Layers in Harry Potter

[silver ink pot]

Filia: Hi! :p You just answered every single question with a great answer! My favorite is:

Is it possible that Harry is somehow going to learn/invent a new kind of Occlumency? A reverse Occlumency where instead of locking away your emotions you pelt your oponent with thoughts, feelings and ideas that you know he can't bear to feel? Attack as a form of defence?I like this. He will "kill with kindness" the DE's and Voldemort. That's a very Judeo/Christian thought - turning the other cheek seventy times seven. Only there are so many violent images in all the books. Lost eyes. Broken noses. Scars. Obviously, most dark wizards are not the forgiving kind.

I love the parallel of Harry and Dumbledore with their looks that make others afraid when someone is in trouble. Definitely avenging angels.

I keep coming back to this thread almost against my will.:lol: I can't get this Occulumency thing off my mind! I was thinking about all the theories that Harry is reading other's minds without knowing it. I was thinking back to the first book, when Snape takes the Quidditch book away from Harry by quoting a rule about no library books outside the castle. Harry, though he is very young, thinks that is a made-up rule. Now, he has no knowledge of Hogwarts at that time. How does he see through Snape? That's just one example that keeps popping into my mind.

During the chapter on Occulumency, Harry thinks some strange things while Snape is yelling at him. I keep wondering what they mean. For instance, when Snape tells him to let go of his emotions, he thinks "Let go of his anger? He could as easily detach his legs . . ." That keeps reminding me of this "vision" Harry has in GoF as he listens to Mr. Weasley:


"You have to pass a test to Apparate?" Harry asked. "Oh yes," said Mr. Weasley, tucking the tickets safely into the back pocket of his jeans. "The Department of Magical Transportation had to fine a couple of people the other day for Apparating without a license. It's not easy, Apparition, and when it's not done property it can lead to nasty complications. This pair I'm talking about went and splinched themselves." Everyone around the table except Harry winced. "Er - splinched?" said Harry. "They left half of themselves behind," said Mr. Weasley, now spooning large amounts of treacle onto his porridge. "So, of course, they were stuck. Couldn't move either way. Had to wait for the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad to sort them out. Meant a fair old bit of paperwork, I can tell you, what with the Muggles who spotted the body parts they'd left behind..." Harry had a sudden vision of a pair of legs and an eyeball lying abandoned on the pavement of Privet Drive.
Pair of Legs? That is a really weird thought that he keeps having! Is he picking up a memory from someone? Mr. or Mrs. Weasley? Snape? What is this?

Another strange thought or feeling Harry has during Occulumency is that his brain is being pulled out through his nose. That reminds me of Egyptian Mythology, because the Egyptians (as some of you know) thought the heart was where thought occurred, not the brain. They believed that the heart should be left in the body to be weighed after death by the Goddess of truth. So, when the Egyptians mummified people, they removed every organ except the heart. The brain was - that's right - pulled out through the nose. The Egyptians thought the main use of the brain was to produce snot!

[whizbang121]

I'm sorry, what's the A-team theory and where did I miss it.

One thing on Dumbledore, remember in SS/PS

"Some of us do not require a cloak to become invisible"

We never did figure out what that meant.

Maybe he used the disillusionment charm that Moody used on Harry and his escorts in the beginning of OotP?

[Jessica]

Maybe he used the disillusionment charm that Moody used on Harry and his escorts in the beginning of OotP?

I think maybe it's a mind trick. He forces you not to see him even though he's there.

Dunno?

[whizbang121]

I think maybe it's a mind trick. He forces you not to see him even though he's there.

Dunno?

Oooohhh. That's much more magical. :eyebrows:

[Barbara Kennedy]

I think maybe it's a mind trick. He forces you not to see him even though he's there.

Dunno?
That was what I thought, kind of the way The Shadow did it in the old stories on radio.
He had the power to 'cloud men's minds'.

[phoenixsong]

Filia Tenebrarum: some very good thoughts there, both on the parallels between Harry and Dumbledore (in terms of principles and character), and on Inicemency as a possible strategy. That's where all this started, trying to figure out if Occlumency and Legilimency were at all relevant, or if something else altogether different was required to transform the connection between Harry and Voldemort.

On kneazles: I'm inclined to think that they are important for several reasons. The special connection that they have with their owners (and we've seen them most with Squibs, Argus Filch and Arabella Figg; on another thread we discussed them as sort of "magical seeing-eye pets" for Squibs), seems to me to be another example of magical mental contact, like we've discussed. Kneazles are said (in Fantastic Beasts) to have "an uncanny ability to detect unsavoury or suspicious characters" (which was directly relevant to the plot of PoA, though we didn't know who was the unsavoury character that Crookshanks was detecting), and so Mrs. Norris has some sort of preternatural nose for rule-breakers. But more important than this is the fact that she seems able to summon Filch to her side when she detects rule-breakers (e.g. CoS, p. 125, Scholastic ed.: "Drawn to the spot by the mysterious power that seemed to connect him with his foul cat, Argus Filch..."). I don't want to turn this into the "Squibs and their Cats" thread, but only to say that the connection between Squibs and their cats seems to suggest that there are certain forms of mental connection and summoning that are available to magical creatures. And I do think that Hippogriffs, too, practice some sort of "reading" of a person's character, in that initial moment of eye-contact that is necessary in order to relate to a hippogriff.

And my initial query about the Marauders learning legilimency as a form of communicating while transformed, was in part to try to understand the events of the past (who trusted whom), but also to try to figure out the lay of the land for the future. Can Wormtail practice Occlumency? If Snape uses his anger as a foil to hide his true thoughts and emotions, could Wormtail be using his weakness, his cowardice, in the same way?

So - why does Snape use a wand? Just for teaching purpose - to make Harry aware of when he is exactly entering his mind? Maybe. But there could be another reason for that....I think you are right that the use of a wand might facilitate the Legilimens' ability to "interpret" what he or she "sees" in the mind of the person on whom legilimency is being used. What is so strange is that what we see Snape doing doesn't really accord with his description of Legilimency, so nicely laid out in the quotes you've reproduced (thank you!). How is the mind not like a book? Granted, it is a sort of dadaist book, without proper narrative structure, making it harder to find what you want, but if you practice Legilimency long enough on a person, particularly if he or she is not practicing Occlumency, then wouldn't you find anything you are looking for in there?

But I don't think that Snape isn't as biased towards Harry as we think. While his aversion to Harry may be, against his will, altering on account of his experiences with Harry, I don't think that it is faked, or a front, at least not up through book 5. Things may have altered enough there to put Snape in danger (in terms of not being able to "use" hatred of Harry as part of his mental defenses against Voldemort). But up to now, I think that his aversion to Harry has been very, very real, but also, perhaps, useful to his spying efforts.

[Jessica]

That was what I thought, kind of the way The Shadow did it in the old stories on radio.
He had the power to 'cloud men's minds'.

I never saw the Shadow. I didn't realize it had been done before. I was thinking more of the "old Jedi mind tricks". :)

To be honest, I thought you guys would all laugh at the idea. But it makes more sense to me than some of the theories floating around like Dumbledore is half whaetver kind of animal invisibility cloaks are made out of.


BTW whiz and purplehawk, would you guys mind deleting the off topic bits of your posts above before the mods get mad at us and take away this thread too. I can't go through the Prophecy fiasco again! :)

[purplehawk]

I just deleted the one about a certain dude's eyes. If there are any others, I missed them on a quick browse.

I too was thinking of the Jedi mind trick. Why not? The Star Wars story is my third favorite, behind Harry Potter and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.

But I don't think that Snape isn't as biased towards Harry as we think. While his aversion to Harry may be, against his will, altering on account of his experiences with Harry, I don't think that it is faked, or a front, at least not up through book 5. Things may have altered enough there to put Snape in danger (in terms of not being able to "use" hatred of Harry as part of his mental defenses against Voldemort). But up to now, I think that his aversion to Harry has been very, very real, but also, perhaps, useful to his spying efforts.

I agree with your take on this. Snape is a nasty piece of work on most counts, but particularly horrible with a Potter in his sights. No front intended; Snape just does not like Harry, made up his mind to dislike Harry the day Harry set foot in Hogwarts, and hasn't moved a millimeter from dead center since.

[Sabine]

I agree with your take on this. Snape is a nasty piece of work on most counts, but particularly horrible with a Potter in his sights. No front intended; Snape just does not like Harry, made up his mind to dislike Harry the day Harry set foot in Hogwarts, and hasn't moved a millimeter from dead center since.

Well I don't think that Snape is not biased towards Harry - I just said it is a possibility.

Even if I like Snape I know he is full of flaws. And yes he doesn't like Harry, but he doesn't have to. He helps Harry anyway.

And if there was a slight chance do improve Snapes feelings towards Harry, Harry sure did make sure that that wouldn't happen in looking in the pensieve and never apologising for that.

Put purplehawk - you and I know, that we both never ever can come to some understanding where Snape is involved :)

So lets just stick to other things :)

Sabine

[purplehawk]

:lol: You're probably right, Sabine. You like him. I don't. But if anyone was ever going to convince me otherwise, it would be you. I mean that sincerely.

Another thing... I thought Harry was just as far off-base in the occlumency lessons as Snape was. Looking into the pensieve was all wrong, especially after being caught at the same act a year earlier in Dumbledore's office. Harry is old enough, at 16, to know better and to be responsible for his actions. He should have apologized for what he did.

[whizbang121]

Unless they wanted him to look. They knew he'd done it before. Perhaps they were hoping it would happen again? Coincidentally, :huh: that is when the lessons ended. Hmmmm.......

What did Harry see in the pensieve that the Order may have wanted him to know about?

[Jessica]

Ummm, that his dad was a git?

I don't know, I'm not buying the "intentional pensieve" idea on this one.

I will go way out on a limb (think tree branches, Sabine :) ) and give you something I've been thinking about.

What if the whole Lily/James thing was a set up? Not that they're still alive, but that they (with Dumbledore) set up the whole Pettigrew betrayal/Voldemort attack/rebounded curse in order to have "the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal".

The plant at the Hogs Head could also be a set up in that Voldemort was only told enough to lead him into teh Order's hands.

I know, it's far fetched and it's risky. What do you guys think?

[whizbang121]

But Dumbledore didn't know he was going to hear a prophesy. How could they have set up a spy for Voldemort. Unless they caught and stopped the individual who was listening, and sent someone else to Voldemort with the partial prophesy. Very risky. And I think Dumbledore mentioned that the listener was thrown from the pub, rather than stopped.

If Godric's Hollow was also a set up, why weren't the members of the Order there to keep things from getting out of control? At that time, they weren't sure if it was Harry or Neville that was the subject of the prophesy.

And why did Sirius go after Peter if the wanted him to tell Voldemort the Potter's location?
But, anything is possible.

[Jessica]

Told you it was far-fetched ;)

I don't know. You bring up some very good points. Like I said it's just soemthing I've been tossing around in the back of my head. I clearly need to work some more on the details :)

[whizbang121]

You can relax. JKR needs to work on it. ;)

[Sabine]

Ummm, that his dad was a git?

I don't know, I'm not buying the "intentional pensieve" idea on this one.

I will go way out on a limb (think tree branches, Sabine :) ) and give you something I've been thinking about.

What if the whole Lily/James thing was a set up? Not that they're still alive, but that they (with Dumbledore) set up the whole Pettigrew betrayal/Voldemort attack/rebounded curse in order to have "the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal".

The plant at the Hogs Head could also be a set up in that Voldemort was only told enough to lead him into teh Order's hands.

I know, it's far fetched and it's risky. What do you guys think?

Frankly ... in this case I imagined very small treebranches and Bosch and Indy sitting underneath to soften the fall :whistle: :D

Would that mean that the death of Lily and James where sort of a calculated "risk"? To me it sounds way to unbelievable.

And what would be the good thing about forcing Voldemort to mark Harry if Harry wasn't the one approaching with the power?

Nah I don't think there is anything to it.

And I don't think that the pensieve was a "trap" for Harry to run in.

Sabine

[whizbang121]

Oh, well. Only so many plot devises allowed, I guess. But isn't it odd that the lessons stopped right then? Dumbledore must have known and he didn't step in.

Why?

[purplehawk]

He wasn't at Hogwarts when Snape kicked Harry out of the office. I guess Snape might have told him; then again he might not have.

[whizbang121]

Remember all the confusion about occlumency and whether it's supposed to close areas of the mind, as Snape told Harry, or open them, as Ron suspected? Queengumby and Jasper found this quote in OotP.

"I have already said that it was a mistake for me not to teach you myself, though I was sure, at the time, that nothing could have been more dangerous than to open your mind even further to Voldemort while in my presence---"

Uh oh.

[purplehawk]

Wait a minute, now. Snape was using legilimency to open Harry's mind. The idea was for Harry to fight back and close his mind to Snape's attempts at penetration. So, yes, if legilimency is the tool by which one has to learn occlumency, the subject's mind is going to be opened. Right?

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Wait a minute, now. Snape was using legilimency to open Harry's mind. The idea was for Harry to fight back and close his mind to Snape's attempts at penetration. So, yes, if legilimency is the tool by which one has to learn occlumency, the subject's mind is going to be opened. Right?
Right. If the only way to learn Occlumency is through Legilimency. Legilimency in this case is used to test how much Occlumency Harry knew. That's all it is, in this case - a testing device. It's conceivable that there are other ways to teach Occlumency besides just breaking into your mind - Snape touched on that with the part about Harry needing to close his mind to emotion and all that, so it's possible that you can learn Occlumency solely by doing that sort of thing. But regardless, you would still need to test Occlumency with Legilimency or some other device that attempts to open the mind (Do you think the Imperius curse can be blocked by Occlumency?). I think it's a safe assumption that the best, the most foolproof way to teach Occlumency is by breaking into and opening the student's mind.

[purplehawk]

I think it's a safe assumption that the best, the most foolproof way to teach Occlumency is by breaking into and opening the student's mind.

I think so too, Dead. At the same time, it seems such a horrific experience to have someone probing your mind like that that a certain amount of comforting, of patient explanation would be required to make a success of it. This is where I think Snape failed so miserably. He just couldn't - or wouldn't - get past his hatred of the two Potters. As Dumbledore put it, "some wounds run too deep for the healing... "

[whizbang121]

Wait a minute, now. Snape was using legilimency to open Harry's mind. The idea was for Harry to fight back and close his mind to Snape's attempts at penetration. So, yes, if legilimency is the tool by which one has to learn occlumency, the subject's mind is going to be opened. Right?
Yes. I realized that, later. But I agree that there may be other ways to teach occlumency. Even hypnosis will clear the mind if that's all it takes to perform occlumency. And essentially, that's how Harry was instructed to practice before he went to sleep. Why was Snape pointing a wand at Harry and yelling, "Legimens," to teach Harry occlumency? Even Snape can apparently do it with eye contact. Seemingly, so can Dumbledore. What was going on?

[Filia Tenebrarum]

This might be the longest post I've ever read... Good to see you again, Filia. Wish we could see more of you oftener!
Goodness, no, purplehawk; the longest post you've ever read was that one back on the old prophecy thread where I had about six pages to catch up! ;)

They are listed in Fantastic Beasts and JKR confirmed in an interview that Crookshanks was one.
Oh did she? I didn't get that; I just knew there was some theory going around that Crookshanks at the least had some kneazle ancestry.

They believed that the heart should be left in the body to be weighed after death by the Goddess of truth.
Yes, and you know what it was weighed against? A feather. As in a phoenix feather, perhaps, or am I _really_ reading too much into it this time?
The Egyptians thought the main use of the brain was to produce snot!
Well, in the case in the OCR board examiners... Sorry, couldn't resist.

I think maybe it's a mind trick. He forces you not to see him even though he's there.

Dunno?Something Terry Pratchett comes up with: people sometimes don't see things because they know that they can't possible be there. For example, Death can just go into a restaurant and order a curry because the waiter's mind simply refuses to see a black robed skeleton. Perhaps Dumbledore can do something similar; convince people not to see him, even when they're looking at him? Dunno.

Anyone for coffee? Caf or decaf?
I don't want to turn this into the "Squibs and their Cats" thread, but only to say that the connection between Squibs and their cats seems to suggest that there are certain forms of mental connection and summoning that are available to magical creatures. And I do think that Hippogriffs, too, practice some sort of "reading" of a person's character, in that initial moment of eye-contact that is necessary in order to relate to a hippogriff.
Doesn't Konrad Lorenz say something about animals being able to understand unconscious communications from humans? He describes an experiment involving a horse which had been taught (presumably by some sort of hoof stamping code) to communicate a number shown to it on a card. The experimenter designed a card which had one number printed on the front and a faint mirror image of a different number printed on the back, so it appeared to the person holding the card (who wouldn't be allowed to see the front) that they were seeing the number on the front through the card. Thus, the animal saw one number, while the owner thought they were seeing another. The horse, when asked, gave the number _which_the_owner_could_see. This proved that it wasn't reading the number of the card at all, but picking up from the owner what it was expected to say. In this case, an animal was not only picking up emotions and vague thoughts from its owner, it was picking up quite specific things like numbers. Apparently, even in humans, only about ten percent of normal communication is by the actual words. The rest is body language and tone of voice. Makes you wonder how we manage to make ourselves understood to eachother at all here.

Yes. I realized that, later. But I agree that there may be other ways to teach occlumency. Even hypnosis will clear the mind if that's all it takes to perform occlumency. And essentially, that's how Harry was instructed to practice before he went to sleep. Why was Snape pointing a wand at Harry and yelling, "Legimens," to teach Harry occlumency? Even Snape can apparently do it with eye contact. Seemingly, so can Dumbledore. What was going on?
Well, the only reasonable answer I can think of is that Snape simply couldn't resist the excuse to use Legilimency in the most abrupt and violent way against the son of his old enemy. This does sound a bit lame, though. There must be some better answer. Unless there isn't.

[purplehawk]

:lol: Filia! I vaguely remember a few of those tomes.

Yes, and you know what it was weighed against? A feather. As in a phoenix feather, perhaps, or am I _really_ reading too much into it this time?

Is this true? A phoenix feather, really?

Well, the only reasonable answer I can think of is that Snape simply couldn't resist the excuse to use Legilimency in the most abrupt and violent way against the son of his old enemy. This does sound a bit lame, though. There must be some better answer. Unless there isn't.

This is what I meant when I said compassion, comfort, and understanding would be necessary to teach someone occlumency. Snape, being Snape, utterly lacked these qualities. Maybe... maybe he felt he was being bested again by a Potter. "It is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is telling his Death Eaters" comes to mind. Harry rightly guessed that was Snape's assignment with the Order and Snape seemed unduly pithy about it. He said something similar in CoS when Lockhart said he could whip up a mandrake restorative potion in his sleep. "Pardon me, but I believe I am the potions master at this school."

My, my... a bit territorial, isn't he?

[phoenixsong]

Unless they wanted him to look. They knew he'd done it before. Perhaps they were hoping it would happen again? Coincidentally, :huh: that is when the lessons ended. Hmmmm.......

What did Harry see in the pensieve that the Order may have wanted him to know about?Oh, whizbang, here you go again, looking at it from another angle! But I, too, can't really think what they would have wanted him to see there. And wouldn't Snape have extracted just the one, relevant memory, rather than three? Or, maybe Snape really and truly failed: maybe there was ONE memory that he was supposed to leave in the pensieve for Harry to find (who knows, maybe even one of Dumbledore's, or Lily's!), but once he had the pensieve at his disposal, he removed the other memories that he didn't (for whatever reason, his own or Harry's emotional protection) want Harry to see; then Harry saw the wrong one when he looked into the pensieve. But I can't really think of anything really important that he saw in the memory that he saw.

What if the whole Lily/James thing was a set up? Not that they're still alive, but that they (with Dumbledore) set up the whole Pettigrew betrayal/Voldemort attack/rebounded curse in order to have "the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal".

The plant at the Hogs Head could also be a set up in that Voldemort was only told enough to lead him into teh Order's hands.

I know, it's far fetched and it's risky. What do you guys think?Jessica, this thought has crossed my mind many times over the series, even before we knew about the prophecy, doubting whether Lily was somehow "breeding the Messiah", but that just seems too icky and counter to everything the JKR stands for. I suppose you could say that this theory doesn't necessarily diminish Lily's love for Harry, but in my eyes it does, because then Harry would be the weapon, and would have been a technology, not a baby.



Quote: Originally Posted by Dumbledore, OotP, pg 883, Am ed


"I have already said that it was a mistake for me not to teach you myself, though I was sure, at the time, that nothing could have been more dangerous than to open your mind even further to Voldemort while in my presence---"
Uh oh.That is interesting. Even though jessica and hesdead are right, and it is logical that Harry's mind would be "opened" during Occlumency lessons, perhaps we should examine the rest of this quote more closely, the part about it being more dangerous to open it to Voldemort and in Dumbledore's presence. Yes, of course Harry's mind would be opened in the course of learning Occlumency, but WHY opened to Voldemort?? Does Legilimency in-and-of-itself open it to Voldemort, or is it something about Dumbledore's presence that would make it open to Voldemort? Why, oh why, does Occlumency open Harry's mind to Voldemort? I never noticed this before, Dumbledore is basically confirming Harry's and Ron's suspicions, that Occlumency makes it worse, does make Harry more vulnerable, and more vulnerable to Voldemort, at that!


Why was Snape pointing a wand at Harry and yelling, "Legimens," to teach Harry occlumency? Even Snape can apparently do it with eye contact. Seemingly, so can Dumbledore. What was going on?I like the ideas we had before: that the wand enables better-directed penetration of the mind, not simply those things on the surface, but the things hidden and not, seemingly, directly relevant to the conversation at hand. (just an aside here: isn't it interesting that Snape didn't see any memories of himself in Harry's head, even though one would presume that Harry's mind has many burning resentful memories of indignities at Snape's hands). The other idea was that if Voldemort somehow saw Harry's memories of his Occlumency lessons, he would see Snape pointing a wand at Harry and muttering, which would only support Snape's double-agent story.

[Vigilance]

Do you think that the process of learning Occlumency might just over-tire an inexperienced wizard, leaving his defences open at inopportune times? When one first starts an exercise program, the body may be getting stronger, but the muscles do protest and must be messaged back into accepting more punishment day after day with stretching and the like. Could it simply be that learning Occlumency is analogous to building up the muscles of the mind? The mind incrementally gets stronger, but there are moments of protest after hard work that could leave the mind defenseless?

I don't think that Harry was meant to look into the pensieve. I don't think that DD left memories in it before handing it over to Snape. I don't think Snape realized he was leaving some of his memories unattended when he left his dungeoun. I don't think the pensieve is meant to store the memories of dead people.

Having made my position clear, let me say, interesting theory. It will certainly provide enough food for thought until book six comes out--whenever that will be! :grumble:

[Sabine]

I really do wonder a bit why every one seems so surprised that Snape opened Harrys mind in those lessons....thats what I partly wanted to show with my quotes...

It also seems clear to me why "open it to Voldemort" ... Time ans Space matter in magic! and to do Legilimency often eye-contact is needed... BUT there is the scar that Harry has - the permanent connection that he has to Voldemort. A connection that Harry is not able to shut down unless he can do Occlumency. And Voldemort is aware of the connection - so thats why this "opens it to Voldemort"!

Sorry- but I've no more time left - there are cookies do to - I'm back in the evening

Sabine

[barmy codger]

Another thing... I thought Harry was just as far off-base in the occlumency lessons as Snape was. Looking into the pensieve was all wrong, especially after being caught at the same act a year earlier in Dumbledore's office. Harry is old enough, at 16, to know better and to be responsible for his actions. He should have apologized for what he did.
Kindly allow me to butt in with an observation, although the quote is from the previous page.

Harry has been chastised in other threads for looking into Snape's worst memory, and every time I read that sort of thing I think: Wait a minute, why is it so wrong to look into the pensieve on this occasion? Under normal circumstances, yes, it would be an invasion of privacy, and wrong to do. But In these occlumency sessions Harry has had is mind repeatedly invaded by Snape and Snape has seen some of Harry's memories of humiliation. Why is it wrong for Harry to see Snape's in return? If the situation were put on a fair basis, Snape, the one with the skills at occlumency and greater likelihood of protecting his own thoughts, should have allowed Harry to use the pensieve to store his own memories. Harry with no skill should have been allowed this safeguard, as it was certain Snape would be able to open Harry's mind.

Also, remember that Harry throughout book 5 was in no normal frame of mind and could not be expected to make well reasoned choices all the time. In this case he was in great need of information. At one point when he repelled Snape from his mind and actually entered Snape's mind, Harry saw disturbing images from Snape's past. These showed Harry that his opinon of Snape must be re-assessed. That would increase Harry's curiosity which was already high from a lack of information.

It seems to me also that leaving the pensieve in front of Harry was like leaving a cookie jar in front of a child. It increased my impression that Snape is not very clever in some respects -especially social understanding. The lapse is so glaring that some are wondering whether or not it was deliberate.

Mostly I feel it was a plot event designed for the important exchange of information between Harry and Snape. It was accomplished at Harry's expense and I feel the kid should be given some slack.

Finally, I find the occlumency business confusing. If it was dangerous to have Harry's mind opened to Voldemort during lessons in Dumbledore's presence, wouldn't it also be undesirable to have Harry's mind open to Voldemort in Snape's presence? It can't be good for Voldemort to know that Snape was helping Harry. But the entire book 5 seems to be saying there is an important connection between Harry and Dumbledore that Voldemort shouldn't know about.

[Lupin_Lady]

People do tend to chastise Harry for looking in to Snapes pensive and seeing his worst memory. But do not forget that Snape was in Harry's mind seeing all his worst memories too... so what goes around comes around.

[purplehawk]

Oh my! Interesting logic, Lupin Lady and barmy codger, but it doesn't change the fact what Harry did was morally wrong. If your math teacher were giving you a terrible time in class, would you be justified in accessing his computer and reviewing his financial records? Snape removed those memories for a reason - a reason Harry understood, or understood enough to know Snape didn't want to risk inadvertently sharing them. An offense like that would get most students booted from schools that use the honor or moral system.

[lorna]

Here's what was wrong with Harry going into the pensieve.
Snape removed those memories from his own brain so Harry couldn't see them. That implies that they are private -- period.
Now Harry should have had the same opprotunity except that he didn't know how and it's unlikely Snape could do it for him. How would anyone know what memory is "too private". Only the owner of the memory knows that.
And since Harry was not exactly applying himself it's unlikely he would have learned.
And there was only one pensieve. Can the memories of more than one person be stored in it at the same time. There didn't seem to be any of DD swirling about in there in Book 5.
I might also add Harry shows an appalling lack of common sense re:
pensieves as it's never been indicated he knows how to get out of them once in. Both times somebody else has gotten him out.
So there are actually two good reason why it was wrong. A) It was an invasion of privacy B) you don't know what your doing, Harry.

