committee?

O.K. this subject has strained my brain enough for one day I'm going to the Severus thread.

LOL Honour! Usually it is the Snape thread that makes everyone's head hurt! LOL

Julia H. - Aug 28, 2009 6:44 am (#1093 of 1104)
Edited Aug 28, 2009 8:12 am

I really don't know why it is so hard to understand ... (Honour)

Perhaps we are not intelligent enough?

I think everybody here understands the theory, the debate is about whether:

a) it is actually implied in the book as an explanation

b) it is not implied but at least nothing contradicts it

c) there is something that contradicts it.

What remains unexplained in the book is why it transported him back. (Julia)

Actually, it is explained by Lily telling Harry it was a Portkey. What is unexplained, at this point, is who put the spell on it to make it return to Hogwarts. (Solitaire)

Yes, that's a more precise way of putting it.

I also do not see any reason why there couldn't be a two-way Portkey.

I suggested it earlier that the Cup could be a return Portkey because there is no specific time attached to it when it can operate. The Portkeys transporting people to the World Cup started at a given time. It is possible that they would have started even without being touched, as the Ministry clearly did not want any unused Portkeys to be left out there for anyone to find.

This Portkey, however, must start whenever it is touched, and only when it is touched, so maybe it is a different type, i.e., one that will work every time when it is touched. That would mean that it was indeed Fake-Moody, who turned the Cup into a Portkey, as he says. (Actually, he could also purposefully turn it into a two-way Portkey for Voldemort to use the return function.) However, the pre-authorized Portkey explains why the whole plot of the book is needed just to transport Harry to Voldemort somehow. It does not explain, on the other hand, why Fake-Moody says he turned the Cup into a Portkey, instead of saying that he changed the destination of the Triwizard Portkey. After all, in this case, he cannot make a Portkey (only the Headmaster can), he can only modify an already existing one.

Regarding moving the Cup - it is clear that wizards can carry things without touching them. Still, if the Cup was originally a Portkey, it means Fake-Moody had to know what it was. If not before, then when he volunteered to carry it into the maze, someone must have warned him not touch it even by accident - whoever knew it was a Portkey to transport the winner cannot have wanted it to be wasted by transporting Moody instead.

me and my shadow 813 - Aug 28, 2009 7:36 am (#1094 of 1104)

I agree, Julia. I think JKR's sentence is inaccurate and it should have read, "I knew the Cup was a Portkey so I changed it to bring Potter to the Dark Lord before returning them all to the Winner's Circle."

But the plot is riddled (pun intended) with holes. She did a fine job with the "Crouch Jr. as DE" plot, but missed some loose ends on the supposed monumentous challenge of "getting Harry to Vold" plot, IMO.

Soul Search - Aug 28, 2009 2:30 pm (#1095 of 1104)

... missed some loose ends on the supposed monumentous challenge of getting Harry to Vold" plot"

I agree, me and my shadow 813. Until Mrs. Brisbee suggested the key "authorized portkey" element, I thought the plot unnecessarily convolute. With that, however, everything comes together well.

We learned about the Hogwarts restriction on apparating in PoA. I suppose we were expected to extrapolate that and conclude there would be a similar restriction on portkeys. However, in spite of a number of reads, I never made that connection.

It wouldn't have taken much to make the plot clear; any mention that Dumbledore had to put the portkey spell on the Triwizard Cup wouild have been enough.

Solitaire - Aug 28, 2009 6:42 pm (#1096 of 1104)
Edited Aug 28, 2009 7:43 pm

it should have read, "I knew the Cup was a Portkey so I changed it to bring Potter to the Dark Lord before returning ...

What if he couldn't change it? What if he could only add to it? Actually, it is possible that fake-Moody could have been told not to touch the Cup without having been told it was a Portkey. He could have been told that it needed to remain untouched until the champion touched it. He'd have bought that, I think.

me and my shadow 813 - Aug 28, 2009 6:56 pm (#1097 of 1104)

Soli, that was my meaning. I was agreeing that JKR mistakenly made it sound like Crouch-Moody was responsible for creating the Portkey period.

Solitaire - Aug 28, 2009 7:19 pm (#1098 of 1104)

Ah, okay. I wish Jo would have another question-answer round, now that we've had time to digest the whole series again.

Honour - Aug 28, 2009 8:26 pm (#1099 of 1104)

Perhaps we are not intelligent enough? - Julie H

I would never infer such a thing! : O ...