[Lupin_Lady]

Oh my! Interesting logic, Lupin Lady and barmy codger, but it doesn't change the fact what Harry did was morally wrong. If your math teacher were giving you a terrible time in class, would you be justified in accessing his computer and reviewing his financial records? Snape removed those memories for a reason - a reason Harry understood, or understood enough to know Snape didn't want to risk inadvertently sharing them. An offense like that would get most students booted from schools that use the honor or moral system.

I think it would be justified if the teacher was giving me a hard time because of private issuses that the teacher only knows about through privlige...

[purplehawk]

I think it would be justified if the teacher was giving me a hard time because of private issuses that the teacher only knows about through privlige...

It wouldn't be justified even then.

[Sabine]

People do tend to chastise Harry for looking in to Snapes pensive and seeing his worst memory. But do not forget that Snape was in Harry's mind seeing all his worst memories too... so what goes around comes around.

Why is it wrong for Harry to see Snape's in return? If the situation were put on a fair basis, Snape, the one with the skills at occlumency and greater likelihood of protecting his own thoughts, should have allowed Harry to use the pensieve to store his own memories. Harry with no skill should have been allowed this safeguard, as it was certain Snape would be able to open Harry's mind.

I think it is wrong because Snape didn't do it of curiosity ... he had to brake in the mind of Harry to give him the chance to learn Occlumency. I highly doubt that one can learn Occlumency by reading about in a book. And Snape never gave the impression that he liked the idea of teaching Harry Occlumency very much.

Just like Fake-Moody put the imperius curse on Harry to give him the chance to fight it off.

And Snape didn't put all his bad memories in the pensieve - Harry got a few of them.

It's just as you learn Ju-jutsu. The one with the greater skill doesn't get one hand tied to his back to create "a fair basis".

It seems to me also that leaving the pensieve in front of Harry was like leaving a cookie jar in front of a child. It increased my impression that Snape is not very clever in some respects -especially social understanding. The lapse is so glaring that some are wondering whether or not it was deliberate.

If Harry was a three year old child I would agree. But a 15 year old should have learned that just because there is a cookie jar in front of his nose he can not help himself. All through the book Harry is "complaining" that he is left out, not told about everything and so on. And then there is the chance to act like a "grown up" and he fails so deeply. :sigh:


I might also add Harry shows an appalling lack of common sense re:
pensieves as it's never been indicated he knows how to get out of them once in. Both times somebody else has gotten him out.

:lol: :lol:

You know what? That was exactly what I was thinking when I reached that part the first time in the book: "Oh dear - does that really have to be done? Have you figured out how to get out there on your own??????????????"

Sabine

[whizbang121]

I like the ideas we had before: that the wand enables better-directed penetration of the mind, not simply those things on the surface, but the things hidden and not, seemingly, directly relevant to the conversation at hand. Very likely. But that just opens the question, what is the objective? Is it to teach Harry occlumency or to penetrate his mind and see what's in there? It would seem that if the objective was actually to teach occlumency, less penetrative methods would have been employed, at least in the beginning, and as each step was mastered more penetrative methods used. It seems like this is more than occlumency lessons. This is spying on Harry's mind. Conversely, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the pensieve wasn't left there carelessly. They expected Harry to look in and he did. When Snape had completed his mission of probing Harry's mind and giving him access to information they wanted him to have, the lessons ended. :huh: Very wierd. I need a life:agree:

(just an aside here: isn't it interesting that Snape didn't see any memories of himself in Harry's head, even though one would presume that Harry's mind has many burning resentful memories of indignities at Snape's hands). The other idea was that if Voldemort somehow saw Harry's memories of his Occlumency lessons, he would see Snape pointing a wand at Harry and muttering, which would only support Snape's double-agent story.Okay, that's a good point. Hmmm.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It also seems clear to me why "open it to Voldemort" ... Time ans Space matter in magic! and to do Legilimency often eye-contact is needed... BUT there is the scar that Harry has - the permanent connection that he has to Voldemort. A connection that Harry is not able to shut down unless he can do Occlumency. And Voldemort is aware of the connection - so thats why this "opens it to Voldemort"! this is an important point. The connection between Harry and Voldemort is unique. How does anyone know whether occluemency and legimency, which seems to be magic practiced among "normal" wizards, will even work in this unusual situation?

[Sabine]

It would seem that if the objective was actually to teach occlumency, less penetrative methods would have been employed, at least in the beginning, and as each step was mastered more penetrative methods used. It seems like this is more than occlumency lessons. This is spying on Harry's mind. Conversely, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the pensieve wasn't left there carelessly. They expected Harry to look in and he did. When Snape had completed his mission of probing Harry's mind and giving him access to information they wanted him to have, the lessons ended. :huh: Very wierd. I need a life:agree:

Remember how Harry learned to fight the Imperius curse? He learned to fight it while he was under it.

I think you either do Legilimency on someone or you don't so it. I don't think there is something like "Legilimency-light" with half the power or something.

And you are completely right (even if I know your meaning it some other way ;)) the pensieve wasn't left carelessly!

Snape (and for what it matters Harry too) both were taken by surprise from the interruption of Malfoy. (Who - needless to say didn't even muster the decency to KNOCK before he entered!) Think about it .... You are Snape - you are to give Harry "remedial potions" .... someone steps into the room and sees you with your wand pointing at Harry, no cauldrons out, no fumes of bubbling potions .... and you are told that Umbridge wants to see you. Would you make yourself even more suspicious and say: "Oh just wait a moment I have to take the pensieve with me" or "wait I have to putmy memories back where they belong!" The best thing to do actually WAS to leave the room together with Malfoy and not giving him a chance to gather anything.

Sabine

edit: after whizbang edited her post


this is an important point. The connection between Harry and Voldemort is unique. How does anyone know whether occluemency and legimency, which seems to be magic practiced among "normal" wizards, will even work in this unusual situation?

maybe they didn't know for sure that Occlumency would help. But to try it anyway seems to me a logical thing to do.

Sabine

[barmy codger]

Although I was defending Harry, I must say that I agree that what he did, looking into the pensieve, was wrong. I am tempted to think that the business with Snape and occlumency was an unsatisfactory piece of writing because these things in the story had to be established but it was done by reflecting badly on Harry's character. However, what was even more disappointing to me was Harry's use of an Unforgivable Curse against Bellatrix Lestrange. Dumbledore didn't stoop to this when he rounded up the Deatheaters or even when confronting Voldemort.

My conclusion is that these examples of Harry's poor judgment are deliberate portrayals. I don't know why this is but some things I considered are:

When in his upbringing would Harry have learned anything about ethical conduct? What kind of role models would the Dursleys have been? With this in mind, I am surprised Harry has any sense of right and wrong at all. Yet countless times he is noble minded and shows a sense of fair play and shows compassion.

The role models Harry was looking to during school, his father and Sirius Black, turned out to have ethical shortcomings as well. So where will he get his necessary moral direction? Or will he get it?

If Harry has a direct link with Voldemort and has been suffering from his influence, would this not impinge on Harry's conduct as well? Apart from evil vibes affecting his values, how can Harry think straight with constant nightmares, headaches, and a burning scar?

So will occlumency be enough? Or does it boil down to "neither can live while the other survives"?

[purplehawk]

Harry will have an excellent ethics professor in Albus Dumbledore. I really think we are going to see some great stuff between these two in the next book, not just occlumency, but more.

Harry also has Remus Lupin, who should play a huge role now with Sirius gone. And there is always Snape, who is a stunning example of how not to act.

[JadeDragon]

I'm glad that you realize that looking at Snape's private memories was morally wrong. Harry has flaws, just like everyone else. It's important that he is human, and not an untempted, uncorrruptible saint who can't make a mistake to learn by. These experiences are a part of life and, importantly to the novel, growing up.
It's true that Harry has no great role-models in the muggle world, but I can tell you from experience that being made to feel guilty for breathing will keep you in line when you're young, morally.
As for the curse on BL, Harry is a very young man who has not learned yet to turn the other cheek. He still thinks to lash out when hurt in a "fight fire with fire" response. Many young people have this problem, and part of growing up is learning that the means of achieving your goal is as important as the outcome being justifiable.
I also think that if these moral obstacles didn't exist that the books would be very dull indeed.:)

[Masterfroggy]

Harry will have an excellent ethics professor in Albus Dumbledore. I really think we are going to see some great stuff between these two in the next book, not just occlumency, but more.

Harry also has Remus Lupin, who should play a huge role now with Sirius gone. And there is always Snape, who is a stunning example of how not to act.

Feel free to pick faults with these ideas,
I though that the reason that Dumbledore wanted Snape to teach Harry the arts of Legilimency and Occlumency was to prevent Voldemort being able to attack Dumbledore's mind using Harry as a gateway.


"I have already said that it was a mistake for me not to teach you myself, though I was sure, at the time, that nothing could have been more dangerous than to open your mind even further to Voldemort while in my presence---"


Dumbledore must have vast amounts of useful information about the 'Order' littering his mind, I am sure that he would not be so brutal as the potions master in preventing Harry from looking into his mind, were Harry to find just even a hint about the Prophecy, Voldemort would not need to expose himself to danger by going to the MoM, but just wait and pick bits from Harry's mind

Unless of course Voldemort can only broadcast images for Harry to see. Was the Snake attack on Arthur Weasley a test, or was it only then that Voldemort realised that someone must be reading his thought, as that would have been the only way that the Order could have reacted so quickly,

However, if the painting could move about, surely there would have been more then one way to find out about Arthur, Voldemort might have felt Harry for the first time, because of Harry's reaction to the Attack

Snape using a wand to read Harry's emotions would be a little like trying to open an egg with a hammer, he would have to be very skilled or very careless as to the damage done, perhaps he was the best person for the job, perhaps there are some wizarding skill that Dumbledore is not the supreme master of.

Harry, looking into the Penscive was the act of a poorly disciplined child, and should be treated as that, he has had very few role models to show him the right way to behave, but hopefully from here on in, he will understand, treat others as you want to be treated, Snape has as much right to the privacy of his own head as Harry

[whizbang121]

Kindly allow me to butt in with an observation, although the quote is from the previous page. By all means. Please jump in.

At one point when he repelled Snape from his mind and actually entered Snape's mind, Harry saw disturbing images from Snape's past. This sounds like the observation a while back that Harry is the legimens and Voldemort is having to do occlumency. Maybe Snape puts his thoughts in the pensieve and uses the wand and forcefully spoken spell, because Harry is a daunting legimens. Without all the protection he can get, Harry would probably melt Snape's brain. Interesting. I think Purplehawk suggested that Harry could already do legilimency. Hmmmmm........

The lapse is so glaring that some are wondering whether or not it was deliberate. It looks more and more like that.

Mostly I feel it was a plot event designed for the important exchange of information between Harry and Snape. It was accomplished at Harry's expense and I feel the kid should be given some slack. If only. But I don't think even Dumbledore is sure of the full extent of Harry's abilities.

But the entire book 5 seems to be saying there is an important connection between Harry and Dumbledore that Voldemort shouldn't know about.
sigh. There are some interesting threads devoted to this point. Any ideas?

If Harry has a direct link with Voldemort and has been suffering from his influence, would this not impinge on Harry's conduct as well? Apart from evil vibes affecting his values, how can Harry think straight with constant nightmares, headaches, and a burning scar?This has been my feeling. I think a lot of Harry's behavior in this book is related to the connection to Voldemort in the scar.

So will occlumency be enough? Or does it boil down to "neither can live while the other survives"?
I don't understand where you're going with this thought? Is it either one or the othr?

I though that the reason that Dumbledore wanted Snape to teach Harry the arts of Legilimency and Occlumency was to prevent Voldemort being able to attack Dumbledore's mind using Harry as a gateway. Dumbledore wanted Harry to learn occlumency to prevent Voldemort getting into Harry's mind. He decided Snape should instruct Harry rather than teaching Harry himself, because he believed it would be dangerous to open Harry's mind to Voldemort in his, (Dumbledore's), presence. Yes? No?;)

... were Harry to find just even a hint about the Prophecy, Voldemort would not need to expose himself to danger by going to the MoM, but just wait and pick bits from Harry's mind. He can probably do that in the next book. :shrug:

Unless of course Voldemort can only broadcast images for Harry to see. Was the Snake attack on Arthur Weasley a test, or was it only then that Voldemort realised that someone must be reading his thought, as that would have been the only way that the Order could have reacted so quickly, I think it was the latter. And rather than broadcast images for Harry, I suspect he only had to hold the thought. Harry can see into his mind. In this connection, Harry is already the legimens. Or so it seems.

Harry, looking into the Penscive was the act of a poorly disciplined child, and should be treated as that, he has had very few role models to show him the right way to behave, but hopefully from here on in, he will understand, treat others as you want to be treated, Snape has as much right to the privacy of his own head as Harry
I'm going to wait on this one. It does seem as though certain of Harry's behaviour is related to his connection to Voldemort. And curiosity has served him well in the past. Harry is a warrior and in spite of Dumbledore's reassurances, he doesn't trust Snape. Looking into the pensieve was a covert act of soldier heading into battle. I have no problems with the morality of it. The rules are different in war. Heaven knows, I would have looked. Twice. :agree:

[barmy codger]

Just a few comments while I have a moment.

First, thank you all for your insights, especially JadeDragon about feeling guilty for breathing.

I am puzzled still why Dumbledore wanted to avoid occlumency with Harry. It is true Snape has less in his head to reveal to Voldemort, but I would have thought Dumbledore's mind "well organised" since he commented on it as being a good thing, so to speak. Having better mental discipline, he ought to be able to control what came out through Harry to Voldemort. One possibility is this: Dumbledore is the only one Voldemort fears. But Dumbledore has said he doesn't have powers Voldemort has. So perhaps he is afraid Voldemort will discover Dumbledore is vulnerable in some way, which should not be allowed to happen before Harry is up to speed.

I don't understand where you're going with this thought? Is it either one or the othr?

What I was thinking in a vague way is that the connection between Voldemort and Harry may be so powerful and unique that it will go way beyond the normal uses of occlumency and legilimency. Harry will have to discover his own way to deal with Voldemort at that level. So it may be taken to the point that it can only be done by one or the other being eliminated completely to achieve freedom from the bond. For that matter, the use of occlumency has already been left behind, since Voldemort completely possessed Harry but Harry threw him out, in effect. Has Voldemort seen what's in Harry's head? Has he seen that Dumbledore is there, but that the one to fear is Harry himself?

I have been looking for Dumbledore to be Harry's mentor since book one. He has been that in an indirect way, yes. But actively together they should be wonderful. Sirius Black filled Harry's need, but I always thought Dumbledore would fill it like no one else.

[phoenixsong]

Finally, I find the occlumency business confusing. If it was dangerous to have Harry's mind opened to Voldemort during lessons in Dumbledore's presence, wouldn't it also be undesirable to have Harry's mind open to Voldemort in Snape's presence? It can't be good for Voldemort to know that Snape was helping Harry. But the entire book 5 seems to be saying there is an important connection between Harry and Dumbledore that Voldemort shouldn't know about.Well, right, that is what I was trying to ask. We are supposed to connect this statement about not opening Harry's mind to Voldemort in Dumbledore's presence to that moment after the attack on Mr. Weasley when Harry felt the serpent presence in himself when he met Dumbledore's eyes. But the question is, is this about Harry's relationship to Dumbledore, as you suggest, or about Dumbledore's relationship to Voldemort?

It would seem that if the objective was actually to teach occlumency, less penetrative methods would have been employed, at least in the beginning, and as each step was mastered more penetrative methods used. Well, just to play Devil's Advocate here, it should be pointed out that this is a teacher who regularly begins the semester with very difficult, advanced lessons, apparently to "make an impression" with his students, even though, pedagogically speaking, it would make more sense to start with the basics. On the other hand, on at least one occasion, namely when Snape took over Lupin's class, we have seen Snape turn to an advanced subject for a reason, in that case to try to get the students to figure out "on their own" that Lupin was a werewolf.

Conversely, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the pensieve wasn't left there carelessly. They expected Harry to look in and he did. When Snape had completed his mission of probing Harry's mind and giving him access to information they wanted him to have, the lessons ended. :huh:I'm not yet convinced, whizbang, on account of Snape's anger seeming rather real when he discovers Harry in the pensieve. Of course, he could be angry because Harry discovered the "wrong" memory in the pensieve, but then his mission would not be accomplished, and he would have to continue the lessons.

this is an important point. The connection between Harry and Voldemort is unique. How does anyone know whether occluemency and legimency, which seems to be magic practiced among "normal" wizards, will even work in this unusual situation?Well, presumably it is not unique. One explanation would be the "previous Dark Lords and Ones" ideas, with the notion that Dumbledore has been in Harry's shoes before.

I though that the reason that Dumbledore wanted Snape to teach Harry the arts of Legilimency and Occlumency was to prevent Voldemort being able to attack Dumbledore's mind using Harry as a gateway.Or to attack Dumbledore himself using Harry's body while possessing his mind, as we saw in the DoM. But I think that whizbang is right, we haven't really been given an answer to this question. This speaks to barmy codger's post, too. I think that what we definitively learned in OotP is that Harry, not Dumbledore, is "The Only One He Ever Feared" even though this epithet has been given to Dumbledore through all the books. It is possible, and I think we are led to believe, that Dumbledore was mistaken in his belief that Harry, as a young, not fully trained wizard, would be used as a tool to attack Dumbledore, and that he, Dumbledore, would do best to keep Harry alive as long as possible to give him more conventional training as a wizard. Dumbledore may have learned that it isn't really about conventional training (though this has been extremely important as well), but will need to be about the specifics of the relationship between Harry and Voldemort, and the exact nature of the connection between them.

And let's not forget the important moralizing role that Hermione has begun to play for Harry: he now sometimes hears her voice inside his head, speaking of the ethics of various situations.

[sindatur]

Oh, I couldn't agree more. Dumbledore has always been nearer at hand than Harry knew. I often wonder about the scene when Harry, Ron, Ginny, and Fawkes enter McGonagall's office after leaving the Chamber of Secrets behind. Molly was in tears, McGonagall was having an anxiety attack, Arthur Weasley didn't seem to know what to do with himself, and Dumbledore was standing there beaming? Beaming! Fawkes knew exactly where to find him, too, and Dumbledore didn't seem at all surprised that Fawkes was with them instead of wherever he should have been. "You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber, Harry. Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you... "



Same here. I bet she'll be really surprised to see how far her nudge took us!

Sorry, I've got a lot of posts to catchup on, so this one may be out of the current thread of conversation, but, wanted to slide it in.

I definitely got the impression in Order of the Phoenix, that Dumbledore has felt the need to allow Harry to stumble into these encounters with Voldemort, as part of his preparation for the future. Additionally, if you believe the "Dumbledore is Ron" theory, and that Ron somehow went back in time, and changed his name to Albus Dumbldore, that means Dumbledore knows all these things happened, and doing anything to prevent them could drastically damage the timeline. So, if it is something along these lines, (or Dumbledore living backwards in time like Merlin, or any other way Dumbledore may know the future) it really doesn't matter how badly Dumbledore may want to spare Harry, or help him more, there's only so much he can do safely. Knowing the future would be a terrible burden, if you really think about it. I am not convinced of the "Ron is Dumbledore" theory, but, I think there is alot to support it. The long fingers, the red hair, the all knowingness of Dumbledore, yet he allows things to happen, the Bertie Botts bean in his youth, even though they weren't invented until well after his youth, etc.

Back to reading, will reply to more later.

[Sabine]

Additionally, if you believe the "Dumbledore is Ron" theory, and that Ron somehow went back in time, and changed his name to Albus Dumbldore, that means Dumbledore knows all these things happened, and doing anything to prevent them could drastically damage the timeline. So, if it is something along these lines, (or Dumbledore living backwards in time like Merlin, or any other way Dumbledore may know the future) it really doesn't matter how badly Dumbledore may want to spare Harry, or help him more, there's only so much he can do safely. Knowing the future would be a terrible burden, if you really think about it. I am not convinced of the "Ron is Dumbledore" theory, but, I think there is alot to support it. The long fingers, the red hair, the all knowingness of Dumbledore, yet he allows things to happen, the Bertie Botts bean in his youth, even though they weren't invented until well after his youth, etc.

Back to reading, will reply to more later.

Now waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait a minute!!!!!!

Another time-travel-thoery and I don't even know about it?????? *shakes head* Dumbledore is Ron???????? Can someone please point me in that direction??

Even so I'm not sure that I really want to read about another timetravel-episode...

Sabine

[whizbang121]

Additionally, if you believe the "Dumbledore is Ron" theory, and that Ron somehow went back in time, and changed his name to Albus Dumbldore, that means Dumbledore knows all these things happened, and doing anything to prevent them could drastically damage the timeline. So, if it is something along these lines, (or Dumbledore living backwards in time like Merlin, or any other way Dumbledore may know the future) it really doesn't matter how badly Dumbledore may want to spare Harry, or help him more, there's only so much he can do safely. Knowing the future would be a terrible burden, if you really think about it. I am not convinced of the "Ron is Dumbledore" theory, but, I think there is alot to support it. The long fingers, the red hair, the all knowingness of Dumbledore, yet he allows things to happen, the Bertie Botts bean in his youth, even though they weren't invented until well after his youth, etc.

Back to reading, will reply to more later. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Is that the "Magic Dishwasher" theory? I know it comes for Harry Potter for Grown Ups at Yahoo. Hmmmmm.... I'll go look for it there so we'll all know what your alluding to.;)

[sindatur]

Magic Dishwasher Theory, LOL, never heard that name for a theory.

I'm terrible at performing searches, but I believe the Thread should be called "Ron is Dumbledore" or something like that, possibly in the Old Great Hall Thread.

Anyway, because Dumbledore always seems to know things, and often does nothing to change them it's been theorized that he has knowledge of the future. One of those theories as to why is that he was born as Ron Weasley, and somehow, someway, got sent back in time 100+ years, and adopted a new name (Albus...Dumbledore) and family.

The descriptions of Dumbledore can be seen as working for Ron, if you add 140 years onto Ron's age (Tall, Skinny, long fingers, etc). Dumbledore says he had a bad experience with a Bertie Bott's Bean in his youth, but, he would've already been about 75yrs old when they were invented. The one thing those who believe in the theory are waiting for is for Ron to break his nose playing Quidditch in the 6 or 7th book, since Ron's nose does not match Dumbledore's.

This theory explains Dumbledore's love for Harry, his knowing what Harry is going to do (and the further Ron gets from a first hand account of the action, the less knowledgeable Dumbledore seems to be. For instance Dumbledore seemed to know Harry was going to go into the Chamber of Secrets, and knows details, but, doesn't sound as if he was actually there, where in other cases when Ron had a first hand account, Dumbledore seems to know exact details. The inconsistency of Dumbledore having Bertie Bott's Beans in his youth, when they weren't invented yet. The fact that Dumbledore has such a sweet tooth, as Ron does. Alot of circumstancial evidence to support it, and little solid proof against (the biggest is the broken nose, which Ron doesn't have yet, although being a Quidditch Keeper very likely to happen in future).

I'm not solidly convinced of this theory, but, I do have an open mind that it is possible, and explains alot of things if true.

Can someone better at searching perhaps find the thread and post a link? Maybe the topic ended up getting deleted (or I never actually posted in the real topic, only when Book 5 predictions went off topic) cause I couldn't fnd it, even though I found my off topic posts in the other thread.

[Vigilance]

So, which Ron's brothers goes back in time and masquerades as Aberforth the goat-harrasser?

[whizbang121]

I found it. It's called Redhead Forever, I think. The link (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/53369)
goes to a post at HP4GU in yahoo.groups.
Someone posted it here, too a while back. But it must have been deleted because a search couldn't unearth it.
///
Spoke too soon. There is a mention of it in post 29 on this (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=9511&page=1&pp=50&highlight=trevor) page.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

Is this true? A phoenix feather, really?
I don't know if it was; it was just a guess. I don't know if the type of feather is ever specified, but then I've only ever read very tertiary sources (yes, Horrible Historys, I confess!). I'm not very knowledgable in the area of Egyptian mythology.

That is interesting. Even though jessica and hesdead are right, and it is logical that Harry's mind would be "opened" during Occlumency lessons, perhaps we should examine the rest of this quote more closely, the part about it being more dangerous to open it to Voldemort and in Dumbledore's presence. Yes, of course Harry's mind would be opened in the course of learning Occlumency, but WHY opened to Voldemort?? Does Legilimency in-and-of-itself open it to Voldemort, or is it something about Dumbledore's presence that would make it open to Voldemort? Why, oh why, does Occlumency open Harry's mind to Voldemort? I never noticed this before, Dumbledore is basically confirming Harry's and Ron's suspicions, that Occlumency makes it worse, does make Harry more vulnerable, and more vulnerable to Voldemort, at that!
Hmm. There are two ways to handle this. Either the Tiptoeing Round the Problem in the Hope That It Won't Wake Up method (Harry and Voldemort have this connection, anything that weakens Harry's mind will open this connection further; basically, it's a side effect and unavoidable) or there's the Hitting the Problem Over the Head with a Brand New Theory Method. Which do you like best?

I like the ideas we had before: that the wand enables better-directed penetration of the mind, not simply those things on the surface, but the things hidden and not, seemingly, directly relevant to the conversation at hand.
That's a good idea! Especially as that fits in rather nicely with the general philosophy of wand/wandless magic: magic can occur without a wand and this kind of magic is often ultimately more powerful; but focused and controlled magic requires a wand.

If Harry was a three year old child I would agree. But a 15 year old should have learned that just because there is a cookie jar in front of his nose he can not help himself. All through the book Harry is "complaining" that he is left out, not told about everything and so on. And then there is the chance to act like a "grown up" and he fails so deeply.
That's the catch, I suppose, with all arguments for giving teenagers more rights and responsibilities. We (I speak for myself here, but I imagine other people feel the same way, and we know that Harry does) desperately want to be adults, but we don't behave like them quite enough to demand the right to be treated as such. For my part, I am very clearly aware of what teenage behaviour is, and often go out of my way to avoid it. This has some advantages, but I can't avoid behaving like a teenager _all_ the time and perhaps it's healthier not to spend all your free time in self-analysis (better to spend it in HP analysis :agree: ). In Harry's position, I would never have looked in the Pensieve, but only because I was too scared, not out of respect for Snape's privacy. Afterwards, I would have backed up my lack of action with moral considerations and told myself I had been a good girl. So, I don't know, I don't think I'm in much of a position to pass judgement, really. :sigh:

The role models Harry was looking to during school, his father and Sirius Black, turned out to have ethical shortcomings as well. So where will he get his necessary moral direction? Or will he get it?
Dumbledore. But then, in OotP he was severed from Dumbledore as well. Taking codger's post into account makes Dumbledore's mistake in cutting himself off from Harry even worse. But, goodness, yes when Harry used the Unforgivable Curse! I've heard all reactions, from excitement to horror and I'm sure it's intended that way. JK is definitely going in for the shock factor. She's also opened up the most frightening possibility to date as far as the ending's concerned; a corrupted Harry, all the goodness beaten out of him by his experiences. I don't believe this will happen but...

Harry also has Remus Lupin, who should play a huge role now with Sirius gone. And there is always Snape, who is a stunning example of how not to act.
He doesn't need Snape; he's got the Example Of How Not To Do It attatched to him via his forhead.

Finally, I find the occlumency business confusing. If it was dangerous to have Harry's mind opened to Voldemort during lessons in Dumbledore's presence, wouldn't it also be undesirable to have Harry's mind open to Voldemort in Snape's presence? It can't be good for Voldemort to know that Snape was helping Harry. But the entire book 5 seems to be saying there is an important connection between Harry and Dumbledore that Voldemort shouldn't know about.
Well, I spose the point is that Dumbledore has a weakness, id est, Harry. Voldemort's speciality is manipulating people using their emotions, particularly their higher ones, which he prides himself on not having at all. Dumbledore doesn't want to put Harry in the position of bait, or himself in the position of a fish, by letting Voldemort have information concerning the bond between Dumbledore and Harry.

I think that what we definitively learned in OotP is that Harry, not Dumbledore, is "The Only One He Ever Feared" even though this epithet has been given to Dumbledore through all the books.
Dumbledore _was_ the Only One He Ever Feared (note past tense). Now Voldemort fears Harry, possibly even more than he ever feared Dumbledore.

[whizbang121]

What I was thinking in a vague way is that the connection between Voldemort and Harry may be so powerful and unique that it will go way beyond the normal uses of occlumency and legilimency. Harry will have to discover his own way to deal with Voldemort at that level. So it may be taken to the point that it can only be done by one or the other being eliminated completely to achieve freedom from the bond. It does seem like the final battle must be fought in the connection forged by the scar.
For that matter, the use of occlumency has already been left behind, since Voldemort completely possessed Harry but Harry threw him out, in effect. Has Voldemort seen what's in Harry's head? Has he seen that Dumbledore is there, but that the one to fear is Harry himself?

These are good points in the context of whether Dumbledore will teach Harry occlumency in the next book. Perhaps Harry doesn't need to close his mind because he can fill his heart. It's how he produces a patronus in the presence of a dementor, as well. But the question of what if anything Voldemort may have seen while he possessed Harry is especially intriguing. Voldemort has been unusually occlumented since that time. :huh: Hmmmmmmmmmmm...............

But the question is, is this about Harry's relationship to Dumbledore, as you (Barmy Codger) suggest, or about Dumbledore's relationship to Voldemort?
It could be about many things, but that question looms again this morning. Remeber how Harry is only safe from Voldemort at the Dursley's? That's what Dumbledore told him. But Lily's protection was active, if not complete, in Hogwarts when Harry was attacked by Quirrell/Voldemort. Does Harry have a blood bond with someone who resides at Hogwarts? If it is Dumbledore, why did he not raise the boy himself? Because he doesn't want Voldemort to know of the blood relationship? :huh:

Well, presumably it is not unique. One explanation would be the "previous Dark Lords and Ones" ideas, with the notion that Dumbledore has been in Harry's shoes before.But Dumbledore's scar is :lol: above the knee. I wonder what the nature of that connection might have been. :rotfl:
But if that theory holds, then only Dumbledore has a clue what Harry needs to ultimately face Voldemort. And sometimes, I suspect he's still feeling his way along. I'm probably misreading the signs on this. JKR said that Dumbledore spoke for her, so maybe I need to trust him more.
I think that what we definitively learned in OotP is that Harry, not Dumbledore, is "The Only One He Ever Feared" even though this epithet has been given to Dumbledore through all the books. I remember we thought this was the reason the Order didn't want Voldemort to hear the prophesy, so he wouldn't know that Harry was the only one who could do him in.
It is possible, and I think we are led to believe, that Dumbledore was mistaken in his belief that Harry, as a young, not fully trained wizard, would be used as a tool to attack Dumbledore, and that he, Dumbledore, would do best to keep Harry alive as long as possible to give him more conventional training as a wizard. Dumbledore may have learned that it isn't really about conventional training (though this has been extremely important as well), but will need to be about the specifics of the relationship between Harry and Voldemort, and the exact nature of the connection between them. I think this is what I was getting at above. If the Harry/Voldemort situaltion is similar to the Dumbledore/Grindelwald, why doesn't Dumbledore have a clearer idea of how to prepare Harry? The problem for me is that I think there are parallels. I also think that Flamel is still advising Dumbledore. Why aren't they clearer on some of these things? :grumble:
I definitely got the impression in Order of the Phoenix, that Dumbledore has felt the need to allow Harry to stumble into these encounters with Voldemort, as part of his preparation for the future.
This is the magic dishwasher theory. Dumbledore sets up situations. For example, he arranges for Peter to escape to Voldemort so that he will use Peter's blood tainted by the blood bond to Harry, in his rebirthing potion.Additionally, if you believe the "Dumbledore is Ron" theory, and that Ron somehow went back in time, and changed his name to Albus Dumbldore, that means Dumbledore knows all these things happened, and doing anything to prevent them could drastically damage the timeline.This is the Redhead Forever theory. They are both from HP4GU. Although I don't know if they had the ideas first on that board, they certainly expounded on them at length.
My general belief is that Dumbledore is moving, by whatever means, through time. I wonder how many events in all the books are, in fact, do-overs. (Don't let Sabine hit me. :angel: :D )The scene that Purplehawk mention a page ago, in McGonagall's office at the end of CoS when everyone is upset, but Dumbledore is calmly beaming. !!! A Do-Over perhaps? The time-turner seems to fulfill the requirements without involving too many other people, Aberforth, for instance. Besides, I'm not sure I can imagine Ron doing things with a wand that would amaze his N.E.W.T. examiners.

[Sabine]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For that matter, the use of occlumency has already been left behind, since Voldemort completely possessed Harry but Harry threw him out, in effect. Has Voldemort seen what's in Harry's head? Has he seen that Dumbledore is there, but that the one to fear is Harry himself?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


These are good points in the context of whether Dumbledore will teach Harry occlumency in the next book. Perhaps Harry doesn't need to close his mind because he can fill his heart. It's how he produces a patronus in the presence of a dementor, as well. But the question of what if anything Voldemort may have seen while he possessed Harry is especially intriguing. Voldemort has been unusually occlumented since that time.

I don't think that you can put Occlumency and the fact that Voldemort wasn't able to possess Harry in one pot! (Does this make sense in english?)

Those are two completely different things! Occlumency isn't done to prevent being possessed - it is done to prevent Voldemort to "send" fake thoughts to Harry or to stop Voldemort from seeing things Harry knows.

***********

So --- readheaded dishwashers - huh????

Why do we learn that, by no means, the time-travelling-self is to meet the self-that-lives-in-the-time. If Dumbledore just can go along and meet Ron???? What would happen if Ron had some accident and would end with a broken nose just like Dumbledore has and a scar that turns out to be an exact plan of the London underground????

Whizbang ... I'm not going to hit someone - except for maybe my head at the wall.

Sabine

[sindatur]

Thanks Whiz, I knew there was something from OotP, that cast more doubt on the "Dumbledore is Ron" theory, but couldn't place it. Dumbledore's N.E.W.T.s being so spectacular was it.

Yes, Dumbledore does seem like he has experienced certain events previously, although, I have a gut feeling the Time-turner is not the vehicle. In light of my first paragraph, the "Dumbledore is Ron" theory becomes very much less likely than it was prior to the release of OotP, so, perhaps there's another temporal loop vehicle out there somewhere (Sorry Sabine, we know how much Time travel gives you splitting headaches, like me with the Legillemency/Occlumency conversations, LOL)

Speaking of Dumbledore's scar, did anyone find a rune that resembled the London Underground, that would fit in with Harry's scar being Sowelu? Someone posted an overview of it, when I last asked about it it seemed too complex a system to match any kind of Rune (who's shapes seem to be pretty basic, and generally few lines making them up)

Yes, Sabine, putting both in the same pot does make perfect in English.

[Auri DeMeer]

I don't know if it was; it was just a guess.
I believe the feather used by the old Egyptians to weigh the heart was an ostrich feather.

You reminded me of that story... It was a scary one. If the heart was too heavy, it was eaten by a monster and the dead person was denied the afterlife :scared: That story reminds me of the Dementors sucking the souls... :shudders:

It could be about many things, but that question looms again this morning. Remeber how Harry is only safe from Voldemort at the Dursley's? That's what Dumbledore told him. But Lily's protection was active, if not complete, in Hogwarts when Harry was attacked by Quirrell/Voldemort. Does Harry have a blood bond with someone who resides at Hogwarts? If it is Dumbledore, why did he not raise the boy himself? Because he doesn't want Voldemort to know of the blood relationship?
I think we're talking about two kinds of "protection" for Harry, here:

*First, the protection ensured by Lily - this was the shield that protected Harry against Quirrel/Voldemort in Book 1. This protection was in his blood, physically I understand, and unfortunately is no longer effective since Voldemort rebuilt his body with Harry's blood - Voldemort could indeed touch Harry at the end of Book 4.

*Second, the protection ensured by Dumbledore based on Lily's protection. This shield works only in the place where a blood-relative lives (Petunia) and only if Harry can call this place "home".

So no, I don't think it's necessary for Harry to have a blood-relative at Hogwarts in order to explain the protection he had against Quirrel/Voldemort.

[barmy codger]

I don't think that you can put Occlumency and the fact that Voldemort wasn't able to possess Harry in one pot! (Does this make sense in english?)

Those are two completely different things! Occlumency isn't done to prevent being possessed - it is done to prevent Voldemort to "send" fake thoughts to Harry or to stop Voldemort from seeing things Harry knows.

Sabine
Yes, you may be correct. But I look at legilimency and possession as different degrees of mental invasion. Occlumency prevents legilimency, but what does it take to prevent possession? Dumbledore thought occlumency would protect Harry from Voldemort's intrusion, whether reading Harry's thoughts or possessing Harry. At least that's how I understood it. The link through the scar seems to take it beyond this and it might take more than occlumency techniques to deal with Voldemort's constant presence in Harry. Their connection may be more like two variations of the same soul. I am thinking of Dumbledore saying, "But in essence divided?" Then I recall Harry's wand overpowering Voldemort's wand through Harry's instinctive understanding of what was required and his superior strength of will. So perhaps he will be able to take the struggle into Voldemort's head, and possess or overwhelm him.

As I said, it is vague thinking.

[Sabine]

Yes, you may be correct. But I look at legilimency and possession as different degrees of mental invasion. Occlumency prevents legilimency, but what does it take to prevent possession? Dumbledore thought occlumency would protect Harry from Voldemort's intrusion, whether reading Harry's thoughts or possessing Harry. At least that's how I understood it.

Oh - now I see where you are getting at (or coming from?) ... but I think that possession is, if any, than more "related" to being under the Imperius curse.

Because Legilimency just "wants to know" memories or thoughts. As for the Imperius Curse "it" wants to controll, make you things do. - See?

Wouldn't "possession" also want to controll, to make you do things?

And that makes, for me, two completely different things of learning occlumency and Voldemort not being able to possess Harry.


The link through the scar seems to take it beyond this and it might take more than occlumency techniques to deal with Voldemort's constant presence in Harry. Their connection may be more like two variations of the same soul. I am thinking of Dumbledore saying, "But in essence divided?" Then I recall Harry's wand overpowering Voldemort's wand through Harry's instinctive understanding of what was required and his superior strength of will. So perhaps he will be able to take the struggle into Voldemort's head, and possess or overwhelm him.

As I said, it is vague thinking.

Isn't everything "vague thinking" until we know from book 6 and 7? ;)

But I think it is an interessting point of view that "two variations of the same soul". " But in essence divided" seems to point very much in that direction.

Maybe if Harry would not learn how to do Occlumency then Voldemort would be able to send more and more influencing thoughts to Harry without actually possessing him. And this would sure affect Harry badly.

Sabine

[Vigilance]

You guys!

DD doesn't act at all like Ron Weasley. I don't know why things need to be so complicated. Ron's strength is loyalty and friendship, not wisdom. How can the two possibly be compared? To me, DD seems like he's keeping an eye on Harry, not that he's using his memories as Ron against Harry. The evidence to support this theory isn't even circumstantial--that would mean that the facts would be difficult to explain by other methods. There are a host of explanations for DD's behavior.

As for the battle between the Harry and Voldy--I'll be very disappointed if it's the scar, not Harry, who has the power to defeat Voldemort. The scar is only a gauge and a mark (sign of difference); it has demonstrated no other power than to make Harry aware of danger. It is the symbol of their connection through the curse that failed; it's not the curse that failed in and of itself, nor is it the locus of Harry's power or Lily's love.

[whizbang121]

I think we're talking about two kinds of "protection" for Harry, here:

*First, the protection ensured by Lily - this was the shield that protected Harry against Quirrel/Voldemort in Book 1. This protection was in his blood, physically I understand, and unfortunately is no longer effective since Voldemort rebuilt his body with Harry's blood - Voldemort could indeed touch Harry at the end of Book 4.

*Second, the protection ensured by Dumbledore based on Lily's protection. This shield works only in the place where a blood-relative lives (Petunia) and only if Harry can call this place "home".

So no, I don't think it's necessary for Harry to have a blood-relative at Hogwarts in order to explain the protection he had against Quirrel/Voldemort.
If we read the tell all discussion, Dumbledore points out that


She, (Petunia) may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the stongest shield I could give you."
----
"While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in you and her sister. Her blood became your refuge. You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, there he cannot hurt you. Your aunt knows this. I explained what I had done in the letter I left, with you, on her doorstep.

In this paragraph we learn that Lily's sacrifice created a bond of blood, but it was Dumbledore who used that bond to do the protective charm. This charm only works in the Dursley's home, and only against Voldemort. (The prophesy may indicate that Voldemort is the only real threat to Harry, anyway.) How many owls came in the beginning of OotP telling Harry to stay in the house and why has he had to return there at the end of GoF and OotP if as Voldemort believes, Lily's protection no longer works against him? Lily's protection is only active at the Dursley's, only against Voldemort and only because of Dumbledore's charm.
This does raise the question of what happened at the end of PS/SS when Quirrell couldn't touch Harry? Is there is someone at Hogwarts who can also extend Harry the protection of his mother's blood or is it something else? When Dumbledore arrived, he thought Harry was dead. The protection wasn't holding and in spite of the fact the Quirrell was dying in the process, Voldemort nearly succeeded in killing Harry.
I think Dumbledore was smiling in GoF, because again Voldemort doesn't understand what's going on. He probably could have touched Harry in the graveyard, anyway. The Protective Charm only works at the Dursley's and apparently, under the crooked nose of the muggle lover, Dumbledore.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The link through the scar seems to take it beyond this and it might take more than occlumency techniques to deal with Voldemort's constant presence in Harry. Their connection may be more like two variations of the same soul. I am thinking of Dumbledore saying, "But in essence divided?" Then I recall Harry's wand overpowering Voldemort's wand through Harry's instinctive understanding of what was required and his superior strength of will. So perhaps he will be able to take the struggle into Voldemort's head, and possess or overwhelm him.

As I said, it is vague thinking.
I'm going to guess that on the night Voldemort tried to
kill baby Harry, he was ripped from his body, (so that's dead) and left something
even he didn't recognize, less than the weakest ghost. But he was
right, he wasn't dead. He was however seperated from his life force.

Where was his life energy? The suggestion is that Harry's lightning
bolt scar is the rune, S o w e l u which symbolizes the energy of
the sun, the ultimate life force. Is Harry's scar the repository of
Voldemort's life force? Is this what is meant by the phrase "... the
dark lord will mark him as his equal ..." This would also explain
what Dumbledore meant when he said that Voldemort "transferred" his
powers to Harry. And the snake " ... in essence, divided."

[Auri DeMeer]

In this paragraph we learn that Lily's sacrifice created a bond of blood, but it was Dumbledore who used that bond to do the protective charm. This charm only works in the Dursley's home, and only against Voldemort. (The prophesy may indicate that Voldemort is the only real threat to Harry, anyway.) How many owls came in the beginning of OotP telling Harry to stay in the house and why has he had to return there at the end of GoF and OotP if as Voldemort believes, Lily's protection no longer works against him? Lily's protection is only active at the Dursley's, only against Voldemort and only because of Dumbledore's charm.
This does raise the question of what happened at the end of PS/SS when Quirrell couldn't touch Harry? Is there is someone at Hogwarts who can also extend Harry the protection of his mother's blood or is it something else? When Dumbledore arrived, he thought Harry was dead. The protection wasn't holding and in spite of the fact the Quirrell was dying in the process, Voldemort nearly succeeded in killing Harry.
Whizbang, like I said, there are IMO two kinds of protections for Harry:

*One -- Lily's sacrifice (made by Lily): this was the cause of the AK rebounding against Voldemort and the reason Quirrel/Voldemort couldn't touch Harry in Book 1.

*Two -- Dumbledore's shield (made by Dumbledore & based on Lily's sacrifice): this is the reason Harry's safe at the Dursleys (his home) and only works there.

The distinction between the two kinds of protection is logic because of the following:

*Whilst Voldemort can touch Harry since the end of Book 4, he still can't harm Harry if he's at the Dursleys. That means the protection "One" is gone but the protection "Two" is still there.

*There existed a shield prior to Dumbledore's charm, otherwise the AK curse wouldn't have rebounded against Voldemort. That prior shield was the protection provided by Lily's sacrifice, directly.


Thus: both protections are different, and made by different people. And again, to answer your question: No, there's no need of a blood-relative at Hogwarts to explain why Quirrel couldn't touch Harry in Book 1.

[Sabine]

I'm going to guess that on the night Voldemort tried to
kill baby Harry, he was ripped from his body, (so that's dead) and left something
even he didn't recognize, less than the weakest ghost. But he was
right, he wasn't dead. He was however seperated from his life force.

Where was his life energy? The suggestion is that Harry's lightning
bolt scar is the rune, S o w e l u which symbolizes the energy of
the sun, the ultimate life force. Is Harry's scar the repository of
Voldemort's life force? Is this what is meant by the phrase "... the
dark lord will mark him as his equal ..." This would also explain
what Dumbledore meant when he said that Voldemort "transferred" his
powers to Harry. And the snake " ... in essence, divided."

You know whizbang ... I don't like that - or I just don't get it right - either way is possible ;) .... If the scar is holding Voldemorts life-force, his life-energy - what are you supposing is Voldemort "running on"?

To me he sure seems to have enough life-energy to survive, even he is less than the meanest ghost. He has enough energy to possess small animals, till Quirell shows up. And enough energy to plan everything, even invent some spells (or what ever it was) to make up the ugly baby and so on and so on...

What would you call the "life-force" Voldemort is having right now it it is not his life-force?

Sabine

[Jessica]

I was re-reading OotP last night and it cited a passage from GoF that seems to speak to our dead/not dead debate:

Right before Voldemort is about to kill Harry, he says to him "It may even be painless. I would not know. I have never died"

[whizbang121]

Whizbang, like I said, there are IMO two kinds of protections for Harry:

*One -- Lily's sacrifice (made by Lily): this was the cause of the AK rebounding against Voldemort and the reason Quirrel/Voldemort couldn't touch Harry in Book 1.

*Two -- Dumbledore's shield (made by Dumbledore & based on Lily's sacrifice): this is the reason Harry's safe at the Dursleys (his home) and only works there.

The distinction between the two kinds of protection is logic because of the following:

*Whilst Voldemort can touch Harry since the end of Book 4, he still can't harm Harry if he's at the Dursleys. That means the protection "One" is gone but the protection "Two" is still there.

*There existed a shield prior to Dumbledore's charm, otherwise the AK curse wouldn't have rebounded against Voldemort. That prior shield was the protection provided by Lily's sacrifice, directly.


Thus: both protections are different, and made by different people. And again, to answer your question: No, there's no need of a blood-relative at Hogwarts to explain why Quirrel couldn't touch Harry in Book 1.
If Lily's protection functioned as you suggest, why did Dumbledore use the bond of blood to do a charm that only protects Harry at the Dursleys and only from Voldemort? Either Harry has protection from Lily, or he doesn't.
I think that what happened when Lily took the AK aimed at Harry saving his life, a bond was created. Dumbledore refers to the bond of blood. I think this is more closely related to the life debt bond like the one Peter owes Harry. Voldemort couldn't touch Harry in Godric's Hollow at that time. But I also believe that if Dumbledore hadn't used the blood bond to do a shield charm on Harry, the protection would have been gone right after Voldemort failed to kill Harry in Godric's Hollow.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.... If the scar is holding Voldemorts life-force, his life-energy - what are you supposing is Voldemort "running on"?

To me he sure seems to have enough life-energy to survive, even he is less than the meanest ghost. He has enough energy to possess small animals, till Quirell shows up. And enough energy to plan everything, even invent some spells (or what ever it was) to make up the ugly baby and so on and so on...

What would you call the "life-force" Voldemort is having right now it it is not his life-force?

Sabine
I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost .. but still, I was alive.
...
And now, I was tested, and it appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked
...
Nevertheless, I was a powerless as the weakest creature alive, and without the means to help myself
...
I remember only forcing myself, sleeplessly, endlessly, second by second to exist ....
I don't think he was accessing his life force until he was found by Quirrell and started taking the unicorn blood. This is about the time that Harry becomes aware of activity in his scar. The more active Voldemort is, the more the scar bothers Harry.
Runes come up with both Hermione and Luna. And it's Hermione who mentions the sowelo.
I think the ugly baby ran on unicorn blood and snake venom. Now he has a conjured body. But both the ugly baby and the new body both draw on the connection to Harry's scar.

But then it's just a theory and more than likely, dead wrong.

[Sabine]

If Lily's protection functioned as you suggest, why did Dumbledore use the bond of blood to do a charm that only protects Harry at the Dursleys and only from Voldemort? Either Harry has protection from Lily, or he doesn't.

Because that protection that worked in PS/SS was a "lingering protection" ... that doesn't mean its permanent, just that it will be there "a while" afterwards. And I'm not even sure that Dumbledore knew about that lingering protection before he heard about that incident from Harry.

I think that what happened when Lily took the AK aimed at Harry saving his life, a bond was created. Dumbledore refers to the bond of blood. I think this is more closely related to the life debt bond like the one Peter owes Harry. Voldemort couldn't touch Harry in Godric's Hollow at that time. But I also believe that if Dumbledore hadn't used the blood bond to do a shield charm on Harry, the protection would have been gone right after Voldemort failed to kill Harry in Godric's Hollow.

The protection that involves the bond of blood is the one Dumbledore sealed with Petunia.

If Voldemort couldn't literally touch Baby Harry this could very well be due to the lingering protection and not the other protection.

At least thats the way I understand those Protections.

Sabine

[whizbang121]

Because that protection that worked in PS/SS was a "lingering protection" ... that doesn't mean its permanent, just that it will be there "a while" afterwards. And I'm not even sure that Dumbledore knew about that lingering protection before he heard about that incident from Harry.



The protection that involves the bond of blood is the one Dumbledore sealed with Petunia.

If Voldemort couldn't literally touch Baby Harry this could very well be due to the lingering protection and not the other protection.

At least thats the way I understand those Protections.

Sabine
But Voldemort nearly killed Harry in PS/SS. Dumbledore thought he was dead. Lily's protection was already marginal as Voldemort would have finished Harry then if Dumbledore hadn't returned. So why wouldn't he have been able to touch Harry in the graveyard? And I can't see any reason for Dumbledore to do another charm if Lily's protection was capable of preventing Voldemort from touching Harry. It seems redundant.
Maybe we need to get a dictionary definition of lingering. I think you see this protection as diminishing over time. That could be. And again, in that case, Voldemort probably could have touched Harry in the graveyard.

What I'm suggesting is that there is only one protection. It's the charm Dumbledore did using the Bond of Blood, (Lily's lingering protection ?), to create a shield charm.


Gotta run. Back in an hour or so. I hope.

[Vigilance]

On page 297 of the Am. Ed, DD states quite clearly that it wasn't Voldemort that had put Harry in danger, but Quirrell that had to be pulled off of Harry and the effort Harry expended to keep the stone from Quirrell that had almost taken Harry's life. Voldemort was incorporeal and wandless and had no power over Harry at that moment. Lily's protection was effective enough against Voldie, but Harry had other things to worry about.

[Sabine]

But Voldemort nearly killed Harry in PS/SS. Dumbledore thought he was dead. Lily's protection was already marginal as Voldemort would have finished Harry then if Dumbledore hadn't returned. So why wouldn't he have been able to touch Harry in the graveyard? And I can't see any reason for Dumbledore to do another charm if Lily's protection was capable of preventing Voldemort from touching Harry. It seems redundant.

We will never know if Quirell would have finished Harry or not.

Even so we will never know if Voldemort wouldn't have been able to touch Harry in the graveyard before his rebithing-bath - he never tried to.

Maybe he would have been able to touch Harry because the lingering protection didn't work anymore. This could very well be.

Voldemort could or could have not known about the protection. We only just assumed that Peter told him what he overheared as Ron's pet.

And why Dumbledore did that "bond of blood thing" with Petunia? Well my guess is that at the night in Godrics Hollow he wasn't aware of the fact that there WAS any "lingering protection" from Lily in addition to the sacrifice Lily made.

Actually this is what always has led me to the assumption that there is more to that "ancient magic" Lily did than just dying for Harry. Because there had to be two different protections. One "willingly" and on purpose made by Lily in using ancient magic AND sacrficing her life (that one had to be sealed by Dumbledore and Petunia) and another one actually "unwittingly" made.