I guess after reading the book I just accepted the explanations given by characters. When fake Moody said he made the cup into a portkey to the graveyard it didn't faze me so much, nor did accepting the assumption that Dumbledore probably placed the original charm on the cup to turn it into a portkey to transfer the winner from the maize to the winner's circle.

What really got me was that Dumbledore didn't know that Moody was a fake! He knew when Harry was visiting the Mirror of Erised, but didn't know his "old friend" was being impersonated?

The other thing that got me scratching my head was that how could fake Moody have the authority to direct a portkey charm out of Hogwarts? Apparition had to be given special dispensation, and we only witness Dumbledore conjuring a portkey, so how did fake Moody get away with doing his one unless he somehow over-laid his spell - ahhh (light bulb's been turned on!). Fake Moody did this portkey spell the same way he was able to fool the cup before when he added Harry's name under another school, he confunded it! thus entering Harry into the tri-wizard tournament and that's probably our canon proof? (done before) Pennies dropping all over the world I hope in agreement to my theory? : )

What say you guys?

mona amon - Aug 28, 2009 9:57 pm (#1100 of 1104)

I think it's an excellent explanation, Honour!

wynnleaf - Aug 29, 2009 6:12 am (#1101 of 1104)

The real Moody was a highly trusted member of the Order. Didn't DD bring Moody in the first place in order to have a strong Order member on site during the tournament? Maybe that was just my interpretation. Still, I felt that DD had used Fake-Moody's input when arranging safegaurds for the events. Fake-Moody might have been involved with Dumbledore in the original creating of the portkey for the Cup, which could have given him knowledge of how to put the second portkey charm on the Cup.

As for DD not realizing it wasn't the real Moody, I always feel that's a kind of commentary on the real Moody, that even with his actions in using unforgiveables in class, turning Draco into a ferret and bouncing him on the pavement, no one considered that unusual for the real Moody. And as a reader I was completely fooled. Fake-Moody's dislike of former Deatheaters was very real and convincing, even though his reasons for hating them were different from the real Moody.

Solitaire - Aug 29, 2009 7:40 am (#1102 of 1104)
Edited Aug 29, 2009 8:43 am

I think Moody was brought in because DD kind of expected something might happen with all of the extra people on site all year long. Surely Snape's Dark Mark was becoming stronger and more visible all year; I think he mentioned that in the hospital wing when he showed it to Fudge, and he would have told Dumbledore, I'm sure. And remember that another former DE--Karkaroff--was in residence on the campus, too.

Wynnleaf, I always kind of got the idea from McGonagall--and even from Hermione's reaction to fake Moody's use of the Unforgivables in class--that this might have been carrying it a bit far ... that while real Moody was not one to sugar-coat things, fake-Moody was a little bit harsher even than real Moody.

Then again, when the dustbin incident happened, it seemed from Mr. Diggory's comments that Mad-Eye was a bit paranoid. He seemed to be always in trouble on some Improper Use of Magic offense, for thinking DEs were after him (which they may well have been) and acting accordingly. Barty would have heard all of this through his dad and would have used it to his advantage. So maybe you're right.

Honour - Aug 29, 2009 7:42 am (#1103 of 1104)

Maybe so but Dumbledore was sure fooled! I don't think Harry would have been fooled by a fake Ron, nor Hermione. Mind, Dumbledore did say that when he made a mistake it was usually a doozey! (or words to that effect)

PeskyPixie - Aug 29, 2009 9:58 am (#1104 of 1104)

Honour, I have no problem accepting Moody's explanation, that he turned the cup into a portkey. However, I admit that I would never, by myself, have come to the conclusion that Dumbledore had turned it into a portkey first and that 'Moody' simply added another destination on to it. It is a great explanation, I like it a lot, but I would never have reached it on my own from the material presented in the books.

I am responding to the comments about Dumbledore on his thread.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sponsored content

Harry Potter

Posts 151 to 200

Posts 201 to 250

Posts 251 to 300

Posts 301 to 350

Posts 351 to 400

Posts 401 to 450

Posts 451 to 500

Posts 501 to 550

Posts 551 to 600

Posts 601 to 650

Posts 651 to 700

Posts 701 to 750

Posts 751 to 800

Posts 801 to 850

Posts 851 to 900

Posts 901 to 950

Posts 951 to 1000

Posts 1001 to 1050

Posts 1051 to 1104

Re: Harry Potter