Sabine

[whizbang121]

On page 297 of the Am. Ed, DD states quite clearly that it wasn't Voldemort that had put Harry in danger, but Quirrell that had to be pulled off of Harry and the effort Harry expended to keep the stone from Quirrell that had almost taken Harry's life. Voldemort was incorporeal and wandless and had no power over Harry at that moment. Lily's protection was effective enough against Voldie, but Harry had other things to worry about.
"...either must die at the hand of the other." Only Voldemort can kill Harry.
*****************************
We will never know if Quirell would have finished Harry or not. I don't think Quirrell could have killed Harry. But for reasons only JKR knows, Dumbledore told Harry he thought Harry was dead when he arrived.

Even so we will never know if Voldemort wouldn't have been able to touch Harry in the graveyard before his rebithing-bath
Maybe he would have been able to touch Harry because the lingering protection didn't work anymore. True.
Voldemort could or could have not known about the protection. We only just assumed that Peter told him what he overheared as Ron's pet. He must have known something because he made the point of touching Harry. But we don't know if he has accurate information.
And why Dumbledore did that "bond of blood thing" with Petunia? Well my guess is that at the night in Godrics Hollow he wasn't aware of the fact that there WAS any "lingering protection" from Lily in addition to the sacrifice Lily made.

Actually this is what always has led me to the assumption that there is more to that "ancient magic" Lily did than just dying for Harry. Because there had to be two different protections. One "willingly" and on purpose made by Lily in using ancient magic AND sacrficing her life (that one had to be sealed by Dumbledore and Petunia) and another one actually "unwittingly" made.
Sabine
Well, I guess we'll just have to wait on the Lily's charm thing. But honestly, I think we made that one up based on the combination of Lily's sacrifice, lingering protection and her wand was good for charms. Is there anything in the books that suggests she did a charm, something other than die trying to save her child?

[barmy codger]

Well, something protected Harry at the Dursleys' home when Uncle Vernon tried to manhandle him at the start of book five.
And something did not protect Harry when Umbridge had him in her grasp leading him to Dumbledore's office, or during her detentions, not to mention bludgers and the like.

[whizbang121]

Well, something protected Harry at the Dursleys' home when Uncle Vernon tried to manhandle him at the start of book five.
And something did not protect Harry when Umbridge had him in her grasp leading him to Dumbledore's office, or during her detentions, not to mention bludgers and the like.
Some of this I think has to do with the prophesy. Only Voldemort can kill Harry, or vice versa. Whatever protection Harry has, it only protects him from Voldemort. So when Vernon attacked Harry, I think it was either Harry's unknown power, or whatever protects Harry from death other than at the hands of his nemesis. In fact, they're probably both the same thing. But it doesn't seem as though Harry has any protection from injury but his own wits and Hermione's smarts.

[Ihela]

Well, something protected Harry at the Dursleys' home when Uncle Vernon tried to manhandle him at the start of book five.
And something did not protect Harry when Umbridge had him in her grasp leading him to Dumbledore's office, or during her detentions, not to mention bludgers and the like.


Hi:

I belive it was Harry inner power and self preservation that stop Uncle Vernon.. The thing is that is now that Harry is paying attention to this protecting energy.

[whizbang121]

Hi:

I belive it was Harry inner power and self preservation that stop Uncle Vernon.. The thing is that is now that Harry is paying attention to this protecting energy.
Hi, Ihela. :welcome:
The different powers that Harry has seem clearly delineated and confusing at the same time. Dumbledore is now explaining to Harry about some of his protections, but I suspect there's more we haven't heard about, yet.

[Vigilance]

"...either must die at the hand of the other." Only Voldemort can kill Harry.
*****************************
He must have known something because he made the point of touching Harry. But we don't know if he has accurate information.


Am. Ed. page 297
(DD: ) "I arrived just in time to pull Quirrell off you--"
(Harry: ) "It was you."
(DD: ) "I feared it might be too late."
(Harry: )"You nearly were, I couldn't have kept him off the Stone much longer--"
(DD: ) "Not the Stone, boy, you--the effort involved nearly killed you. For one terrible moment there, I was afraid it had."

Here, it's obviously not Voldie that DD fears. Maybe he wasn't always so sure of the prophecy as he is now. Maybe, logic dictates that in a round-about fashion, Voldemort instigated Harry's effort. Whatever reason, it isn't Voldie who touches Harry, nor is it Voldie whom DD fears had almost caused Harry's death. Only Quirrell touched Harry. Vodie's response to Quirrell's agony at touching the boy is "Then Kill him and be done with it" (295). DD says later "Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good" (299). Lily's protection is not simply against Voldie, but any evil villain who might wish Harry harm. It very well could have been Lily's protection that repelled Vernon.

[whizbang121]

Here, it's obviously not Voldie that DD fears. Maybe he wasn't always so sure of the prophecy as he is now. Maybe, logic dictates that in a round-about fashion, Voldemort instigated Harry's effort. Whatever reason, it isn't Voldie who touches Harry, nor is it Voldie whom DD fears had almost caused Harry's death. Only Quirrell touched Harry. But Voldemort was possessing Quirrell at the time.
Vodie's response to Quirrell's agony at touching the boy is "Then Kill him and be done with it" (295). DD says later "Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good" (299). Lily's protection is not simply against Voldie, but any evil villain who might wish Harry harm. It very well could have been Lily's protection that repelled Vernon.I couldn't disagree more.:)
lemonade?
I will admit that there may protections on Harry beyond Lily's and Dumbledore's that we haven't been made aware of, yet. Each of the professors placed a protection on the Sorcerer's Stone. Why shouldn't there be other spells and protections on Harry? But I do think the prophesy is clear that " ...either must die at the hand of the other..." Until one of them kills the other, Harry and Voldemort have only each other to fear death from.

Cupcakes are ready.

[Vigilance]

Right, but Voldie, at this time, is neither living nor dead. Quirrell was the only one at risk of death, not Voldie. So, if Voldie cannot possibly die here (because he's not alive), then he couldn't threaten Harry's life. It's DD's own words that point to Harry's effort at keeping Quirrell (a physical threat--remember his knees) at bay that has DD worried. It's funny how if there's a prophecy, people will discover that events conform to it in the last interpretation. I think DD would be aware that a prophecy can be quite flexible, especially if it's worded as cryptically and vaguely as Trelawney's. Anyway, we could suppose that DD outright lied to Harry about his concern over the expenditure of his energy, though his traditional path is maintaining silence....I guess maybe we just disagree over what DD seems to mean?

Thanks for the cupcake! (not a fan of lemonade--makes my teeth hurt if it's done right :D ) I've got a cup of coffee for you, though, if you want one!

[barmy codger]

Right, but Voldie, at this time, is neither living nor dead. Quirrell was the only one at risk of death, not Voldie. So, if Voldie cannot possibly die here (because he's not alive), then he couldn't threaten Harry's life.

Are you saying that because Voldemort couldn't die, he couldn't kill? I don't understand why that would be so.

And the prophecy doesn't actually say that Voldemort is the only one who can kill Harry, but that if anyone kills Harry it will be Voldemort. Almost the same thing, but not quite. Dumbledore's intervention with Quirrel saved Harry and helped fulfill the prophecy, right? So any extra protective charms given to Harry, even if not directly against Voldemort, will help fulfill the prophecy by keeping the riff-raff away.

[phoenixsong]

If Lily's protection functioned as you suggest, why did Dumbledore use the bond of blood to do a charm that only protects Harry at the Dursleys and only from Voldemort? Either Harry has protection from Lily, or he doesn't. Do we know that the protection at the Dursleys is only from Voldemort? Even though Dumbledore speaks of being sure that Voldemort wasn't dead, and of using the Dursley-protection against Voldemort, he also says this: My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but myself realized. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters - and many of them are almost as terrible as he - were still at large, angry, desperate, and violent.It seems to me that the events at the end of PS/SS don't really clear things up one way or another. Had it been his own body, I suspect that Voldemort would have desisted long before, but since he was using Quirrell's body, he persisted in placing his hands on Harry, even with the excruciating pain. But note: he could, literally speaking, touch Harry, it just caused terrible pain. But the pain was Quirrell's.

But Vigilance is quite right: if the Dursley protection were the same as the protection that kept Voldemort from killing Harry in PS/SS, then it, too, would have been nullified by the blood taken from Harry in GoF. Instead, we are led to believe, by the peck of owls, that the Dursley protection is still in place, even though the protection in Harry's skin is not. But you could be right, whizbang, it may be that there never was any protection in Harry's skin, and Dumbledore was not being entirely truthful when he said: 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 for ever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed and ambition, sharing his very soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good.Now, I'm not trying to suggest that this quote is clear-cut or simple, because it is at the heart of all the mysteries we've been discussing here. The part about Quirrell "sharing his very soul with Voldemort" does lend support to whizbang's thesis that the protection only works against Voldemort. But what about the other marking, the one that Dumbledore says "is in Harry's skin"? Couldn't he just as easily have said "blood"? But he doesn't, he says skin, emphasizing what is unique about this encounter.

I don't think Quirrell could have killed Harry. But for reasons only JKR knows, Dumbledore told Harry he thought Harry was dead when he arrived.Well, he doesn't exactly say that he thought Harry was dead; at risk of repeating what has been said above by Vigilance and other, here, again, are the relevant statements:"Professor Quirrell did not manage to take it from you. I arrived in time to prevent that, although you were doing very well on your own, I must say"
"I arrived just in time to pull Quirrell off you-"
"-the effort involved nearly killed you. For one terrible moment there, I was afraid it had."It is a slight difference in nuance. I read these statements as Dumbledore fearing that Harry might come to harm, rather than actually believing him to be dead after examining the situation. Just like Harry with respect to Hermione in the DoM. His first instinct is to fear that she is dead, but then Neville tells him that she's got a pulse, so he no longer fears it.

[Vigilance]

As I read the prophecy (contra some folks, so no hitting!), both Harry and Voldemort will be alive when they battle that all important time.
Simply, when they meet for the final time, the possibility that either will die must be there.
If Harry were killed in PS/SS, there's no reason to believe that Voldemort would live. DD would stop Quirrell before he could make the elixir that would bring Voldie back from damnation and into a body. DD was (suspiciously?) right there at the end (maybe before, even?).
It's not as simple as "we've got the Stone; we've won--shazaam!--Voldie is instantly restored." There's magic and potion making involved.

P.S> Thanks, pheonixsong, for wording it better than I have done! Grading papers has prevented a great deal of coherence from me (and I'm still in the middle of it, so sorry if I'm being confusing and boneheaded, all!).

[whizbang121]

Mmmmm...... Coffee...
Thanks :agree:
Right, but Voldie, at this time, is neither living nor dead. Quirrell was the only one at risk of death, not Voldie. So, if Voldie cannot possibly die here (because he's not alive), then he couldn't threaten Harry's life.
This is why the prophesy is so .... er, well, let's say it's interesting and pass the cupcakes. :rolleyes:
Harry is presumably the one with the power to vanquish the dark lord.
(On the premise that the series is called "Harry Potter and ...." etc., let's assume the prophesy is about Harry. Who knows what kind of curve balls await us. Many of us remember the curve in RotK, so fair to say that anything is possible.)
Voldemort is arguably in the state worse than death that Dumbledore has mentioned on a few occasions. But still, as you say, not dead. However, possessing Quirrell, he says he had taken over Quirrell's mind and I think Dumbldeore covers his tracks with the phrase, " ... sharing his soul with Voldemort..." Voldemort's will is determining Quirrell's actions. So if Harry had died, then it would have been Voldemort, possessing Quirrell who was no longer directing his own actions, who killed him. The prophesy would have been fulfilled.
But could Harry have killed Voldemort in that situation, Voldemort being worse than dead? I don't know, but it's fair to say that Harry vanquished him in that bout, their second encounter that we know of. 2 / 0 Harry. But only because Dumbledore arrived in time. We are led to believe that otherwise, the Dark Lord would have, in fact, prevailed.

It's DD's own words that point to Harry's effort at keeping Quirrell (a physical threat--remember his knees) at bay that has DD worried. That Harry. Gotta love him. The minute he realized that Quirrell couldn't touch his bare skin, that he was the weapon, he went on the offensive. Anyway, we could suppose that DD outright lied to Harry about his concern over the expenditure of his energy, or wonder if Dumbledore is telling Harry that his own unknown power was part of the equation,
though his traditional path is maintaining silence....I guess maybe we just disagree over what DD seems to mean? :lol: Phoenixsong has long been making the case for not being able to securely interpret a prophesy until after all the continginsies are fulfilled. Each event brings it more clearly into focus, but until it's all completed........:huh

And the prophecy doesn't actually say that Voldemort is the only one who can kill Harry, but that if anyone kills Harry it will be Voldemort. Almost the same thing, but not quite. Dumbledore's intervention with Quirrel saved Harry and helped fulfill the prophecy, right? So any extra protective charms given to Harry, even if not directly against Voldemort, will help fulfill the prophecy by keeping the riff-raff away. Right, but....
Harry only actually needs protection from Voldemort, because until one of them does in the other and prophesy is fulfilled, I don't think anyone else can kill either of them. In other situations when Harry's life has actually been in danger, as in the scene with Vernon throttling him, some power rises in him to free him or an outside force, Dumbledore steps in to save him. I think this is something related to the prophesy rather than Lily's and Dumbledore's protection which I believe are only effective against Voldemort and only under particular circumstances.


Do we know that the protection at the Dursleys is only from Voldemort? Even though Dumbledore speaks of being sure that Voldemort wasn't dead, and of using the Dursley-protection against Voldemort, he also says this:
Quote OotP, pg. 835, Scholastic ed.
"My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but myself realized. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters - and many of them are almost as terrible as he - were still at large, angry, desperate, and violent."
At that point, Dumbledore had no idea what had happened to Voldemort or whether his followers would look for him and somehow bring him back, as eventually did happen. And all indications are that Harry is by no means impervious to injury. This, I think is partly why Dumbledore chose to hide Harry in the muggle world with such protection and surveillance as could be managed. Just because only Voldemort can kill Harry, doesn't mean no one else could harm him.

" ... the effort involved nearly killed you. For one terrible moment there, I was afraid it had." Afraid the effort had what? Killed him. Dumbledore, for a moment at least, thought Harry was dead. Granted, this is very early on and even Dumbledore, knowing the prophesy, can only begin to interpret events in its light. This is a process for him, too.

As I read the prophecy (contra some folks, so no hitting!), Never! Non violent discussions. And I want to point out, that I'm enjoying this tremendously. I take nothing personally and I don't mean anything to be taken badly by anyone else. We're all in the same boat, waiting for book six, and JKR to clear up this stuff for us. :shrug:
both Harry and Voldemort will be alive when they battle that all important time.
Simply, when they meet for the final time, the possibility that either will die must be there. Good point!
If Harry were killed in PS/SS, there's no reason to believe that Voldemort would live. It's not as simple as "we've got the Stone; we've won--shazaam!--Voldie is instantly restored." There's magic and potion making involved. It would be terrible. Dumbledore seems incapable of dealing with him in that state. If he didn't use the stone, Voldemort could use another means to conjure an immortal body and the wizarding world would be back where they started. All hope hangs on Harry, and his prophesied ability to vanquish the dark lord and hopefully, kill him.
P.S> Thanks, pheonixsong, so sorry if I'm being confusing and boneheaded, all!).
Not so. Perfectly lucid. You even remembered the coffee.;)

[sindatur]

I side with the two seperate protecting acts:

1. Lily's Protection brought about the events in the Prophecy, preventing Harry from being killed by Voldemort in Godric's Hollow
2. Dumbledore layered another spell on top of that to protect HArry at the Dursleys. I do not believe the protection at the Dursleys is only against Voldemort, because Voldemort was no longer a threat at that point, he was worse than dead, weaker the the weakest ghost. The Death Eaters were the threat.

In SS/PS, Quirrel shook hands with HArry in the Leaky Cauldron, he could touch Harry because he didn't have Voldemort sharing his body yet. At the end, when Quirrel couldn't touch Harry, it was after Voldemort was sharing Quirrel's body.

I don't believe Dumbledore was afraid of Voldemort coming after Harry after the Dementor attack in OotP, so telling him to stay at the Dursley's I think was protecting him from everyone, not just Voldemort. I believe this is why Vernon got the shock, because he was threatening Harry. Umbridge didn't have this problem because she wasn't threatening Harry at the Dursleys, and this Dursley's ultimate protection isn't for Hogwarts.

Having said all that, we are led to believe that there is a possibility that no one but Voldemort can actually kill Harry, outside of the Dursleys, but until GoF, Voldemort couldn't physically touch Harry, anyone else could, but they probably couldn't actually kill him. At the Dursley's no one can physically threaten HArry.

DAng this is confusing when you try to lay it all out, makes perfect sense running it through your head though, :wow:

[whizbang121]

I side with the two seperate protecting acts:

1. Lily's Protection brought about the events in the Prophecy, preventing Harry from being killed by Voldemort in Godric's Hollow
2. Dumbledore layered another spell on top of that to protect HArry at the Dursleys. I do not believe the protection at the Dursleys is only against Voldemort, because Voldemort was no longer a threat at that point, he was worse than dead, weaker the the weakest ghost. The Death Eaters were the threat.
"While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in you and her sister. Her blood became your refuge. You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, there he cannot hurt you.
In SS/PS, Quirrel shook hands with HArry in the Leaky Cauldron, he could touch Harry because he didn't have Voldemort sharing his body yet. At the end, when Quirrel couldn't touch Harry, it was after Voldemort was sharing Quirrel's body.Good point!
I don't believe Dumbledore was afraid of Voldemort coming after Harry after the Dementor attack in OotP, so telling him to stay at the Dursley's I think was protecting him from everyone, not just Voldemort.
Dumbledore was extremely untrusting of the Dementors and knew that they would return to Voldemort eventually. At that point, they didn't know who sent the Dementors to Little Whinging, but couldn't take the chance that it might have been the Dark Lord.
I believe this is why Vernon got the shock, because he was threatening Harry. Umbridge didn't have this problem because she wasn't threatening Harry at the Dursleys, and this Dursley's ultimate protection isn't for Hogwarts. I think it's clear that Harry is not protected from harm anywhere. But until the prophesy is fulfilled, he is only in danger of death from Voldemort, and that's what Lily's sacrifice and Dumbledore's charm protect him from.
Having said all that, we are led to believe that there is a possibility that no one but Voldemort can actually kill Harry, outside of the Dursleys, but until GoF, Voldemort couldn't physically touch Harry, anyone else could, but they probably couldn't actually kill him. At the Dursley's no one can physically threaten HArry.
Well, it seems a fine point, but if Dumbledore thought, even for a moment, that Harry was dead in SS/PS, then he understood Voldemort had already discovered a way to touch Harry; by possessing the body of another. And if Dumbldedore hadn't arrived when he did .......... ??? If that was an example of Lily's lingering protection, it nearly failed and can certainly not be depended on. I think that Voldemort could have touched Harry anywhere but at the Dursley's and under the crooked nose of the muggle lover, Dumbledore. This brings back the question, what is the relationship between them that Dumbledore does not want Voldemort to know about?


DAng this is confusing when you try to lay it all out, makes perfect sense running it through your head though, :wow:

That's why we have cupcakes. ;)

[sindatur]

Someone please help me here with the real ending of SS/PS. I've been sacreligious and only watching the movie since it came out (only read the book twice before that, and seen the movie at least 5 times), so I am unclear of what actually took place in the book. I know Quirrel didn't crumble in the book, but what exactly took place after he experienced pain and realized he couldn't touch Harry.

Dumbledore, OotP

"While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in you and her sister. Her blood became your refuge. You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, there he cannot hurt you.

I always took "Voldemort" and "he" in this statement as less literal, meaning "He and his cohorts" not simply "he", so perhaps that's where our interpretation differs

Thanks for the cupcakes, and I'll take some of that Lemonade too, if there's any left, who had that?

[phoenixsong]

Phoenixsong has long been making the case for not being able to securely interpret a prophesy until after all the continginsies are fulfilled. Each event brings it more clearly into focus, but until it's all completed........:huh
Not only that, whizbang, but I tend to believe that the more secure we are in our interpretations of the parts that we think have already come to fruition, the more likely we are to misinterpret the whole thing and be wildly off the mark! So, I worry over the bits about the Dark Lord marking him as his equal, since they are the parts that seem most obvious. It is always the most "obvious" parts of these prophecies that make people get them all wrong.

If that was an example of Lily's lingering protection, it nearly failed and can certainly not be depended on. I'm not entirely convinced of this yet. If it was his own efforts that nearly killed Harry, then it would not be at the "hand" of Voldemort, would it? And even if Voldemort and Quirrell were sharing a soul (Voldemort's), it wouldn't be Voldemort's hand that did the killing, would it (sorry, I'm being a literalist again)? I think that the prophecy requires Voldemort to have his own body back, so that he has a "hand" at which Harry might die.

Someone please help me here with the real ending of SS/PS. I've been sacreligious and only watching the movie since it came out (only read the book twice before that, and seen the movie at least 5 times), so I am unclear of what actually took place in the book. I know Quirrel didn't crumble in the book, but what exactly took place after he experienced pain and realized he couldn't touch Harry.I'll try: basically, after Harry lies about what he sees in the Mirror, Voldemort reveals himself to Harry, and directly speaks to him. Harry tries to make a dash for it, and Voldie directs Quirrell to "Seize him!" which Quirrell does, resulting in intense pain for Harry (in his scar) and, apparently, for Quirrell, whose hands blister where they touched Harry. Quirrell is again directed to seize Harry, and he tries to throttle him, but finds himself unable to bear the pain in his hands. Voldemort then directs Quirrell to use a killing curse against Harry, but Harry reaches up to grab Quirrell's face, and by Quirrell's reaction understands that Quirrell can't bear to touch or be touched by him, so he then grabs Quirrell by the arm (all the while feeling intense pain in his scar) until finally he hears his name being called, feels Quirrell's arm pulled from his grasp, and passes out. The next thing we know, he awakens in the hospital wing with Dumbledore, when the conversations we've discussed take place.

Never! Non violent discussions. And I want to point out, that I'm enjoying this tremendously. I take nothing personally and I don't mean anything to be taken badly by anyone else. Hear, hear! Let's hear it for the pleasures of debate!

[sindatur]

Thanks Phoenixsong.

I agree about the debating, being proven wrong can be just as much fun as feeling you've proven you are right. It's only when people get rude with "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard" or "For the last time..." when it begins not to be fun anymore.

Very interesting thing I just ran across. We've all wondered about Voldemort having a connection to Grindelwald. I'm not a fan of seeing Anagrams everywhere you look, and I know the anagrams vary from language to language, but someone just pointed out in an Anagram thread that you can get the Surname Riddle from Grindelwald, so maybe that's where Tom got the idea from, and maybe Grindelwald was a relative of Tom Riddle? Of course I wouldn't expect it to neccessarily be "I am Lord Grindelwald" or that the name gotten from the anagram something something Riddle would be the same in every language, but perhaps there's something there?

[Jessica]

But Riddle was his real name from his muggle family :shrug:

Intersting idea though :)

[whizbang121]

Not only that, whizbang, but I tend to believe that the more secure we are in our interpretations of the parts that we think have already come to fruition, the more likely we are to misinterpret the whole thing and be wildly off the mark! True. Just trying to keep up with dumbledore is enough of a challenge.:)
So, I worry over the bits about the Dark Lord marking him as his equal, since they are the parts that seem most obvious. Wow. You're not sure Harry was marked as Voldemort's equal? Hmmmm...... Why not?

I think that the prophecy requires Voldemort to have his own body back, so that he has a "hand" at which Harry might die.How about Harry has vanquished Voldemort at each meeting? It seems clear that Harry can't kill Voldemort when he's in the "worse than dead" state. Does that mean that Voldemort can't kill Harry either? I don't know. I only know that Dumbledore seems to think he can. Or maybe Dumbledore just isn't taking chances because he doesn't know either. Tough call.

Hear, hear! Let's hear it for the pleasures of debate!YaY! :clap:

[sindatur]

But Riddle was his real name from his muggle family :shrug:

Intersting idea though :)

Agreed, and Harry and Tom Riddle are both Half-Bloods. ;)

[whizbang121]

I know Dumbledore uses the term "half blood like himself," but this is one of those times when I bristle.

Harry had two magical parents. Voldemort only had one. They are not the same in this regard. (I know, picky picky.:rolleyes:)

[sindatur]

I know Dumbledore uses the term "half blood like himself," but this is one of those times when I bristle.

Harry had two magical parents. Voldemort only had one. They are not the same in this regard. (I know, picky picky.:rolleyes:)

Exactly, meaning Grindelwald doesn't need to be from a purely magical family either. His mother could've been magical, and his father related to the Riddle Muggles, making him a Riddle, but magical.

I don't neccessarily believe this to be true, but, it is an interesting possibility that I don't find impossible, even if implausible ;)

[Jessica]

Okay, I just got what you're saying. :)

Sorry for the time delay. You're saying that Grindelwald was also part muggle and his part muggle was also from the Riddles.

That makes somethign a little too strange about the Riddles. Not impossible, but as you say, rather implausible.

[whizbang121]

It's at least as good as Grindelwald is Voldemort's maternal grandfather.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

I know I ought to keep on topic but, guess what! Today was my last day in uniform! I am never, ever, ever, EVER going to wear a pleated navy skirt again!! Gaudite omnes! :clap: :D

I believe the feather used by the old Egyptians to weigh the heart was an ostrich feather.
Swiz! Ostrich, honestly, how dull can you get? ;)

A thought about possession: Ginny describes possession as a blankness but when Harry is possessed by Voldemort he feels anything but blank; he feels excruciating pain and graphically aware of his possession. Why?
One answer would be that Voldemort intended Harry to feel pain, but my impression was that the pain was a side effect. Another possibility is this was a different kind of possession; Ginny was possessed because she "poured out her soul to an invisible stranger" and in a sense allowed it to happen, whereas Voldemort simply forced his way into Harry mind via his scar.

I think that Voldemort could have touched Harry anywhere but at the Dursley's and under the crooked nose of the muggle lover, Dumbledore. This brings back the question, what is the relationship between them that Dumbledore does not want Voldemort to know about?
You think there's a relationship between Harry and Dumbledore other than the obvious, then? I don't know, it's tempting to say that Dumbledore might be a blood relation of Harry's, but it seems to neat really. I mean, it's the sort of thing you're always getting in fantasy and science fiction, isn't it? So many characters being related to each other it's a marvel anyone manages to find someone they can marry without committing incest! Besides, a fundamental part of JK's philosophy is that blood isn't that important. Dumbledore already cares for Harry, guides him as much as he feels he can, understands him in a way no one else does and is deeply proud of him. That should, in my opinion and, I believe, in JK's, be enough.
Except for what you say above. Could there be a connection with Dumbledore watching Harry (which we know he is doing very closely)? I've always suggested that this watching is done through a mind link; it seems to fit best. Is it possible that Dumbledore has a sort of low-power ongoing one-way Legilimency with Harry? For example, when Harry has the vision of the snake and Mr Weasley, Dumbledore is up when they enter his office, but not as if he'd normally be awake at this hour; he knows something happened, but he has to get the details from Harry. It would fit very well if the force of the dream and the pain in Harry's scar was enough to wake Dumbledore through their mind link; Dumbledore realised that something had happened, got up and started quizzing his portraits for information. Perhaps if Dumbledore had taught Harry Occulmency, thus having to use a stronger form of Legilimency on him, he would have widenec this already existing link. There would have been two risks to this: firstly, if Voldemort became aware of it then he could use Harry as a gateway; secondly, if the connection became two way then this could be quite disturbing, both for Harry and Dumbledore. And Dumbledore doesn't want Voldemort to know about this link because he might try forcing his way through Harry's mind to Dumbledore's. Can you see any holes in that? I think I might have cracked it! Incidentally, can you imagine how weird it would be for Harry to be receiving fragments of thought and feelings from Dumbledore and Voldemort? I think he really ought to learn Occlumency, not for his safety, but for his sanity!

Hear, hear! Let's hear it for the pleasures of debate!
:agree: Nothing like a good debate! And lemonade, and cupcakes... There'll be some mince pies when mum gets round to making them. She made the mincemeat yesterday; mince meat, hah! Stewed fruit, more like! No suet; low fat; ick! Still, I noted that cranberries and brandy went into it at some point so it'll probably taste all right. I just have a problem with the _principle_ of the thing; I mean, low fat mince meat...
Hang on, why am I droning on about mince meat? Apologise for the off-topicness (off-topicity? ;) )

[phoenixsong]

Wow. You're not sure Harry was marked as Voldemort's equal? Hmmmm...... Why not?Only in principle, not because I've got any evidence to the contrary! It certainly seems the most logical reading of the events to assume that Harry's scar is the "mark" given by Voldemort, meaning that Voldemort is the Dark Lord and Harry is the one with the power to vanquish him. But I always have another "frame" around my conversations that proceed with these ^ assumptions, a frame that brackets the whole thing with the caveat that Voldemort might not be the Dark Lord, Harry might not be the one. For all we know, the "mark" might be the smudge on Ron's nose on the train to Hogwarts in PS/SS! Or Harry might be the Dark Lord. Or Dumbledore. But, as you of all people know, I'm more than willing to accept the hypothesis that Voldemort is the Dark Lord, who marked Harry as his equal, and to run with it. I'm just not certain about it (I guess I'm a true agnostic!).

As for Grindelwald being Voldemort's cousin or something, I think I'm more comfortable believing that Voldemort's identity (and Grindelwald's too, for that matter) is more a matter of choices they've made, rather than heritage. I don't like the idea of evil (or good) being resident in a bloodline.

edit:
RATS! I missed Filia's post. I've wondered about the Dumbledore mind-connection thing before, but I always thought that Dumbledore had some sort of mental connection to Voldemort! But, perhaps he has a mental connection to Voldemort via Harry. But this one is particularly difficult for me to wrap my head around.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

As for Grindelwald being Voldemort's cousin or something, I think I'm more comfortable believing that Voldemort's identity (and Grindelwald's too, for that matter) is more a matter of choices they've made, rather than heritage. I don't like the idea of evil (or good) being resident in a bloodline.
...and neither does JK. Which is an example, I suppose, of the kind of reasoning which produced the hypothesis, so often taken as cannon, of Harry=one, Voldy=Dark Lord, scar=mark. It's not so much logical reasoning than intuitive guesswork: how is JK likely to resolve this? What would be dramatic and relatively simple? What uses time honoured themes without being too cliched? I agree that we can become too reliant on this kind of assumption-making, but I don't think we should echew it altogether.

[sindatur]

Dumbledore does seem to have some sort of alarm system hooked up to Harry (the watch he wears that we don't know the purpose of, a mental connection, a Cocolate Frog Card, The invisibility cloak, seeing through Hedwig's eyes, etc) a mental connection makes just as much sense as anything else. Heck maybe Dumbledore sees Harry through a connection between his own and Harry's scar's.

Could Dumbledore's "relation" to Harry simply be that Dumbledore was "The one" in his time and Harry is "The one" in HArry's time? Or is that something Voldemort should already know, and therefore no reason to hide it from Voldemort?

I wasn't neccessarily trying to link the Evil of the Dark Lord to the Riddle Bloodline, but, some have wondered out loud, if maybe Tom Riddle studied under Grindelwald, and Grindelwald being a family member, would provide a vehicle for that (3rd Cousin Wang Riddle, LOL). But anyway, enough of this silly theory, just throwing crazy stuff out there for kicks, not seriously attached to the idea.

Congratulations on losing the uniform Filia :)

[Jessica]

While we're throwing out off-base theories, I have one I've been pondering. Which everyone will probably hate, but here it goes anyway.

1. We know Tonks is a metamorphgus. She was born one which means that we can assume it is genetic.

2. If it is genetic it is possible that other members of her family may have the same ability.

3. Narcissa Malfoy is Tonks' auntie.

Okay, here's where I go off the deep end. What if Narcissa is a metamorphgus and has been impersonating Umbridge. Clearly this would have been going on for some time. But Umbridge works for Fudge and Fudge (in essence) works for Malfoy so Malfoy could easily convince Fudge to hire Umbridge. Whether or not Fudge knows who she really is.

My (admittedly skimpy) evidence:

1. The pain in Harry's scar. Seems to reflect a connection between Umbridge and Voldemort. ALso she sent the dementors after Harry.

2. Kreacher went to Narcissa, who went to Voldemort with the info about Harry and Sirius. This indicates she is on Voldermort's side.

3. Umbridge just seems like a caricature more than she seems like a real person.

Okay, tell me how much you hate it :)

[sindatur]

Not so irrational Jessica. There is generally a "Big" misdirection in Chapter 13, and didn't the Umbridge Scar pain occur in Chapter 13. I've racked my brains trying to figure out what the misdirection in Book 5's Chapter 13 is, and I've come up dry everytime, leading me to finally accept the format has changed, or perhaps the format was misunderstood, and Chapter 13 is only a highlight of the Big Bad person.

Perhaps the formula did change a bit in Book 5, and instead of being mis-directed in Chapter 13, we are led with a correct clue, convinced later in the book that we read too much into it, and find out in a later book that it wasn't a misdirection afterall? Did we see Narcissa after Umbridge went over the edge, or have an indication from Draco that his mom is holding down the fort whilst Lucius is in Summer Camp? Interesting idea, what would become of Draco if Lucius is locked up, and Narcissa is seriously disturbed due to her partying with the Centaurs in the guise of Umbridge, HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

[Jessica]

I'm currently re-reading OotP and so far I haven't noticed any mention of her. I've been watching Tonks and she seems to be able to change her shape as well as her facial characteristics and hair color, so it's not illogical based on what we know of how metamorphogi work.

You're right though there was no true "Big Bad" in OotP which is what makes me think we're missing something. Or let's face it, many many mnay things

[sindatur]

Hi Jessica,

I don't believe there is any mention of Narcissa in OotP, other than she was related to Sirius (Black family tapestry) and that Kreacher had his encounter with her. I think that's it.

Definitely keep your eyes on Tonks. My first read through, I didn't notice she was especially clutzy, or ever sseeming to be hiding anything. I've read those theories, and I've been reading my 2nd time through for about 3 months now (I know pathetic, but what can you do when you have responsibilties that prevent you reading time?) and been keeping in mind, the things People have been calling into question about Tonks, and it does seem she could be something different than she has been presented (wether that means she's a spy, or hiding something else, I won't commit to, but, I have a feeling there will be a revelation about her in the 6th book.

[jordmundt6]

Nice theroy on Metamorphing Jess, but you gotta remember that the ability to be a Parselmouth is inherited and Voldemort is the only one in 900 years from Slytherin's line to pass through Hogwarts with that skill. What if this talent skips generations like Seeing? Still--that'd be very interesting.

I'd like to bounce a very popular (read as oft-debated) theory off y'all, one which I'm inclined to favor. It's the "awful boy" = Snape theory. I bet you have a few pages back there somewhere dealing with this but I thought I'd recycle it to facilitate discussion.

1. Petunia heard someone she describes as "that awful boy" telling Lily about Dementors when Lily was school-aged.

2. Lily wasn't really on good speaking terms with any of the Marauders until sixth year and she and James weren't close enough to start visiting each others' houses until at least 7th year (they didn't start dating until then). This rules out any of the Marauders as the conveyor of that piece of information.

3. Snape had a very poor home life--Snape's father abused Snape's mother at least vocally, quite often. Given her cowering posture, I'd say it's safe to assume that it got physically violent on occassion.

4. The memory of Snape's house and room are both of small barren places, the house he remembers seems devoid of books.

5. Yet, he came into his First Year knowing more Curses than half the kids in 7th Year. If he wasn't exposed to book knowledge (and it appears he wasn't or wasn't very much) where did he learn all that? A possible and (I think) likely answer

6. Snape learned what the curses looked and sounded like from watching his parents.

7. Also, he learned to use them for his own and his mother's protection.

Which brings us to the part with absolutely no evidence (yet).

8. At some point it could have come to a showdown between father and son, and if it didn't perhaps once Papa went too far.

9. Either way, the resultant struggle produced injuries so severe that even the Victorian code of Wizard Britain ground into action.

10. Someone in the Snape family was arrested for magical assault on a family member, or, if it got bad enough, murder.

11. The penalty for this crime was a short stretch in Azkaban.

12. Assuming Papa went to jail and Mama went to St. Mungo's for an extended stay relatively early in Severus' school career, at least one summer he needed a place to stay.

13. He stayed with a friend--Lily Evans.

Which brings us back to the books.

14. Severus had a hard time fitting in at Hogwarts and would have turned to whoever stretched out a kind hand. Lily has an amazing capability for doing that and their mutual magical intellgience and differing backgrounds give them a lot to talk about. They become--possibly--study partners and friends.

15. When Severus needs a place to stay over the holidays, Lily invites him to her house and though Severus is out of his element he's welcomed kindly by Mr. and Mrs. Evans, though his temper and odd ways quickly get him into trouble with Petunia.

16. At some point, Lily and Severus have a long chat about his parents and Petunia, unable to control her curiosity, catches a snippet of it. She's discoverd, reprimanded, and forced to leave, but the information she gets (as unspecific as it is) is intriguing and she holds onto it.

17. A few years later things get serious. As a friend Lily has often come to Severus' rescue when besieged by the Marauders but in spite of her moral stance, she can't help being entertained by James.

18. Severus who's come to depend on the friendship more and more and possibly sees possibilities for it (i.e. he develops a Ron-esque crush on Lily) becomes more and more threatened by this.

19. By the end of fifth year Severus feels he should be able to take care of himself and being embarrassed in front of Lily, the girl that he, like James, would most like to impress, is too much.

20. He throws every vile thing he's ever thought or felt or heard at his attackers (James and Sirius) and can't even try to flip the maturity switch when Lily shows up (as James can). He throws some of his frustration at her and for the only time in the books, calls her a Mudblood, the worst insult he, as a pureblood, knows.

21. Lily isn't offended for herself (she has a very Hermione-esque view of the "blood" issue, as well she might) but she knows what the insult means to Severus. She quits defending him then and there and stops trying so hard to fight James' appeals.

22. Severus apologizes at some future date or never figures out how. In any case, he never does anything like that again but the damage is done.

23. Given the opening, James charms his way into Lily's heart, giving Severus another reason to hate him.

24. Severus never again disparages Lily, and this goes unnoticed even by his fellow DEs. He intervenes to try to pay his blood debt to James and protect Lily by becoming a spy and relaying Voldemort's choice of Harry over Neville to Dumbledore.

25. His attempt backfires.

Which brings us to where we are today.

[Vigilance]

Well, all we really hear about Snape's friends is that they were a pack of Slytherins. Personally, I don't favor the Lily/Snape connection, but JKR may pull out the same old hat, I suppose.

[sindatur]

Wow Jormundt, I gotta say I'm impressed with how well thought out that all is. I'm normally at total loggerheads with you, but, there's very little to debate about there.

I'm not fond of alot of the Lily/Snape connections (siblings, cousins, Snape loved her, Lily loved Snape, etc) but the growing up with him, works for me, and this is the most intelligently laid out ways I've seen it displayed, thanks.

I think in this scenario though, Snape can't be that awful boy. If Petunia had a limited, but, explicit view of the Wizarding world, than Lily growing up with Snape, would engrave Snape as being the victim. I think Petunia was too jealous and physically removed from the wizarding world (even though nosing in learning all she could) by the 5th year to see Snape as anything but a victim (observe her desperate attempt to not inflict those feelings on Dudley, by her major spoiling of him). I can see most of this playing out though, if "that awful boy" was a Marauder". (BTW, the Sirius/Petunia Crush/love, doesn't work for me, but I can see her sympathizes with Snape that Lily grew up with, and considering a Marauder "An Awful Boy"

[jordmundt6]

I don't think it has to go as far as growing up side by side with him. I was thinking more along the lines of him being there for one summer early in his Hogwarts career (when he and Lily had been friends for a short time and he needed a place to stay and she offered) and then when his mother got better, or his father got out of prison--or both--Snape went back to living at Chez Hellhole. Does that work better for limited but specific knowledge on Petunia's part?

[sindatur]

Ummm, I'm not sure. For Lily to let Snape stay for the season (year, however long we deem it to be) she'd have to know him pretty thoroughly (IE: Watched him grow through several experiences). And for Snape to be stressed enough to respond so passionately to a friend (who knows as much about him as he does. She's gotta know him that well, otherwise, why invite a Dark Wizard into your home like that? That's like Hermione inviting Draco to stay a season) he couldn't attck someone who supported him that much, if he wasn't afraid how well they knew him (inside and out)

[Jessica]

But what about Sirius' comment in PoA that Snape "hung out with a gang of Slytherins who almost all turned out to be Death Eaters".

Also he called Lily a mudblood in the worst memory scene. It didn;t strike me that the had a friendly past (or future).

Personally, I'm comfortable with James = that awful boy. Some things can still be straightforward :)

Well supported theory though. :)

[jordmundt6]

Again, I'd have said that until I read Snape's Worst Memory, but if they didn't start going out until 7th year, there wasn't TIME for him to be that awful boy. In fact, I think you would have read petunia saying "I overheard HIM...telling HER about them...years ago."

Again, I understand that he called Lily a mudblood but doesn't it strike you as odd that this is so UNUSUAL for him? I mean usually DEs or Slytherins with Pedigrees are absolutely blood-mad and see Muggle-borns as scum and don't mind saying it often (think Draco or Tom or Bella or even Lucius). This is the ONLY time in any of the books that we EVER hear Snape say a word against Lily. Isn't that really odd? He doesn't lump Harry's parents together like their friends or their enemies so often do. He keeps them totally separate. He rants and raves and storms and spits about James until the cows come home and loves doing it. And he revels in saying how like James Harry is because in his mind that's an insult to Harry. We never hear ANYTHING from him on Lily. El zippo. He never drags her into his tirades.

I'm glad y'all like my presentation anyway.;)

Incidentally--Really sindatur? I seem to recall Ron claiming to have invited Harry over to stay at the Burrow 12 times over '92 holidays and Harry spent a few days there. I think they'd just have to be close school friends and I don't think it's really beyond the realm of possibility. He's bright and lonely and she's bright and caring and there isn't that bite to him that sullen arrogance that hangs around Malfoy at all times except when danger approaches.

[Jessica]

But just because Petunia overheard it doesn't mean they were still in school. In that era it was perfectly normal for girls to live at home before they got married so the incident could have happened any time between when Lily and James started dating and when Lily/James and Petunia/Vernon got married.

On the Snape not being nasty about Lily bit, she was nice to him. She tried to stop James and Sirius. So deep down Snape has to recognize that she was decent to him. I think that's' why he's never nasty about her.

[JadeDragon]

I'm with you, jessica. Petunia would call James an awful boy whether he was less than seventeen or less than twenty-three. He has boyish looks, by all descriptions. He also hung around a lot, probably. I think there were a LOT of assumptions in that rather long list of "supporting theories" starting early. It just doesn't make sense that Snape would have anything to do with Lily, at least not in actual reality. I don't like it, but I will allow he might have had a crush on her, maybe, at some point... that is, it wouldn't shock me to the core. But stay at a muggle's house? Not our Snape, especially one with DE-to-be-Slytherin friends sneering at him! :)

[sindatur]

Jormundt, doesn't mesh, Ron and Harry experienced so much in the first year that it's no wonder they act like they've been friends for years by the second book. That's my point. With the way Snape avoids dragging Lily through the mud, he must've been close to her, or had a very healthy respect to attack her like that, in the worst memory (Honestly the Sirus/James part of the memory, couldn't be any worse than the Werewolf experience in the Shrieking shack) and have it make an imapct on him to record as so bad. If it was only a Sirius/James bad memory, Lily wouldn't have been so viciously attacked.

[jordmundt6]

Jade--and why would he "hang around a lot probably"? Lily's the one he's worried about. He has loving, kind parents with a boatload of cash who obviously don't mind feeding guests (check out how Sirius spent his summers before and after he ran away from home).

Sindatur--The avoidance of the subject of Lily is a key part of my point as well and we seem to be on a similar track. I'm just wondering where the disjoint is.

[whizbang121]

I know I ought to keep on topic but, guess what! Today was my last day in uniform! I am never, ever, ever, EVER going to wear a pleated navy skirt again!! Gaudite omnes! :clap: :D
Congratulations! Is it summer where you are?
A thought about possession: Ginny describes possession as a blankness but when Harry is possessed by Voldemort he feels anything but blank; Ginny was possessed because she "poured out her soul to an invisible stranger" and in a sense allowed it to happen, whereas Voldemort simply forced his way into Harry mind via his scar. As Snape said about occlumency, the usual rules again, don't seem to apply. The connection in the scar is unique and Voldemort's possession of Harry through the scar appears to be different from the usual possession. Harry is in pain whenever Voldemort is nearby or experiencing an emotion, I think, whenever Voldemort is accessing his life force in the scar. If what happened in the MoM was that Voldemort, "possessing" Harry, came into direct contact with his own life force in the scar, the pain would be unbearable. "Neither can live while the other survives." And Harry was prepared to die rather than endure the pain of Voldemort's presence.
It's all about that connection in the scar.
It occurs to me that Voldemort was uncommonly quiet after the battle in the MoM. I wonder what he learned during his moments of possession of Harry.
You think there's a relationship between Harry and Dumbledore other than the obvious, then? Maybe a blood relationship. But it could be something else. (It could be anything else.:rolleyes:) What does Dumbledore mean when he says that he doesn't want Voldemort to know that his and Harry's relationship is more than that of headmaster and student?
I've always suggested that this watching is done through a mind link; it seems to fit best. Is it possible that Dumbledore has a sort of low-power ongoing one-way Legilimency with Harry? There would have been two risks to this: firstly, if Voldemort became aware of it then he could use Harry as a gateway; secondly, if the connection became two way then this could be quite disturbing, both for Harry and Dumbledore. And Dumbledore doesn't want Voldemort to know about this link because he might try forcing his way through Harry's mind to Dumbledore's. Dumbledore says exactly that when he explains why he didn't teach Harry occlumency. But do you think it's more than the normal legilemency that Dumbledore already does? The ony time I remember Harry feeling as though Voldemort, or the snake was looking through his eyes was in Dumbledore's presence after the attack on Mr. Weasley. It was one of the few occasions when they made eye contact. Harry even felt Voldemort's emotions as his own in that instance. Usually, it's Harry in Voldemort's head. So, there's definitely something going on there.
Incidentally, can you imagine how weird it would be for Harry to be receiving fragments of thought and feelings from Dumbledore and Voldemort? Harry receives thoughts and feelings from many people. It's part of why he's so empathetic. Of course, that's the definition of empathy, isn't it? Yawwwn. Well, then sympathetic? More than a little psychic, too. Harry often has premonitions and dreams that we could look at.
:agree: Nothing like a good debate! There'll be some mince pies when mum gets round to making them. Mmmmm... sounds delicious.

[Vigilance]

Jordmunt6--I think he'd hang around because he pursued Lily, not the other way around. Also, it's possible that he could be interested in Muggles (like Arthur is). Also, possibly, Lily has more money than James--we just don't know. Why would Lily come to him? That doesn't seem like her way. If he wants to see her over the summer or something, he'd probably have to go to her. Just a possible few explanations. :)

[phoenixsong]

jordmundt: Well, I've been a supporter of the Snape="that awful boy" theory for a while (and it often goes hand in hand with the Severus Snape=Perseus Evans theory), but I don't think that it requires an extended stay at the Evans household to work. Is it not possible that they might have been neighbors, and therefore "default" friends after they discovered they were both magical folk during their first year at Hogwarts?

whizbang, a question on your "Voldemort's life-force is in Harry's scar theory": what happens if Harry dies, if he has Voldemort's life force? Does Voldemort die, too?

[whizbang121]

It's okay. No one likes my pet theory, Snape is Regulus Black, either.;)
I suspect that the awful boy is none other than, the ever popular someone we've never heard of. Or perhaps, someone who was mentioned in passing having a butterbeer in the Leaky Cauldron.
Or it could have been someone known who wasn't a marauder, Stubby Boardman,(my other Regulus candidate), Frank Longbottom, Peter Pettigrew. He's pretty awful. And there's that photo of him sitting between Lily and James with a smile you can hang over his ears. Hmmm... I wonder what the rest of the discussion that concerned Dementors was about. Someone they knew got arrested or turned over? Or maybe they were talking about Fudge bringing the dementors into Azkaban. Dumbledore really hated that idea.

Wait a minute. When did Fudge bring the dementors to Azkaban. Wasn't that after Godric's Hollow? :huh:??? Fudge wasn't MoM, yet. Didn't he arrest Sirius? ?!!?

Serious memory lapse. Off to the lexicon for a fixall.

Okay, Fudge became Minister of magic about 1990, the year before our heroes entered Hogwarts. I have more copies of Azkaban than any other book ever, and I'm still sitting here with bks 1, 2, 4, and 5. Another copy of Azkaban ... Gone! :grumble:

[Puffskein]

Maybe a blood relationship. But it could be something else. (It could be anything else.:rolleyes:) What does Dumbledore mean when he says that he doesn't want Voldemort to know that his and Harry's relationship is more than that of headmaster and student?

I thought he just meant that he's a mentor to Harry as well. Dumbledore doesn't seem to give personal advice to many other students. He didn't want to take the risk that Voldemort might decide to find out about his activities through Harry.

Whizbang, if Snape is Regulus, why did we see Snape's memory in the Pensieve? Do you think memories can be switched between people?

[phoenixsong]

Whizbang, if Snape is Regulus, why did we see Snape's memory in the Pensieve? Do you think memories can be switched between people?I'm not whizbang, but I'll give it a whirl. The Snape=Regulus theory rests upon the assumption that it was brotherly rivalry and resentment that underlies Snape's and Sirius' mutual dislike. It is made possible by the fact that Snape is never called "Snape" in the pensieve scene, but only "Snivellus" (or its variant, "Snivelly")which could be a play on "Regulus" (or "Perseus" if you like; of course it sounds a lot like "Severus" as well!); but nobody ever calls him Severus or Snape.

[sindatur]

Going back to Jormundt's Snape/Lily connection as friends (to whatever degree you can handle accepting). The naysayers have argued that he had all his Slytherin friends (Who probably all turned out to be Death Eaters).

Now think Draco, some are in the camp that he will reform and become a hero, I am not in this camp. I don't think Draco will change his spots, I believe he'll just become worse. Why? He has no outside influences in his circle of friends, they're all Sytherin's who follow their dark families' ways.

Now think Sirius, Sirius went against his dark family's ways because he was friends with James and Lupin (outside source)

Now, I have to ask, why would Snape, go against his dark lord, and all his friends, to save James, Lily, and baby Harry? I don't think it could be just from the Shrieking Shack incident, because that debt would be repaid, if that's why he turned, yet he still feels the need to repay it to Harry, once Harry arrives at Hogwarts. So, he must've been at least a little bit close to someone outside of the Sytherin/Death Eater circle, in order to have a change of heart and lifestyle. I think Lily could very possibly be that influence. I don't buy that one of them loved the other, but they must've been neighbors, or friends or something.
Snape may not think much of Muggleborns, but we never see him do anything at any other time, like when he called Lily Mudblood. That was a very passionate statement for him, so one would think for Snape to use such a foul name for her, especially when she was sticking up for him, it would have to be because he felt vulnerable, she knows him very well, inside and out

{I know, lot's assumptions, leading to even more assumptions, go easy on me when you tear it apart}

[whizbang121]

Now, I have to ask, why would Snape, go against his dark lord, and all his friends, to save James, Lily, and baby Harry? I don't remember whereit says this, but Snape left Voldemort because, like Regulus, he panicked at what he was being required to do. (If he was good with potions back then, I wonder if he was working on immortality recipes for his boss.) He was hauled off to Azkaban where Dumbledore spoke for him securing his release. Snape owes Dumbledore bigtime. The headmaster has something on him or over him and he's holding Snape to it, whatever it is.

Now the fact that Snape left the Dark Lord at all says something for him, especially as he now seems to function as a double agent. Hopefully, it's only double. But I think we saw his true colors in the shrieking shack. I don't think he's doing any of this because his heart is in it. He owes Dumbledore.
Maybe it's some kind of a blood bond.

[sindatur]

I don't remember whereit says this, but Snape left Voldemort because, like Regulus, he panicked at what he was being required to do. (If he was good with potions back then, I wonder if he was working on immortality recipes for his boss.) He was hauled off to Azkaban where Dumbledore spoke for him securing his release. Snape owes Dumbledore bigtime. The headmaster has something on him or over him and he's holding Snape to it, whatever it is.

Now the fact that Snape left the Dark Lord at all says something for him, especially as he now seems to function as a double agent. Hopefully, it's only double. But I think we saw his true colors in the shrieking shack. I don't think he's doing any of this because his heart is in it. He owes Dumbledore.
Maybe it's some kind of a blood bond.

Was he actually locked up? I thought his name came out in someone else's trial, someone pointed their finger at him to save their own neck, or something, and that's when Dumbledore spoke up for him, because Dumbledore already had experience with Snape providing information to him as a Spy.

[whizbang121]

I'm not whizbang, but I'll give it a whirl. The Snape=Regulus theory rests upon the assumption that it was brotherly rivalry and resentment that underlies Snape's and Sirius' mutual dislike. It is made possible by the fact that Snape is never called "Snape" in the pensieve scene, but only "Snivellus" (or its variant, "Snivelly")which could be a play on "Regulus" (or "Perseus" if you like; of course it sounds a lot like "Severus" as well!); but nobody ever calls him Severus or Snape.

The relationship between Snape and Sirius is so disturbing. As for Snape's memories, Mrs Black was quite mad and we know Mr. Black, (about whom we know nearly nothing), had loads of spells on Grimmauld Place to hide and protect it. Did he keep his mad wife locked in the attic? (Hmmmm .... the attic?)
Was Sirius, presumably Dad's firstborn son and heir, his pride and joy? Did he blame Mrs Black for somehow being responsible for Sirius turning out the way he did? Perhaps she let Sirius play with little Jamsie Potter when Dad wasn't home? Or was she not minding the kids much at all?
For some reason, did Dad have a dislike for little Regulus? Did the second son not measure up to Dad's expectations somehow and also have a room in the attic near his mad mum? Perhaps Reggie tried to protect his mother from his father and the screaming and hollering about Sirius' lack of interest in Dark Arts, not to mention his noble ancestry. Glad I wasnt there when they found out Sirius was sorted into Gryffindor.
Were Mr and Mrs Black near relatives? She does call the Black house, which we assume she married into, the House of her Fathers! And the hatred between Snape and Sirius can make a room cold.
"Dad always liked you best!"
"Momma's boy!"
Sirius told Harry that Regulus was weak. He joined the DE's and tried to back out when he found out what they were asking of him, exactly as Snape did and apparently about the same time. Supposedly, Voldemort had Regulus, but Sirius is vague on the subject.
This was about the same time that the rock singer, Stubby Boardman got hit with a turnip and retired. Also around the same time that Snape was taken to trial, and Peter turned traitor, sometime in 1980, the year before the murders in Godric's Hollow.
Why don't we ever hear of Regulus at school? And if he "died" sometime in 1980 he would only have been a year or so younger than Sirius. If Sirius was born in late September, 1959 (and he looks like a Libra to me), and Regulus/Snape born the following year in August, 1960 (Virgo) they would both have been eleven in Sept 1971 and in the same year at Hogwarts.

Now about Stubby Boardman. ;) :lol: :lol:

Sindatur
Snape appears to have resumed his potentially deadly work as a spy among the Death Eaters; exactly how he managed this is unknown, given that Dumbledore defended him publicly during Karkaroff's trial in the 1980s by revealing that Snape had been a spy. Once Voldemort was persuaded to give Snape a hearing, however, Snape's skills as an Occlumens would have protected him from exposure via Voldemort's use of Legilimency.

Wish I could remember what book this comes out in. Must GoF since Karkaroff is
mentioned.

If Snape was Regulus and DE's had a death warrant on him, he might very well have gone to Dumbledore and offered his services in return for protection before the trial took place.

[sindatur]

Whiz, if Snape was Regulus, wouldn't Sirius have given some kind of clue (probably unintentionally) to Harry when he was going over the tapestry with him? I don't think Sirius was capable of lying to HArry, so this is major concern to me in the Snape is Regulus theory.

Stubby Boardman as Regulus, I can buy, because JKR brought up that article at least twice in OotP for some reason, although once again this would be a lie to Harry, since he told Harry Regulus was killed.

[whizbang121]

Whiz, if Snape was Regulus, wouldn't Sirius have given some kind of clue (probably unintentionally) to Harry when he was going over the tapestry with him? I don't think Sirius was capable of lying to HArry, so this is major concern to me in the Snape is Regulus theory. Why? Remember Sirius reaction when he found out Snape was teaching at Hogwarts? :elaugh: But by the time they had this conversation, Sirius was well aware that Harry can't know everything. On the other hand, planting stuff in Harry's mind is a reliable method of getting misinformation to Voldemort. But, who knows? I like this theory, but I'm not married to it. Only JKR knows the whole story.
Still, it is an amusing possibility.

Stubby Boardman as Regulus, I can buy, because JKR brought up that article at least twice in OotP for some reason, although once again this would be a lie to Harry, since he told Harry Regulus was killed.

I think Sirius was Stubby Boardman. Tall, dark and handsome, the girls loved him. Perfect frontman for a rock band. Turnips notwithstanding, why did he retire right about the time Regulus was going on the lam from the DEs? Then Doris insists that, a year later, Stubby was with her when Sirius was supposedly murdering muggles and Peter Pettigrew. Why does Sirius look like Stubby? Who had dinner with Doris? Fake Stubby? Time turner?
hmmmm.... I'm still working on that connection. I'm also trying to remember what thread this stuff was on. Stubby Boardman and the Hobgoblins, maybe? I'll look around.
X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X

Here's one. (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=17441)
Here' another. (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=13178)

Tons of good stuf around here. Wish I could remember all the great ideas that have come and gone. Someone pointed out that if we figured out the series and pegged all the predictions for the next two books, we'd be off on other tangants so fast, we'd never even know how close we had been. Tooooo true. Chimps writing Shakespeare or computers composing the encyclopedia Brittanica.

[phoenixsong]

I don't remember whereit says this, but Snape left Voldemort because, like Regulus, he panicked at what he was being required to do. (If he was good with potions back then, I wonder if he was working on immortality recipes for his boss.) He was hauled off to Azkaban where Dumbledore spoke for him securing his release. I'm pretty sure that neither of these things is in canon. I don't think we have been told that Snape panicked at what he was asked to do, or that he was ever hauled off to Azkaban. We only learn that Snape "was cleared" by the council that tried accused Death Eaters, and that he was "vouched for by Albus Dumbledore". Dumbledore himself says "I have given evidence already on this matter. Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall, and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." (GoF, pp. 590-591, Scholastic ed.) No mention of time served, no mention of panic (in fact, Dumbledore seems at pains to point out that this wasn't simply a convenient switching of sides in order to avoid prosecution: "he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall").

Stubby Boardman as Regulus, I can buy, because JKR brought up that article at least twice in OotP for some reason, although once again this would be a lie to Harry, since he told Harry Regulus was killed.I'm all for Stubby=Regulus. And it wouldn't require Sirius to lie, because Sirius might not know that Regulus was Stubby Boardman.

[Jessica]

I'm a fan of the Stubby=Regulus theory too. It seems like an appropraitely JKR twist :)

[Filia Tenebrarum]

Congratulations! Is it summer where you are?
Thanks. It's actually midwinter here, but for some reason Upper fives (year 11, 15/16 year olds) are allowed to wear own clothes after Christmas. It's a bit arbitary, but I'm not complaining.

New (to me) Marauder theory on the loose. I can't help wishing JK would write the prequel series to HP, and explain all this. Nevertheless, by having left it vague and arguable she seems to have given a great scope for fanfic writers and theorists.
Now, I have to ask, why would Snape, go against his dark lord, and all his friends, to save James, Lily, and baby Harry?
Well, there is the possibility that he just had a conscience. Maybe, when he realised he had the mental and moral strength to go against Voldemort, he did, simply because it was the right thing to do. Friendships and loyalties are everything for some people, but for others they're not that important; right, wrong and straightforward fact are more imperative. Dunno, just keeping the possiblity open. Perhaps that's why Gryffindors hate Slytherins so much; they regard them as cold hearted. As well as everything else.

Just persuaded mum to put the heating on. Good thing too; it's like the North Pole in here.

Stubby Boardman as Regulus, I can buy, because JKR brought up that article at least twice in OotP for some reason, although once again this would be a lie to Harry, since he told Harry Regulus was killed.
Perhaps Regulus faked his death. It wouldn't be the first time we've seen someone do that. Anagrams for Stubby Boardman? After all, Regulus must be there for a reason. (Oh dear, I can feel myself sliding down the slippery slope into Alice in Theoryland)

I think Sirius was Stubby Boardman. Tall, dark and handsome, the girls loved him. Perfect frontman for a rock band. Turnips notwithstanding, why did he retire right about the time Regulus was going on the lam from the DEs? Then Doris insists that, a year later, Stubby was with her when Sirius was supposedly murdering muggles and Peter Pettigrew. Why does Sirius look like Stubby? Who had dinner with Doris? Fake Stubby? Time turner?
Wait a moment! Sirius, lead singer of the Hobgoblins? Why would a young man who probably had the highest grade you can get in Transfiguration, was a member of the Order of the Phoenix and had had all these adventures with his friends when he was still, so to speak, warming up, why would he become a member of a relatively anonymous singing group? Where is Little Norton? There must be loads of villages around Brittain with that name... But if there were one near the probable location of Godric's Hollow... I see White Rabbits...

Someone pointed out that if we figured out the series and pegged all the predictions for the next two books, we'd be off on other tangants so fast, we'd never even know how close we had been. Tooooo true. Chimps writing Shakespeare or computers composing the encyclopedia Brittanica.
Yes, although sometimes it's possible to tell when you've struck gold. Some theories, you tap them and they go "plink"; others ring true. Perhaps we should try testing them with a hazel fork, you know, like they used to do with water-divining...

[januarystars]

Hey guys, It's me, whizbang. Don't ask. Basically, I'm not at home.


I don't remember where it says this, but Snape left Voldemort because, like Regulus, he panicked at what he was being required to do. (If he was good with potions back then, I wonder if he was working on immortality recipes for his boss.) He was hauled off to Azkaban where Dumbledore spoke for him securing his release.
I'm pretty sure that neither of these things is in canon. I don't think we have been told that Snape panicked at what he was asked to do, or that he was ever hauled off to Azkaban.
I hope I remember correctly that the first part was from an interview. I think. :huh:
But you're right about Azkaban. I overextapolated from the testimony at Karkarov's trial. We don't know if Snape went to Azkaban or to trial, but
We only learn that Snape "was cleared" by the council that tried accused Death Eaters, and that he was "vouched for by Albus Dumbledore". Dumbledore himself says "I have given evidence already on this matter. Assumptions are dangerous and I concede.

"Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall, and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." (GoF, pp. 590-591, Scholastic ed.)

No mention of time served, no mention of panic (in fact, Dumbledore seems at pains to point out that this wasn't simply a convenient switching of sides in order to avoid prosecution: "he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall").

I'm all for Stubby=Regulus. And it wouldn't require Sirius to lie, because Sirius might not know that Regulus was Stubby Boardman.

I don't think Snape turned spy because he was caught and was trying to avoid prosecution. In fact, it seems clear that he wasn't caught. I think he left Voldemort because of something he was asked to do. I know it's something I read, and now I'm hoping it was an interview and not a fanfic. (Why I stopped reading fanfic.) :rolleyes:

Either way, for Dumbledore to trust him as implicitly as he does, especially after the carrying on at the end of Azkaban, it seems highly probable that he must owe the headmaster something.

[The Green Fool]

I don't think Snape turned spy because he was caught and was trying to avoid prosecution. In fact, it seems clear that he wasn't caught. I think he left Voldemort because of something he was asked to do.

I agree!!! :agree:

I don't believe that Snape turned back to the 'good' side just to evade being caught and sent to Azkaban.

We know that he turned before the downfall of Voldemort but we do not know how long before.

Could it be possible that it was only shortly before and that his turning had something to do with Voldemort's pursuit of baby Harry?

This would be a possible link between Snape and Harry and may go some way to explaining the animosity between them!!!

[jordmundt6]

I think he was caught and questioned after already having become a spy. It wasn't to avoid prosecution because he was tried. Remember Crouch saying in the Pensieve "Severus Snape has been cleared by this Council"?

[whizbang121]

I think he was caught and questioned after already having become a spy. It wasn't to avoid prosecution because he was tried. Remember Crouch saying in the Pensieve "Severus Snape has been cleared by this Council"?
Yes, but it's difficult to figure out if that means Snape had a trial. Due process is screwy at best at the MoM. Sirius was sent to Azkaban without a trial and in CoS the same thing happened to Hagrid. Hard to tell what actually went on with Snape.

[Sabine]

There is something I want to say on that "powers of Harry" issue...

Some try to relate the "power" that Harry used to protect himself from being strangeled by Uncle Vernon, to one of the protections left from his mother. Why? Couldn't that have been some uncontroled magic? Like Harry "used" to set free the snake at the zoo or on other various occasions?

I'm not so sure that every single bit can be related to the protections.

Sabine

[jordmundt6]

Partly because it looks so much like a diluted version of what happened to Quirrel.

Whiz--Dumbledore had to give evidence IN COURT. "The Council has already heard from me on this matter." It came up in court and Dumbledore vouched for him. Presumably when he was caught (probably by Alastor--:D).

[barmy codger]

This seems to be a catch-all sort of thread, so I will ask here: What is worse than death?

I searched for a thread discussing this and found one about Voldemort's weakness. I asked the question there but got no response.

I searched again and found nothing again, but I am reluctant to start a thread,

In OotP Ron asks his brothers,"But there can't be anything worse than the Aveda Kedavra curse, can there?" and "What's worse than death?"

Dumbledore tells Voldemort, "You are quite wrong." and "Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness."

You posters here have lots of good ideas. I would appreciate your opinions, or direction to an appropriate thread. The only thing I can think of for an answer is a dementor's kiss.

[Ihela]

Someone please help me here with the real ending of SS/PS. I've been sacreligious and only watching the movie since it came out (only read the book twice before that, and seen the movie at least 5 times), so I am unclear of what actually took place in the book. I know Quirrel didn't crumble in the book, but what exactly took place after he experienced pain and realized he couldn't touch Harry.



I always took "Voldemort" and "he" in this statement as less literal, meaning "He and his cohorts" not simply "he", so perhaps that's where our interpretation differs

Thanks for the cupcakes, and I'll take some of that Lemonade too, if there's any left, who had that?

Hi Again:

Can Harry call the Dursley house his Home? (Being this story about decisions and all) I can remember Harry calling Hogwart his real home at the end of the first book; Or it was the movie..? Would this eventually reduce the power of the Protecting Spell at Privet Drive even if Harry recharges ones a year at his aunt´s house.

[whizbang121]

There is something I want to say on that "powers of Harry" issue...

Some try to relate the "power" that Harry used to protect himself from being strangeled by Uncle Vernon, to one of the protections left from his mother. Why? Couldn't that have been some uncontroled magic? Like Harry "used" to set free the snake at the zoo or on other various occasions?

I'm not so sure that every single bit can be related to the protections.

Sabine
I agree. I think his mother's protection is only against Voldemort. But since the prophesy says that, "... either must die at the hand of the other," only Voldemort can kill Harry until the prophesy is fulfilled. That doesn't mean he can't be harmed, though.
This seems to be a catch-all sort of thread, so I will ask here: What is worse than death?You don't know Galadriel Waters, do you?;)

Voldemort before the graveyard scene in GoF, and I'm not sure he's any better off now.
Certainly not everyone agrees with me on this but here's my point of view.
on this page (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=20931&page=1)
Was there only one AK in that room. Did the spell that killed Lily go through her body to Harry? Was her protective bond activated before it got to him? (Snape: time and space matter in magic) Voldemort can no longer touch Harry. When the AK reached Harry, Lily's protection kept it from killing him, but did the emotional state of baby Harry respond with the burst of magic that did more? Vodemort was torn from his body and left less than the meanest ghost, barely aware of himself at all, a struggle to keep living. What if Voldemort lost more than his body in that moment? What if he lost his life essence, too? The lightning bolt scar on Harry's forehead is the rune sowelo, which represents the energy of the sun and the life force. What if Voldemort's life force is in that scar? It's his mark on Harry that makes Harry his equal.

[barmy codger]

You don't know Galadriel Waters, do you?;)

No, not really. I know she has written about Harry Potter. What do you mean? Are you suggesting she has the answer?

[whizbang121]

No, not really. I know she has written about Harry Potter. What do you mean? Are you suggesting she has the answer?

No, I read an interview where she admitted she gets a lot of ideas from forums like these. :lol: And on her homepage where her favorite links are listed, guess which one is at the top? We're on it. :agree:
Explains a lot.;)

[Vigilance]

Perhaps selling your soul can be worse than death, to answer barmey's question. Or, carelessly and selfishly taking the lives of others? Wasting the life you're given? Depends on your value system. DD's just saying that Voldie's lacking in proper human values, IMO.

[barmy codger]

whizbang121 and Vigilance, both suggestions are interesting, except Voldemort doesn't seem to think he's worse than dead. Harry does, though when Voldemort possesses him. "Death is nothing compared to this."

What I had been thinking might be worse than death is to live a life over and over again with no escape, something like being in the bell jar in the time room in the Ministry of Magic. But again probably one would have to be aware of the repetiton. It is a half-baked concept. I was hoping for some ideas that would help me take it further or abandon it. I dislike time travel as a story device, but it was used well in PoA, and the business in the MoM was very suggestive.

[jordmundt6]

No but he thought he thought he was before he reconstituted his body. Remember he was "less than the meanest ghost" he had no idea what he actually was. If he wasn't alive because his body was destroyed and he wasn't strong enough to be a ghost, isn't that worse than dead? Actually I think Voldie's worst fate would be to be totally ereased, to completely cease existing and not be able to come back as a ghost or a parasite. I have a feeling that it was only his immortality spells that preserved him in the form he was in for nearly 12 years. I think if it hadn't been for those spells he would have completely vanished--without a single trace. That would be his ultimate nightmare, the ultimate punishment for him. I think in book 7 that just might happen.

[Masterfroggy]

No but he thought he thought he was before he reconstituted his body. Remember he was "less than the meanest ghost" he had no idea what he actually was. If he wasn't alive because his body was destroyed and he wasn't strong enough to be a ghost, isn't that worse than dead? Actually I think Voldie's worst fate would be to be totally ereased, to completely cease existing and not be able to come back as a ghost or a parasite. I have a feeling that it was only his immortality spells that preserved him in the form he was in for nearly 12 years. I think if it hadn't been for those spells he would have completely vanished--without a single trace. That would be his ultimate nightmare, the ultimate punishment for him. I think in book 7 that just might happen.

As anyone who has every watched the film Groundhog Day will know, being forced to live the same moment in time for all eternity, repeating the same mistakes day after day, that is a fate worse than death,

So perhaps Dumbledore who, being outside the time paradox, is the only one who knows that Harry Lord Voldemort and the whole of the earth is in some time loop, a dimensional paradox waiting for one person to do the right thing in the right sequence and until they do, the whole cycle is repeated

[jordmundt6]

What--Dumbledore is a divine being outside the Big Bang-Big Crunch of the universe? I know you're being sarcastic but I thought I'd carry the thought to its conclusion. But ENTIRELY ceasing to exist is Voldemort's ultimate nightmare. It's why he's obsessed with immortality. He doesn't ever want to cease being, cease having power. He "almost" gave up hope after Quirrel failed. Those must have been a miserable couple of years for him. Good.

[Masterfroggy]

What--Dumbledore is a divine being outside the Big Bang-Big Crunch of the universe? I know you're being sarcastic but I thought I'd carry the thought to its conclusion. But ENTIRELY ceasing to exist is Voldemort's ultimate nightmare. It's why he's obsessed with immortality. He doesn't ever want to cease being, cease having power. He "almost" gave up hope after Quirrel failed. Those must have been a miserable couple of years for him. Good.

Me being sarcastic……. :evil: I was thinking more along the lines of him being repeatedly defeated, by a boy who is struggling to pass the end of year exams, I mean that's got to bite

[jordmundt6]

Malcolm Cullinan's "Ground Hog's Day from Hell" vists Voldemort in the form of Harry Potter. Hmm--I don't think Voldemort would take death over facing Harry again. Sorry about the comment.

[whizbang121]

Malcolm Cullinan's "Ground Hog's Day from Hell" vists Voldemort in the form of Harry Potter. Hmm--I don't think Voldemort would take death over facing Harry again. Sorry about the comment.

It's all about his ego. He can't let it go. I think that's partly what happens with ghosts, too. They can't let go of the life they have here and move on, like well organized minds.

[jordmundt6]

I'm not disputing that. But again, if Voldemort had been alive, he should have been more than a ghost and if he'd been dead he should have been about the same as a ghost, in fact, unless something happens, I could easily see him as a ghost. But whatever bounced back at him that night attacked his body AND his spirit because the piece of him preserved by those immortality spells was "less than the meanest ghost."

[barmy codger]

The thing about the time repetition in the bell jar is that it involves death and rebirth in an endless cycle, the fate of a phoenix, perhaps, except a phoenix doesn't repeat life events. I started thinking about it from reading the time travel theories about Voldemort, Dumbledore, et al.

There is something strange about Voldemort having all sorts of names, making me wonder about different people being hosts, so to speak, for some original persisting evil thing. Slytherin was friends with the other founders of Hogwarts, then changed his ways. Riddle (a very suspicious name) seemed to acquire a great deal of power and evilness in a very short time and changed into Voldemort. What possessed Harry was not described as Voldemort, but as the coils of a creature with red eyes. Yes, Voldemort now has red eyes, and yes, perhaps he's an animagus, as some suggest. But he did not need to be an animagus to possess Harry, and the creature is not specifically identified as Voldemort. So I wondered whether the creature was the essence. A wizard selling his soul to this essence might come to think that it was worse than death, but it is the essence calling the shots. This multiple identity is suggested in other threads, but not in this way. I was thinking perhaps the original evil thing is in a bell jar kind of situation.

Unfortunately, Voldemort generally speaks through all the books as though he is one identity. I said earlier it's a half-baked idea.

Thanks for all your ideas. The thing about ghosts is something to think about.

[iamshahin]

this whole layers bussiness is to big to discuss in one thread....there are like eleven pages and im NOT reading all of that! care to summerize anyone??

[Sabine]

whizbang121 and Vigilance, both suggestions are interesting, except Voldemort doesn't seem to think he's worse than dead. Harry does, though when Voldemort possesses him. "Death is nothing compared to this."


Hi Barmy welcome to the layers :welcome: .

I think thats exactly what the tricky point is.... Its not so important what "worse than death" means to us, but far more what it would mean to Voldemort.

We've discussed that sometime ago and if I remember correctly we - once again - could only agree in disagreeing :)

In my mind this worse-than-death-state would be one where you (or Voldy) would be completely powerless - but fully aware of the fact and he would not be able to change anything.

So if for instance some "magical-accident" would happen that would pull every little magic ability out of Voldemort this would be such a thing. He would be completely powerless (in magical senses) and not able to have those abilities back and he would completely well remember who he once was and what his goals were.

Actually I never thought of this exact thing, it just came to my mind while typing this answer - but I quiete like it ... imagine Voldy ending up as a squib and not being able to transform a teabag :D :rotfl:

There is something strange about Voldemort having all sorts of names, making me wonder about different people being hosts, so to speak, for some original persisting evil thing. Slytherin was friends with the other founders of Hogwarts, then changed his ways. Riddle (a very suspicious name) seemed to acquire a great deal of power and evilness in a very short time and changed into Voldemort. What possessed Harry was not described as Voldemort, but as the coils of a creature with red eyes. Yes, Voldemort now has red eyes, and yes, perhaps he's an animagus, as some suggest. But he did not need to be an animagus to possess Harry, and the creature is not specifically identified as Voldemort. So I wondered whether the creature was the essence. A wizard selling his soul to this essence might come to think that it was worse than death, but it is the essence calling the shots. This multiple identity is suggested in other threads, but not in this way. I was thinking perhaps the original evil thing is in a bell jar kind of situation.


Ah finally some other who is playing with the idea that Torm Riddle sold his soul
:clap: :clap: - I didn't seem to "make friends" with that idea :)

this whole layers bussiness is to big to discuss in one thread....there are like eleven pages and im NOT reading all of that! care to summerize anyone??

:welcome: to the layers jamshain.

One day we found out that to discuss only one issue in a thread is almost impossible, because everything in HP is so deep and mixed up with other things, so we decided to try a thread where we could come from one point to another wothout having to first catch up with loads of pages in other threads and then go to the other threads. So we try the "layers"

Since my time is very limited lately I don't have the complete overview but if you don't want to read all the pages, just try the last one or two and you'll have the last issue covered.

Sabine

[phoenixsong]

Some try to relate the "power" that Harry used to protect himself from being strangeled by Uncle Vernon, to one of the protections left from his mother. Why? Couldn't that have been some uncontroled magic? Like Harry "used" to set free the snake at the zoo or on other various occasions?

I'm not so sure that every single bit can be related to the protections.
I agree, Sabine, we can't really know this. We are certainly led to believe that magic can "erupt" from magical people before they learn to control it, which is why Hagrid asks in PS/SS: "Not a wizard, eh? Never made things happen when you was scared or angry?" (p. 47, Bloomsbury ed.). From Hagrid's question, it doesn't seem like these things are unique to Harry or springing from his "protection".

What is worse than death?Not that we can't discuss it here, too, but there is also a thread called "Things worse than death" found here: http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=11783 .

As anyone who has every watched the film Groundhog Day will know, being forced to live the same moment in time for all eternity, repeating the same mistakes day after day, that is a fate worse than death,

So perhaps Dumbledore who, being outside the time paradox, is the only one who knows that Harry Lord Voldemort and the whole of the earth is in some time loop, a dimensional paradox waiting for one person to do the right thing in the right sequence and until they do, the whole cycle is repeatedOf course religious traditions which use theories of karma and rebirth (e.g. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism) see this world, with its endless cycles of birth, life, death and rebirth as something, ultimately, to escape. There are critics who have read "Groundhog Day" as a Buddhist film!

What possessed Harry was not described as Voldemort, but as the coils of a creature with red eyes. Yes, Voldemort now has red eyes, and yes, perhaps he's an animagus, as some suggest. But he did not need to be an animagus to possess Harry, and the creature is not specifically identified as Voldemort. So I wondered whether the creature was the essence. A wizard selling his soul to this essence might come to think that it was worse than death, but it is the essence calling the shots. This multiple identity is suggested in other threads, but not in this way. I was thinking perhaps the original evil thing is in a bell jar kind of situation.

Unfortunately, Voldemort generally speaks through all the books as though he is one identity. I said earlier it's a half-baked idea.!!!!Way back in the old Prophecy thread, that was the predecessor to this one, we discussed this topic to excessive length. Some of us, myself included, basically agreed with your idea, that it is possible that the "Dark Lord" may be some sort of timeless persona that can be welcomed in by the appropriate witch or wizard, that maybe Grindelwald was the previous Dark Lord, and that young Tom Riddle, when approached by this possessing spirit, welcomed it with open arms. Whether it is a real spirit, or just a metaphorical acceptance of evil, I can't really say, but I, for one, don't think that Voldemort was the first to call himself "The Dark Lord."

this whole layers bussiness is to big to discuss in one thread....there are like eleven pages and im NOT reading all of that! care to summerize anyone??Well, the set-up of this thread does sort of make it difficult to summarize, because it allows for conversation and its subjects to wander and develop, so we have discussed many different things thus far, not just one. I'll agree with Sabine, the best idea is just to go back a couple of pages, so that you know what we're talking about right now, and what has been said on that particular subject.

[Vigilance]

In general, this thread is so inclusive because it tries to discuss the relationship between different elements of the books; most of us are glad we can take
an element from the first book and apply it to the prophecy and then go on to talk about Voldie's character development in GoF and the importance of the
wand cores that Harry and Voldie share. Some of us are on dial-up connections, here, and can't suffer all the "if you want to talk about this, see this thread"
stuff that a more defined thread would generate.

You'll feel the freedom of it soon enough! Just jump right in; the water's fine. :)

[januarystars]

Whizbang here. Hi all!

:welcome: New people!

The original thought behind this thread was to be a place where ideas could evolve without getting into hot water if they wander off topic. Everything we discuss here should have a thread of its own. Hopefully, things discussed here will eventually be brought back to their proper topic for further discussion.

So yeah, just jump in where ever we are and by all means, brainstorm!

The idea of a Dark Lord seperate from or possessing Tom Riddle and others in the past, is one of those concepts that keeps coming back. I think it's a real possiblility. Another idea is that there is a repeating pattern of "Dark Lord" and "The One" with the power to overcome or defeat him. Each "One" then mentors the next. Dumbledore's mentor was apparently Nicolas Flamel and his nemesis was Grindelwald. Did Flamel have a Dark Lord to overcome ..... six hundred years ago? ("Where's Hermione when you need her?")
Another thought we discussed was that originally, Tom Riddle was to be Dumbledore's "mentoree" (?) and his destiny was to bring an end to racism and enslavement. But somewhere along the way, he decided to save himself instead of the world. So, another one had to come to fulfill that destiny and vanquish the Dark Lord.

[phoenixsong]

Did Flamel have a Dark Lord to overcome ..... six hundred years ago? Hmm, at the height of the Inquisition, I wonder! Let's see: 1481, beginning of the Spanish Inquisition. 1484, Pope Innocent issues the "Summis desiderantes" bull against witchcraft and sorcery. All through the end of the 15th and into the 16th centuries you get all kinds of Crusades, against the Turks, against the Moors. Tons of anti-Semitism, all across Europe. So, if the idea is that bad Muggle things happen alongside bad magical things (based upon the fact that Grindelwald was vanquished at the same time as Hitler), then there would certainly have been plenty of awful things going on in Europe then. Though when have there not been?

[Jessica]

You know, I interperet that "there are some thigns worse than death"quote slightly differently than everyone else seems to.

You guys all seem to agree that it is refering to what will happen to Voldemort. He will suffer in a way that is "worse than death".

I read it as an extension of the "things worth dying for" remark earlier in OotP. In other words, Voldemorts weakness is that he does not understand that, for the members of the Order, to allow Voldemort's reign to continue would be "worse than death". Therefore, he does not realize how much they are willing to sacrifice in order to defeat him.

phoenixsong, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Filia Tenebrarum]

This seems to be a catch-all sort of thread, so I will ask here: What is worse than death?
Oh, here we go! I'm better at Mad Philosopher than Alice in Theoryland.
OotP is literally littered with variations on "What's worse than death?"
You posters here have lots of good ideas. Preens The only thing I can think of for an answer is a dementor's kiss.
Well, constant severe pain is arguably worse than death. I believe there was a case where an adult brother and sister attempted to give their mother, who was suffering from an extremely painful form of cancer, a lethal dose of painkiller, to spare her from suffering and because she asked for it. The doctors and nurses reversed the effects with antidotes and kept the mother alive for twelve more days. In the end, the brother and sister got off, even though what they'd done was technically illegal.
To the Romans, dishonour was worse than death. If a general lost a big battle, he would fall on his sword to save his honour.

No, I read an interview where she admitted she gets a lot of ideas from forums like these. And on her homepage where her favorite links are listed, guess which one is at the top? We're on it.
Explains a lot.
Hah! :clap: We rule! She'd better have put us in the acknowledgements section.

Depends on your value system. DD's just saying that Voldie's lacking in proper human values, IMO.
Dunno exactly what "values" means, but morals are universal ie they hold for every sentient being.


What I had been thinking might be worse than death is to live a life over and over again with no escape, something like being in the bell jar in the time room in the Ministry of Magic. But again probably one would have to be aware of the repetiton. It is a half-baked concept. I was hoping for some ideas that would help me take it further or abandon it.
Interesting thought. That reminds me of a way I saw the end of "Doctor Faustus" (Marlowe) played: at the end, just when Faustus is about to be dragged down to hell, the red light fades, the dramatic music stops, and Mephistopheles walks on with a book of forbidden knowledge, just like he did at the beginning. Faustus takes the book and begins to look through it, as if he were repeating what he did at the beginning of the play. I've always thought this was because, in their interpretation, Faustus' hell is to repeat over and over again the process that led to his damnation.

Immortality is, I think, a paradox. It is pure life that goes on forever, but if you live forever then you never properly live at all. The answer is a cycle, like the phoenix's, where one dies regularly in order to get proper life (or lives). But then being on a repeating loop of fate is one of the things deemed to be worse than death. Perhaps the difference is that, in the bell jar, the head shrank _backwards_ into a baby's, whereas the phoenix never goes backwards, but round and in again by the front door. The head doesn't die and neither would Voldemort if the OUborous (sp?) theory holds true, but the phoenix is the epitome of mortality.

I said earlier it's a half-baked idea.
The dough needs some time to rise.

[QUOTE}this whole layers bussiness is to big to discuss in one thread....there are like eleven pages and im NOT reading all of that! care to summerize anyone??[/QUOTE]
It's just us drinking lemonade, eating mince pies and discussing the meaning of life, Harry Potter and everything. I'd read the last page, then jump in, if I were you. :)

[QUOTE]Tom Riddle was to be Dumbledore's "mentoree" {/QUOTE]
Argh! Murderisation of the English Language Police! (Nee-naw, nee-naw!) Please, for the sake of my poor nerves, can we make it "Dumbledore was mentor to Tom Riddle"? ;)

Right, Dad's loitering with intent to tell me to get off the computer, so I'd better go. See you!

[barmy codger]

Not that we can't discuss it here, too, but there is also a thread called "Things worse than death" found here: http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=11783 .
Thanks for this. I searched using "worse than death" but did not find that thread. When I read your post, I realised that there must have been more than one page of results, and I looked at only the first page. If I hadn't made that mistake, I would not have posted here.

!!!!Way back in the old Prophecy thread, that was the predecessor to this one, we discussed this topic to excessive length.

It amazes me how people here can remember topics, opinions, and who said what. My problems are that I only got hold of book five in September and discovered this forum very recently (what else can you do until book six?). So I am unskilled in forum use and way behind in what has been discussed. I thank you all for your indulgence.

As for something worse than death happening to Voldemort, I was thinkiing it already has happened but he doesn't recognise it yet. If Riddle became host to an evil entity, then in time he may regret it and long for death as a release.

The earlier books mentioned at least twice that Voldemort was the worst in a hundred years. That means Grundewald and WW II were not as bad. I can't think of what would be so bad a hundred years ago.

Filia Tenbrarum, the Faust parallel is good, but here we have Harry as an agent in the downfall. Also, I was thinking of the bird in the bell jar, not the Death Eater.

[phoenixsong]

As for something worse than death happening to Voldemort, I was thinkiing it already has happened but he doesn't recognise it yet. If Riddle became host to an evil entity, then in time he may regret it and long for death as a release.
Yeah, for those who like the idea that Tom Riddle welcomed the Dark Lord to take him over (literally or metaphorically), then one possible outcome is that he will be rid of that which he so willingly accepted. But it is VERY difficult for me to imagine Voldemort coming even close to regretting his evil ways, unlike Faustus. At least not anytime soon. OOOH, unless it is the evil spirit that wants release, not Riddle!! What if Riddle was the one who called up the evil Dark Lord, and became that Dark Lord, but the Dark Lord wants release from all these evil gits who keep forcing it to do their nasty things in their quests for power? As if poor Mephistopheles were forced to live in Faust's body, and enable Faust to have all kinds of magical powers, until he should be released. By whom or what? Well, he could be temporarily released by the death of the witch/wizard he is inhabiting, or, perhaps, permanently released by the One. What do you think?

[whizbang121]

Tom Riddle was to be Dumbledore's "mentoree"
Argh! Murderisation of the English Language Police! (Nee-naw, nee-naw!) Please, for the sake of my poor nerves, can we make it "Dumbledore was mentor to Tom Riddle"?
You're too young (and possibly on the wrong continent), to remember Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show, but he used to do that all the time. My favorite was in a skit about a salesman selling stucco house siding, "... which, of course, makes you the stuccee."

And I love your sig.

[phoenixsong]

Hi, spent all day driving yesterday, and listened to SS for part of the trip. I don't have a hard copy of the book with me, but I was amazed to hear a quote from Voldemort himself during his confrontation with Harry that lends credence to the Dark Lord possession theory. Maybe someone with access to the books can get the exact quote, but he basically says "There have always been people willing to accept me" and talks about how he is reliant upon the bodies of witches and wizards in order to take action in the world.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

Yeah, for those who like the idea that Tom Riddle welcomed the Dark Lord to take him over (literally or metaphorically), then one possible outcome is that he will be rid of that which he so willingly accepted. But it is VERY difficult for me to imagine Voldemort coming even close to regretting his evil ways, unlike Faustus. At least not anytime soon.
I agree, there's a great difference between the characters of Voldemort and Faust. Marlowe's Faustus is just an idiot really; he's immature and selfish, but his action could be better compared to a kid playing with matches than an evil dark lord. Voldemort is very clever and skilful. He's driven by fear, whilst Faustus was driven by greed. And as you say, Voldemort is unlikely to repent. Faust sold his soul in a literal sense, but I don't think Voldemort sold his soul to any outside being, but rather that he metaphorically sold it by choosing to spend his life in the search of power and limitless life.

I've had a look at the page on mugglenet advertising the Galadriel Waters book. I confess myslef thoroughly irritated by it. As far as I can tell, this Waters hadn't got any new info from interviews with JK, legilimency etc and yet she talked in the most superior way, as if she knew stuff we didn't. Actually, she had spotted some stuff that I hadn't, but I don't claim or expect to be someone who spots everything. While the HP books themselves have a definite commercial element, discussion of them ("sleuthing" as GW calls it) should be public domain, always. Unless someone has ambushed JK and got some new information (in which case it's only fair for them to make the info public) no one should consider themselves above anyone else in this field or able to "confirm" theories. One of the things (the main thing) that delighted me when I came here is how equal everyone is. I _know_ it sounds corny, but it makes such a difference to argue things out with people fairly, instead of having information fed you via school, radio, television, books etc. And up comes this upstart writing a book on all the stuff _we_ discuss freely and publishing it as if she were the leading authority on it! No doubt it has the abominable message inside the front cover: "This publication may not be re-sold, hired out or transmitted by any means, electronic, telepathic, mechanical or otherwise without prior permission of the publishers, the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury..." Grrr...
Anyway, she raised one point which I found quite interesting
The WWP Sleuthoscope is fuming in indignation, but it will just have to let HP Sleuths work this one out for themselves.
Why, thank you, Your Majesty, how gracious of you!
How many times did J.K.R. point out it was Severus' memory? What would that mean? How many times did she say that Snape was busy reading. What would that mean? How did everyone address each other? (hem-hem!) Also, what did James write on his paper and what would that have meant? (The meaning's easy -- what you should be asking is how Snape knew?) HP Sleuths may want to review some of Book 3 while looking at this memory since it raises as many questions as its answers.
It seems to me that the question she's asking here is: "If these memories came out of Snape's head and are, to all intents and purposes, what he saw, then how did he know things like what James doodled on his paper and Wormtail's exact expression down by the lake? There are several possible answers to this:
1. The dodging the question answer (which nevertheless may be right): the Pensieve just doesn't work like ordinary memory recollection. People perhaps see and here more than they think they do, which is why using a Pensieve is so useful.
2. Snape was filling in the bits he himself hadn't seen with his imagination. The problem with this one is that this could mean that James wasn't nearly as arogant as he appeared, which I'm inclined to treat with the same suspicion as theories arguing that Sirius is still alive.
3. Harry _was_ seeing it through Snape's eyes, not third person. Snape was using a time turner to go back and re-observe this scene (why, I can't imagine) and was somehow there, invisible. This idea, I'm aware, is full of holes, in fact the more I think about it the madder it seems, but it seems to be what Her Majesty is suggesting by mentioning book three.
I'm still not sure quite what GW was getting at, and I still think there's something to be said for taking this scene at face-value. I do wish GW could just share her ideas in the normal way; she sounds clever. :/

Ah well, apologise for off-topic rant. Happy Solstice! :)

[purplehawk]

Hi, spent all day driving yesterday, and listened to SS for part of the trip. I don't have a hard copy of the book with me, but I was amazed to hear a quote from Voldemort himself during his confrontation with Harry that lends credence to the Dark Lord possession theory. Maybe someone with access to the books can get the exact quote, but he basically says "There have always been people willing to accept me" and talks about how he is reliant upon the bodies of witches and wizards in order to take action in the world.

Here you go, Phoenix...

"See what I have become?" the voice said. "Mere shadow and vapor... I have form only when I can share another's body... but there have always been those willing to let me into their hearts and minds... Unicorn blood has strengthened me, these past weeks... you saw faithful Quirrell drinking it for me in the forest... and once I have the Elixir of Life, I will be able to create a body of my own... Now... why don't you give me that Stone in your pocker?"

I included the entire quote just in case the words he spoke have any bearing on the other layers under discussion here. I haven't had time to catch up since my computer disaster earlier in the week, but I thought it might be helpful.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

"See what I have become?" the voice said. "Mere shadow and vapor... I have form only when I can share another's body... but there have always been those willing to let me into their hearts and minds... Unicorn blood has strengthened me, these past weeks... you saw faithful Quirrell drinking it for me in the forest... and once I have the Elixir of Life, I will be able to create a body of my own... Now... why don't you give me that Stone in your pocker?"
But in that case, the suggestion is that who/whatever is doing the possessing was once _not_ shadow and vapour. The entity speaking at this point:
a) Has _become_ mere shadow and vapour ie he wasn't always
b) Has experience of possessing other people, who are allowing it to happen
c) Wants to create a body of its own. Note: "a body" not "another body".
d) Is currently possessing Quirrell
This could be used to support one of these two hypothesise:
1) The Standard Issue one: the speaker is Tom Riddle, who through his immortality spells and the re-bounded curse has arrived at this non-corpeal state
2) The speaker is another kind of evil spirit which _was_once_something_more_than "mere shadow and vapour". This could conceivably be the spirit of Grindlewald or Salazar Slytherin. If this is the case then we have to assume that Tom Riddle is long gone, because I don't see how the Dark Lord could be possessing Riddle who was possessing Quirrell. However when Voldemort gets his new body, he refers to Tom Riddle Snr as his father, thus confirming his identity as Tom Riddle. I think I've just disproven the "Voldemort is Possessed" theory. Or have I missed something? Bet I have...

I included the entire quote just in case the words he spoke have any bearing on the other layers under discussion here. I haven't had time to catch up since my computer disaster earlier in the week, but I thought it might be helpful.
Computer disaster? Oh that would explain why you've been absent for a bit. Glad your Miracle of Modern Technology is now working again, anyway.

And I love your sig.
Thanks. I suppose you've heard the one about the Fourth King, who got written out before publication? He was the one who brought a fruitcake...

[phoenixsong]

but there have always been those willing to let me into their hearts and minds...
Ahh, that's the one! Thank you, purplehawk! It's the "always" part of the quote that really got me. It really suggests that Quirrell is not the first, and I don't think that the rats and snakes he inhabited in Albania really qualify as creatures able to let him into their hearts and minds. He must be talking about humans, and more than simply Quirrell, right???

[lightofmagic]

In my mind this worse-than-death-state would be one where you (or Voldy) would be completely powerless - but fully aware of the fact and he would not be able to change anything.

So if for instance some "magical-accident" would happen that would pull every little magic ability out of Voldemort this would be such a thing. He would be completely powerless (in magical senses) and not able to have those abilities back and he would completely well remember who he once was and what his goals were.

Actually I never thought of this exact thing, it just came to my mind while typing this answer - but I quiete like it ... imagine Voldy ending up as a squib and not being able to transform a teabag :D :rotfl:

This exact same point has intrigued me for some time. Why at the end of GoF Voldemort and Harry have a face off with wands aloft. What happens during this fight, well shadows of all the magic cast upon items and people begin to appear from Voldemort's wand. Could this be the "magical-accident" you are talking about Sabine, that it is the power draining from Voldemort himself? If Harry continued to push his power forward towards Voldemort, would he not only extract past magic but also the dark lords present power as well?

[barmy codger]

This exact same point has intrigued me for some time. Why at the end of GoF Voldemort and Harry have a face off with wands aloft. What happens during this fight, well shadows of all the magic cast upon items and people begin to appear from Voldemort's wand. Could this be the "magical-accident" you are talking about Sabine, that it is the power draining from Voldemort himself? If Harry continued to push his power forward towards Voldemort, would he not only extract past magic but also the dark lords present power as well?

This is an excellent idea. It would allow Harry to prevail even though he is no match for Voldemort's skills. However, there are some considerations: The wand is not the wizard. Pulling spells out of a wand is not the same as draining powers away, is it? Also, Voldemort is not likely to let himself get in that fix again. Lastly, that amazing scene in the graveyard would lose much of its impact if it were re-cycled into the final confrontation. Using the wand-to-wand business again would make a disappointing finale unless it were given some clever variations. I would rather think Ms Rowling has something different and even more mind-boggling in store.

[whizbang121]

[/i]
Ahh, that's the one! Thank you, purplehawk! It's the "always" part of the quote that really got me. It really suggests that Quirrell is not the first, and I don't think that the rats and snakes he inhabited in Albania really qualify as creatures able to let him into their hearts and minds. He must be talking about humans, and more than simply Quirrell, right???

I think it's in the graveyard that Voldemort says something like only one power was left to him, that of possessing others. Doesn't this also suggest that possession was something he'd been doing before he became shadow and vapor? On the other hand I have to agree with Filia about Tom being gone, in that case. But Dumbledore calls Voldemort Tom during the Battle in the Ministry.
Then there's the "last ancestor of Salazar Slytherin" confusion. On the one hand it seems possible that the house of Slytherin could be cursed by a possessing spirit. But Dumbledore does call him Tom.

[barmy codger]

Yes, and I am still wondering how Tom Riddle can be the heir of Slytherin without direct blood lineage. If he is, then why can't Draco Malfoy be heir to Black, since his mother is Sirius' cousin? If not blood lineage, then what did Tom inherit from Slytherin? The ability or secrets for joining up with the Dark Lord? Wouldn't a Chamber of Secrets contain more than one secret (the basilisk)?

Also, bothersome is who is the teen-aged boy with dark hair, and pale, seen by Frank Bryce on the night of the murder of Riddle's father and grandparents? Riddle as Voldemort says he killed them, and the description fits Riddle, but it also fits someone else we know well. The similarities between Harry and Tom have been emphasised. Is there some deliberate confusion of Tom Riddle Sr. and Jr?. Father and son with the same name is a common thing, but occurs only once in the books. Whoops, I forgot Barty Crouch, but that also led to plot mix-ups. I can't really see Harry time-travelling back to the Riddle House, but it suggests funny business in the Riddle/ Voldemort identity.

[whizbang121]

Yes, and I am still wondering how Tom Riddle can be the heir of Slytherin without direct blood lineage. Tom Riddle was the heir of slytherin through his mother. But it's a good question how the new conjured body could be connected to slytherin as there was nothing of his mother in the brew. It's been suggested that there was something in the "ugly baby" body he was in thru the rest of that book.

Also, bothersome is who is the teen-aged boy with dark hair, and pale, seen by Frank Bryce on the night of the murder of Riddle's father and grandparents? Riddle as Voldemort says he killed them, and the description fits Riddle, but it also fits someone else we know well. The similarities between Harry and Tom have been emphasised. Is there some deliberate confusion of Tom Riddle Sr. and Jr? Hm... I've never noticed any confusion between them. Where do you see this?
I can't really see Harry time-travelling back to the Riddle House, but it suggests funny business in the Riddle/ Voldemort identity.
I don't think it was Harry either, but why does it suggest funny business?

[phoenixsong]

I think it's in the graveyard that Voldemort says something like only one power was left to him, that of possessing others. Doesn't this also suggest that possession was something he'd been doing before he became shadow and vapor? On the other hand I have to agree with Filia about Tom being gone, in that case. But Dumbledore calls Voldemort Tom during the Battle in the Ministry.
Well, you are right that Voldemort's quote does suggest that he has possessed others before, but there is something a bit different about the term "always", at least to my ear. It doesn't suggest the short life-span of Tom/Voldemort (maybe 65 years, that seems to be about Tom's age), but something a bit more timeless, does it not? ALWAYS. Throughout time. And Dumbledore calling him "Tom" suggests to me that even if he is the Dark Lord (who has always found those willing to let him/her/it into their hearts and minds) he is also Tom (the person who was willing to let the Dark Lord into his heart/mind).

[Filia Tenebrarum]

I think it's in the graveyard that Voldemort says something like only one power was left to him, that of possessing others. Doesn't this also suggest that possession was something he'd been doing before he became shadow and vapor?
And, indeed, he can still do so now he has a physical body again. What happens to the body while he possesses (far too many ss) someone is an interesting question. Perhaps (how's this for a mad theory?) while Voldemort's spirit is out of his new body, the body comes under the control of the people it was made out of: Harry, Wormtail and Riddle snr. Anyway, if Riddle can possess people now he has his body back he could have possessed people while he had his old body too.

Then there's the "last ancestor of Salazar Slytherin" confusion.
I think someone asked JK about that and she said something characteristically innocent-sounding but infuriatingly ambiguous. Something like: "Your right, it should be descendent. This has been corrected in later editions. Worth keeping hold of the "ancestor" one though; it might come in useful later." By which she could mean that it would have a high value later as a first edition, or that it was a veiled hint about Riddle and Slytherin. She does it deliberately.

Tom Riddle was the heir of slytherin through his mother. But it's a good question how the new conjured body could be connected to slytherin as there was nothing of his mother in the brew. It's been suggested that there was something in the "ugly baby" body he was in thru the rest of that book.
Well, my theory on that one is that Harry received enough of Slytherin at Godric's Hollow that Voldemort was able to get it back using Harry's blood. Possibly, though, Voldemort is no longer the Heir of Slytherin, but is now working entirely for his own ends.
"Haven't I told you?" said Riddle softly "Killing Muggle-borns doesn't matter to me any more. For months now my new target has been...you"
(From memory; may contain errors)

Using the wand-to-wand business again would make a disappointing finale unless it were given some clever variations. I would rather think Ms Rowling has something different and even more mind-boggling in store.
One gets the feeling JK is fast running out of really dramatic settings for her showdowns. The Chamber of Secrets was a good one, the Department of Mysteries and the graveyard in Little Hangleton too. Perhaps the final battle will have to take place right in Hogwarts itself; not in some hidden room, but in the Great Hall, and the Entrance Hall, and all the really familiar places. At least then, for a change, Harry would be fighting on his own turf.

[phoenixsong]

One gets the feeling JK is fast running out of really dramatic settings for her showdowns. The Chamber of Secrets was a good one, the Department of Mysteries and the graveyard in Little Hangleton too. Perhaps the final battle will have to take place right in Hogwarts itself; not in some hidden room, but in the Great Hall, and the Entrance Hall, and all the really familiar places. At least then, for a change, Harry would be fighting on his own turf.Oh, I think you're right about Hogwarts. And I think that #4, Privet Drive is also a likely candidate for a battle with Voldie, and a chance for Petunia to show her stuff, perhaps (if she is the one character who comes to magic late in life, hinted at by JKR). Though it may be that she only shows her stuff against some nasty DE.

[whizbang121]

And, indeed, he can still do so now he has a physical body again. What happens to the body while he possesses (far too many ss) someone is an interesting question. Very interesting question. And if this is a power that Voldemort possessed before the events of Godric's Hollow, then it should also be an ability that Harry also has, but has yet to discover.

Something like: "Your right, it should be descendent. This has been corrected in later editions. Worth keeping hold of the "ancestor" one though; it might come in useful later." By which she could mean that it would have a high value later as a first edition, or that it was a veiled hint about Riddle and Slytherin. She does it deliberately. She said something like, "Oh, you noticed that deliberate error?";) And it was changed for a while, then changed back again. I check CoS every time I'm in bookstores. The only editions I've ever seen changed to descendant are the so called adult paperbacks. I wonder how they are on audio? Although, we had some confusion a while back with audio books and the color of Ginny's eyes. Apparently one of the audio versions, I don't know if it was American or British, said Ginny had green eyes. They books say brown. ?????
Confusion reigns! :clap:
One gets the feeling JK is fast running out of really dramatic settings for her showdowns. The Chamber of Secrets was a good one, the Department of Mysteries and the graveyard in Little Hangleton too. Perhaps the final battle will have to take place right in Hogwarts itself; not in some hidden room, but in the Great Hall, and the Entrance Hall, and all the really familiar places. At least then, for a change, Harry would be fighting on his own turf.
How about in the connection forged by the scar?;)

About Tom Riddle being possessed by an ancient demon, I kind of favor the idea that the "Dark Lord" is some evil that plagues the house of Slytherin. Salazar Slytherin seemed to be just one of the guys who suddenly took turn to evil and became the arch enemy of his former friends. Suspicious. And the last ancestor/descendant seems to be a clue either way. It suggests cycles. Dark Lord - One who overcomes him in each possessed being. Did Tom Riddle become possessed by the ancestral demon when it fled Grindelwald after being defeated by Dumbledore? Is that why "Dumbledore is the only one he ever feared?" And the "last" ancestor/descendant, along with the prophesy that "the One" with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord, suggest to me that if Harry succeeds, the cycle will be broken and the evil demon will be gone forever. Perhaps the house of slytherin will become known as the house of international diplomats. :D
But, the quotes we've dug up so far seem to be able to be read either way, so I'm stuck on the fence on this one.

[phoenixsong]

Here's the relevant question and answer from the JKR interview, courtesy Quick Quotes Quill http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm: Harry Potter for grownups again! Is Voldemort the last remaining ancestor of Slytherin, or the last remaining descendent of Slytherin?

Ah, you spotted the deliberate error. Yes, it should read "descendent." That's been changed in subsequent editions. (Keep hold of the "ancestor" one, maybe it'll be valuable one day!)

As for Ginny's eyes, they are, I think, brown in one book, and green after that (don't have my books with me to check, but I think that when Harry is staying with the Weasleys in CoS, and he's going up stairs, he sees a pair of bright green eyes before a door is slammed shut, and they are Ginny's). The resemblance between Ginny and Lily is too uncanny; it's the real reason that I can't really imagine a Harry/Ginny ship, because it would be too icky for him to be romantically involved with someone so much like his mum.

[lightofmagic]

Oh, I think you're right about Hogwarts. And I think that #4, Privet Drive is also a likely candidate for a battle with Voldie, and a chance for Petunia to show her stuff, perhaps (if she is the one character who comes to magic late in life, hinted at by JKR). Though it may be that she only shows her stuff against some nasty DE.

I think that could actually be plausible as there is definitely more to Petunia than meets the eye. A battle at number 4 Privet Drive between Voldemort, Harry and Petunia might explain why she appeared in the books to be so afraid when the dark lord was confirmed as begin back again. Maybe Petunia now knows what is at stake and that her family are going to find out the truth behind Petunias hidden magical skills. What does intrigue me is Vernon’s attempt to learn magic from Harry's books, maybe he also has magical talent hidden and stored within him. I think all muggles have some very weak magical ability and just do not realize it.

There are some really good ideas here.

[whizbang121]

Here's the relevant question and answer from the JKR interview, courtesy Quick Quotes Quill http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm:
As for Ginny's eyes, they are, I think, brown in one book, and green after that (don't have my books with me to check, but I think that when Harry is staying with the Weasleys in CoS, and he's going up stairs, he sees a pair of bright green eyes before a door is slammed shut, and they are Ginny's). The resemblance between Ginny and Lily is too uncanny; it's the real reason that I can't really imagine a Harry/Ginny ship, because it would be too icky for him to be romantically involved with someone so much like his mum.That's exactly the spot. On one of the audios, the eyes were green, but in all the books I've checked, they are brown. I've got the Am audios and I could check it.
What resemblances are there between Ginny and Lily?

[Dedalus Diggle]

One possibility that popped into my head when I was reading the "That's everyone in the Family" thread was the possibility that Ginny IS Lily. Lily was killed the year that Ginny was born. Perhaps Lily's charms allowed her to be reincarnated. Perhaps Mrs. Weasley either had a child on the way who was going to be stillborn, or did not have nay child on the way, so that she KNEW the child which 'appeared' then was not hers in the sense her boys are. Lily's soul in Ginny may not fully realize her past life beyond knowing that she feels intensely about Harry. I can understand Mrs. Weasley disregarding the twins in the "That's everyone in the family' comment - they were a lost cause for being prefects anyway - but why disregard Ginny unless she is known to Mrs. Weasley to be not really a Weasley. In fact, Mrs. Weasley is such a motherly person, I could imagine her volunteering for such a thing.

[whizbang121]

Okay, (cough, choke) you've left me completely in the dust. I'll go look for the "that's everyone" thread.

[sindatur]

I've played with the idea in my head that Ginny could be Lily reincarnated, but, it seems too far fetched for me, although I don't remember seeing it definitely disproved. Additionally, I'm one who does see the story as working towards a Ginny/Harry Ship, so that discounbts it for me as well, because if JKR is intent on having Harry and Ginny being together one day, it's very wrong for her to be Lily reincarnated.

As far as Ginny not being considered with the "That's everyone in the family" quote, I looked at it much simpler, she's not yet old enough, so therefore she doesn't count. IE: That's everyone in the family that's been possible so far (The twins were never a possibility because they're such hellions, and Ginny isn't possible until Book 6). If Ginny was already of age to be a Prefect, and didn't make it, then I would think there was something suspicious about the quote.

[whizbang121]

Well does that mean that the twins are also adopted? I can't find a thread with that title in the prophesy or great hall forums. Can someone post a link?

[barmy codger]

Tom Riddle was the heir of slytherin through his mother. But it's a good question how the new conjured body could be connected to slytherin as there was nothing of his mother in the brew. It's been suggested that there was something in the "ugly baby" body he was in thru the rest of that book.
Hm... I've never noticed any confusion between them. Where do you see this?
I don't think it was Harry either, but why does it suggest funny business?
My earlier reply seems to have disappeared into the ether.

I understand that Tom Riddle is Slytherin's descendant (or maybe ancestor) but what I was going on about is whether the Heir of Slytherin and the descendant of Slytherin mean the same thing, especially when the term "true heir" was used. It's difficult to accept that Tom is an heir of a thousand year old blood line through his mother. Draco is a descendant of the Blacks, for example, but not the heir. It suggests that the Heir of Slytherin inherited something in a different manner, such as magic secrets. So far the Chamber of Secrets has shown us only one secret.

The confusion between Tom Riddle Sr and Jr existed in the minds of many readers, according to threads I have looked at in this forum. (RIddle's Deaths is one, I think). It is not a confusing concept to have a father and son with the same name, but it was presented in a confusing way. I am suspicious, especially since one entire book was based on the mix up of the two Barty Crouches, Jr and Sr. First, the name Riddle is suspicious in itself. Then we had the diary Tom Riddle telling Harry about his witch mother and muggle father. If he was an orphan, how did he know so much about his parents? And we only get this information from Tom. Maybe that's the only way for the author to get that stuff to the reader, but if you had asked ten year old Harry about his parents he would have told you they died in a car crash. So can we rely on what Tom told us? Also, Tom didn't say he killed his father. It is possible this happened after the diary was made. In the graveyard Voldemort said he killed his father but he didn't say he killed Tom Riddle Sr. We assume it is the same death because we assume the same entity is talking to Harry each time. We assume Voldemort and Tom are the same entities. Also Voldemort didn't say he killed the parents of Tom Riddle Sr. Then we have the report that the Riddles appeared to have died of fright. This does not agree with the description of Cedric Diggory after he was killed with the Aveda Kadevra Curse. What killed the Riddles? It could have been the killing curse, but possibly it wasn't. Mixed up in the deaths at the Riddle House is the dark-haired boy that Frank Bryce saw. We assume it is Tom Jr. There is little reason to believe it isn't, but we are only given that one general description. If it wasn't Tom, who might it be? Tom and Harry resemble each other, a fact that has been very well established in the books. If it was Harry, how would he be there at that time, except for time travel? I don't like time travel as a story device, but it has been used already and could be used again. It is possible that the similarities between Tom and Harry were established to show how different choices from similar beginnings can produce different lives. But maybe the similarities are there for other purposes, too.

Perhaps the story as given is the straight goods. Yet something seems fishy to me, which is why I was exploring the idea of multiple identities in Voldemort.

[purplehawk]

I like both of these theories... something happening in Privet Drive and at Hogwarts are two things high up on my personal wish list. I also agree Petunia is the most likely candidate to be the character who manages to do magic later in life. Could be Dudley too, or Mrs. Figg, but I'm wishing and hoping for Petunia if only to watch Vernon burst a gasket.

Edit: **Note to Self: Learn to check for a new page before you go posting a reply at the bottom of what turned out to be the previous page.**

[Sabine]

barmy those are very interessting thoughts - definitely worth thinking about them!

But please clear up one thing for me:

Then we have the report that the Riddles appeared to have died of fright. This does not agree with the description of Cedric Diggory after he was killed with the Aveda Kadevra Curse. What killed the Riddles? It could have been the killing curse, but possibly it wasn't.



Why don't those deaths fit? Was Cedric injured by the AK? I can't seem to remember

Sabine

[purplehawk]

Cedric died where he stood and lay spread-eagled on the ground, his gray eyes open and empty. I'm typing this from memory, of course, but I recall those details and the fact there wasn't a mark on him.

[januarystars]

I like both of these theories... something happening in Privet Drive and at Hogwarts are two things high up on my personal wish list. I also agree Petunia is the most likely candidate to be the character who manages to do magic later in life. Could be Dudley too, or Mrs. Figg, but I'm wishing and hoping for Petunia if only to watch Vernon burst a gasket.Could even be Filch. Or Vernon. :elaugh:

[quote=barmy]:huh:
My earlier reply seems to have disappeared into the ether.This is the layers thread. Discussion is allowed to evolve and not necessarily stay on topic.

I understand that Tom Riddle is Slytherin's descendant (or maybe ancestor) but what I was going on about is whether the Heir of Slytherin
As for Heir of Slytherin. The chamber of secrets supposedly could only be opened by the heir. As it was opened by Tom Riddle, isn't he the heir? It's possible that's where he came upon the demon, if there is one.


The confusion between Tom Riddle Sr and Jr existed in the minds of many readers, I've never noticed any confusion between Riddle Sr. and Jr. except by one person. And that was easily cleared up. It seems to be a problem of reading skills. If I skim too fast, I miss the details, too. Of course, I don't read all the threads.

Then we had the diary Tom Riddle telling Harry about his witch mother and muggle father. If he was an orphan, how did he know so much about his parents? but if you had asked ten year old Harry about his parents he would have told you they died in a car crash.
Harry was lied to about his parents. I think most children in those circumstances would have a clue what happened to their parents, especially by the age of 16.

So can we rely on what Tom told us? Also, Tom didn't say he killed his father. It is possible this happened after the diary was made. In the graveyard Voldemort said he killed his father but he didn't say he killed Tom Riddle Sr. We assume it is the same death because we assume the same entity is talking to Harry each time. We assume Voldemort and Tom are the same entities. Also Voldemort didn't say he killed the parents of Tom Riddle Sr. Then we have the report that the Riddles appeared to have died of fright. That was the report of the coroner who had no clue what happened to the Riddles. however the description of their appearance when found does sound like the AK.

Mixed up in the deaths at the Riddle House is the dark-haired boy that Frank Bryce saw. We assume it is Tom Jr. There is little reason to believe it isn't, but we are only given that one general description. If it wasn't Tom, who might it be? Tom and Harry resemble each other, a fact that has been very well established in the books. So it's fair to assume that James also resembled Tom. Maybe he killed the Riddles. But if Voldemort said he killed his father and told Harry they were standing on his grave, the grave of Tom Riddle. And the incantation by wormtail was, "bone of the father unknowingly given, you shall renew your son." I'm content that it wasn't Harry and there is no reason for confusion between Riddle Sr and Jr.

[Sabine]

I'm sory for being awfuly late on that topic, but I've thought about that pensieve-business again that was mentioned on this thread some pages ago.

It was regarding the reliability of a pensieve-memory or if it is biased.

I think the pensieve memory is very accurate. Everyone knows the fact that if you ask witnesses there always are different things that they see and that they notice.

But I think the memories stored away in a pensieve are more like a little movie made on what ever occasion. Harry can look around. He did so in Dumbledores pensieve too. He can look in what ever direction he chooses and isn't limited to where Dumbledore looked at.

This is sort of hard to explain, but in our brains are not only the things that we remember because they are important for us. There are also the things that we remember that "happend" without really noticing us, we're just not aware of.

Sabine

[barmy codger]

This is the layers thread. Discussion is allowed to evolve and not necessarily stay on topic.


Sorry, I didn't mean I was being ignored. My original post actually disappeared. Probably I hit a wrong button. It was very late at night.

But if Voldemort said he killed his father and told Harry they were standing on his grave, the grave of Tom Riddle. And the incantation by wormtail was, "bone of the father unknowingly given, you shall renew your son." I'm content that it wasn't Harry and there is no reason for confusion between Riddle Sr and Jr.

Very good points. I forgot about that. Thanks

[januarystars]

[/SIZE]It was regarding the reliability of a pensieve-memory or if it is biased. We used to talk about this on the old AASS threads, remember? I'm not sure about how biased or accurate they are or if the memories are affected by time. Does it make a difference that he put the memory in recently rather than right after it happened? He's had time to think about it a lot since it happened.
But I think in the earlier post someone mentioned Galadriel Waters and her suggestion that we look back to PoA. It's like she was suggesting that the memory wasn't Snape's. I think we talked about that in AASS, too. Could it have been James' memory? Or Dumbledore's? It is, after all his pensieve. And Harry's view is very wide, you know? Like someone who was watching everything from another perspective. But when Harry was in the pensieve before, he saw the Dumbledore from the past even though the memory came from his mind. Very confusing things, pensieve's.

I think the pensieve memory is very accurate. Everyone knows the fact that if you ask witnesses there always are different things that they see and that they notice.

But I think the memories stored away in a pensieve are more like a little movie made on what ever occasion. Harry can look around. He did so in Dumbledores pensieve too. He can look in what ever direction he chooses and isn't limited to where Dumbledore looked at.

This is sort of hard to explain, but in our brains are not only the things that we remember because they are important for us. There are also the things that we remember that "happend" without really noticing us, we're just not aware of.

SabineI think sometimes these memories can be clarified under hypnosis. We don't consciously note all the details that the subconscious picks up and seems to be aware of. So maybe the pensieve is accurate in that way.

[Sabine]

But I think in the earlier post someone mentioned Galadriel Waters and her suggestion that we look back to PoA. It's like she was suggesting that the memory wasn't Snape's. I think we talked about that in AASS, too. Could it have been James' memory? Or Dumbledore's? It is, after all his pensieve. And Harry's view is very wide, you know? Like someone who was watching everything from another perspective. But when Harry was in the pensieve before, he saw the Dumbledore from the past even though the memory came from his mind. Very confusing things, pensieve's.

In the AASS??? - oh dear then I sure confused this, I was thinking we had it in here too, not to long ago.

But what would it change if this wasn't Snapes memory? Well at least some would take that memory being more reliable and less biased, than they see it now. But James??? How would a memory of James get in that pensieve? Dumbledores - ok that would be possible. But would Snape be so angry as he was if Harry wasn't snooping in his memories?

No that doesn't seem to be very logical to me. I think the main question for this suspission would actually be: What would change if this wasn't Snapes memory? And I can't see nothing there that would make any sense.


I think sometimes these memories can be clarified under hypnosis. We don't consciously note all the details that the subconscious picks up and seems to be aware of. So maybe the pensieve is accurate in that way.

Yep - thats what I meant - the subconscious mind is more precise than we are aware of, even after a long time. It doesn't only focus on a chat that, for instance, took place in a restaurant. It also notices what the people had to eat at the table near by, or who went by, or a lot of such things.

We were also discussing if there were thoughts and memories in Harrys head that the order wanted to keep secret from Voldemort. If this would be the case, Harry only needs a pensieve and someone who tells him how it works. But then again I am not sure (how could I - I'm not JKR) if you can only store thoughts that you are aware of having .... hmmmm

Sabine

[phoenixsong]

On one of the audios, the eyes were green, but in all the books I've checked, they are brown. I've got the Am audios and I could check it.
What resemblances are there between Ginny and Lily?I won't have my books for the next week, so I can't check, but I know that I have checked before, and there is mention of green eyes, except for the one instance where they are described as brown. But given green eyes and long red hair, there is certainly physical resemblance between Lily and Ginny, and now that we know (from Fred and George) that Ginny has some formidable hexes at her disposal, that reminds me very much of Ollivander's comment about Lily's wand being good for charms. (Though sometimes the relationship/difference between DADA and Charms is a bit confusing to me. You would think that Charms is about enchanting things to do something, but then they also study Cheering Charms, obviously the Fidelius Charm is a charm; but perhaps Ginny is better at DADA then Charms). Anyway, it is mostly the physical resemblance that I find so striking; in combination with her fascination with the Time Jar in the DoM, it really makes me wonder if her relationship with Lily isn't more than a superficial resemblance.

I agree that the "That's everyone in the family" simply means everyone who was yet eligable. Ginny is not yet old enough, and Fred and George, being twins, aren't a "one" to become Prefect; given that they couldn't both be Prefect, it is all for the best that one and not the other were not chosen prefect.

I had considered the possibility that Ginny might go back in time to be Lily (hence the fascination with the Time jar), but it seems to me that we might hear comments like "That Ginny Weasley is the spitting image of Lily Potter" if it were the case.

As for the pensieve, I also adhere to the theory that it registers the whole memory, even those things that we were not consciously aware of at the time that we were living it. Which is one of the reasons it is such a useful device, allowing us to see things that we couldn't see the first time around.

On the other hand, I also firmly believe that one could store other people's memories in a pensieve, so there is nothing saying that there couldn't be one of James' or Dumbledore's memories in the pensieve. But I think that memory was all Snape's, since his anger seemed quite real to me when he discovered Harry there.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

We assume it is the same death because we assume the same entity is talking to Harry each time. We assume Voldemort and Tom are the same entities. Also Voldemort didn't say he killed the parents of Tom Riddle Sr. Then we have the report that the Riddles appeared to have died of fright. This does not agree with the description of Cedric Diggory after he was killed with the Aveda Kadevra Curse. What killed the Riddles? It could have been the killing curse, but possibly it wasn't. Mixed up in the deaths at the Riddle House is the dark-haired boy that Frank Bryce saw. We assume it is Tom Jr. There is little reason to believe it isn't, but we are only given that one general description. If it wasn't Tom, who might it be?
Hang on, why should there be only two Toms?
Elderly Mr and Mrs Riddle had been rich , snobbish and rude, and their grown-up son, Tom, had been even more so.
the only person seen near the house on the day of the Riddles' deaths had been a teenage boy, a stranger, dark-haired and pale.
As far as I can tell, it's perfectly workable to say that Elderly Mr and Mrs Riddle were Voldemort's maternal grandparents, their grown-up son Tom was his father and the strange, dark, teenage boy was Voldemort himself, at this time still going under the name of Tom Riddle. Thus Riddle snr is Voldemort's grandfather, Tom Riddle jnr is Voldemort's father and Tom Riddle 3rd is Voldemort.
Nevertheless, I see what you mean about this relying on assumptions. What other hypothesise are there for this, apart from the Standard Issue one?

As for Heir of Slytherin. The chamber of secrets supposedly could only be opened by the heir. As it was opened by Tom Riddle, isn't he the heir? It's possible that's where he came upon the demon, if there is one.
Perhaps we need to define "heir".
Courtesy of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary:

1. One who on the death of another becomes entitled by law to suceed him in the enjoyment of property or rank; one who so suceeds; one who receives or is entitled to receive property of any kind as the legal representative of the former owner.
2. One who succeeds, or should succeed, to any gift, endowement or quality of another. Often one to whom something (eg joy, punishment) is morally due.
3. fig.Offspring --1593
(bold mine)
So Voldemort is Slyhterin's heir according to the 3rd definition; because he is descended from him, and also in th 2nd? The heir of Slytherin is meant to inherit:
1. The ability to speak Parseltongue (and possibly some other abilities)
2. The _work_ of "cleansing the school of all those unworthy to study magic"
3. Access to the Chamber of Secrets
Presumably a person who does all this is de facto the heir of Slytherin. Harry and Voldemort have both fulfilled 1 and 3, but not two. Voldemort clearly intended to fulfil 2, but was never able to. But then, it doesn't seem to interest him any more; he's more concerned with killing Harry. Does this mean that he is no longer the Heir of Slytherin? How important is it that the Heir of Slytherin be related by blood to Salazar Slytherin? One could make a case for it being of supreme importance, or no importance at all. And if fulfilling the three criteria above makes one the Heir of Slytherin, then does _not_ fulfilling them automatically make you _not_ the Heir of Slytherin? The trouble is, when you start carting too many soil samples off for chemical analysis, you find there's nothing left to stand on.

No that doesn't seem to be very logical to me. I think the main question for this suspission would actually be: What would change if this wasn't Snapes memory? And I can't see nothing there that would make any sense.
And also, if it wasn't Snape's memory, who's was it? It must have been some else's who was there throughout the scene: James, Sirius, Pettigrew, Lupin, or possibly one of the girls, even Lily? Many of these people are now dead, or in a state where they couldn't possibly have left memories in the Pensieve. Snape would likely have been just as angry about Harry seeing that scene if they hadn't been Snape's own memories; the content is bad enough to make him want to keep them hidden. But how could they have got there if they weren't Snape's?

[sindatur]

I too agree that the Pensieve memories are like a mini-movie. We see things that the person remembering can't see or hear (IE: The back of their own head, or whispered conversations on the other side of a room), so I can't see how this can be true, but also have the memories tainted by individual bias, I think it's a recording of exactly what happened, any bias involved is only the bias of the one watching the memory, not the one whose memory it is.

I agree the memories must be Snape's, didn't we watch Snape pull them out of his own head at one point?

As far as I can tell, it's perfectly workable to say that Elderly Mr and Mrs Riddle were Voldemort's maternal grandparents, their grown-up son Tom was his father and the strange, dark, teenage boy was Voldemort himself, at this time still going under the name of Tom Riddle. Thus Riddle snr is Voldemort's grandfather, Tom Riddle jnr is Voldemort's father and Tom Riddle 3rd is Voldemort.
Nevertheless, I see what you mean about this relying on assumptions. What other hypothesise are there for this, apart from the Standard Issue one?

Filia, Maternal Grandparents means mother's parents. Is this what you mean to say? Tom Riddle Jnr (Voldemort's Dad) would be unlikely to be a Riddle if Voldemort's Grandparents, are his mother's parents.
Also, I guess now I am confused on the name of Voldemort's family. I was under the impression it went like this:
Tom Marvolo Riddle (Tom Riddle Jr.) = Voldemort
Tom Riddle Sr. = Voldemort's dad
Marvolo Riddle = Voldemort's Grandfather

[whizbang121]

This is the entry for Ginny Weasley from the HP Lexicon:

Biographical facts:
Born c. 1981, to Arthur Weasley and Molly Weasley, seventh child and only daughter (SS6, CS3)
Hogwarts: Sept 1, 1992 - present, Gryffindor House
Quidditch: Seeker for Gryffindor House team 1995 - 1996 after the first match; plans to try out for Chaser in 1996 - 1997 (OP)
eyes: bright brown (CS3)
hair: vivid red, worn as a long mane (OP4, very apt for a lion-hearted Gryffindor)
build: the short Weasley variation (like the twins rather than Ron)
distinguishing features: when her jaw is set, her facial resemblance to Fred and George is striking (OP33)
field: even Fred and George are impressed by her power, particularly her Bat-Bogey Hex (OP6)
unusual abilities: the only person Harry knows who survived being possessed by Voldemort (CS, OP); also has considerable acting ability (OP4, 16, 32 - able to convince Mrs. Weasley that Crookshanks was responsible for the Dungbombs outside the kitchen in Grimmauld Place; imitating Umbridge; the Garroting Gas scam)
house: Gryffindor
broomstick: none of her own

Her eyes are listed as bright brown and she is said to resemble the twins when she sets her jaw. Lily's hair was not red the way the Weasley's hair is described. She, like Dumbledore, is said to have auburn hair. This is more brown with reddish highlights than actually red hair.

I wonder if a few of us can check chapter three of CoS, because the last time this came up I think we found that in print her eyes were brown and only one of the audio versions had them as green. It's very confusing.

[Sabine]

I've checked Bloomsbury paperback edition:

bright brown eyes

Sabine

[Dedalus Diggle]

Also, I guess now I am confused on the name of Voldemort's family. I was under the impression it went like this:
Tom Marvolo Riddle (Tom Riddle Jr.) = Voldemort
Tom Riddle Sr. = Voldemort's dad
Marvolo Riddle = Voldemort's Grandfather

Not quite - Voldie's middle name is supposed to be after his maternal grandfather. Marvolo would be a strange name for a muggle, as his paternal (Riddle) grandfather was. Probably TMR's mother's last name was Marvolo, although it could be that her father's first or middle name was Marvolo and she chose to use that.

As to how Tom M. Riddle knew his origins, it's not quite like with Harry. Harry was lied to, but there were people who knew. TMR's mother died alone when he was a baby (he probably bit her to death while nursing), and his father never acknowledged him, so there would be no one at the orphanage or elsewhere who knew the story and could pass it on. It is either a literary device or something he made up on his own.

[Sabine]

I agree the memories must be Snape's, didn't we watch Snape pull them out of his own head at one point?

Hi Sindatur :)

If one would want to be nitpicky, one could say: "We saw Snape putting three memories in the pensieve. BUT we never knew if the pensieve was empty before he did that. And of course we didn't see what he took out of his head :huh:

But I'm almost sure this would be too nitpicky ;)

Oh and Filia --- Marvolo being the name of Tom's grandfather is not a fact - it was only just an assumption

But it would sometimes fit nicely and make sense. Even now .... this could have been the source of information for Tom.

Sabine

[phoenixsong]

Marvolo - Voldemort does say he is given the name after his grandfather, but not which one (paternal or maternal); everybody has just assumed it was maternal, since it sounds a bit more "wizardly" and as a sort of "evening out" - a bit from his Muggle side (first name and surname) and a bit from his maternal side (middle name). But I don't believe it actually says.

And darn it about Ginny's eyes, and Lily's hair! I'm away from home, so I can't check the books (this is going to drive me crazy for the next week!), but I KNOW that I have looked it up before and have textual backing for both green eyes for Ginny and truly red (I think "deep red") hair for Lily (it is, I think, "auburn" in PS/SS, in the Mirror of Erised).

[Jessica]

Sabine, the Marvolo bit is a fact.

Tom Riddle says in CoS that his mother named him Tom for his father and Marvolo for his maternal grandfather.

Purplehawk will have the exact quote as always :)

[purplehawk]

Here are the quotes you're looking for. Takes both to tie it together.

"My mother died just after I was born, sir. They told me at the orphanage she lived just long enough to name me - Tom after my father, Marvolo after my grandfather."

and this one:

"... You think I was going to use my filthy Muggle father's name forever? I, in whose veins runs the blood of Salazar Slytherin himself, through my mother's side? I, keep the name of a foul, common Muggle, who abandoned me even before I was born? No, Harry - I fashioned myself a new name, a name I knew wizards everywhere would fear to speak, when I had become the greatest sorcerer in the world."

It sounds, to me, as though the name "Marvolo" is a wizarding name and the grandfather in question was his mother's father instead of Tom Sr.

[Jessica]

Thank you once more purplehawk.

So the grandfather is fact and the maternal is assumption.

I would argue that it's a fairly strong assumption though. Now what were we talking about?

[Sabine]

Sabine, the Marvolo bit is a fact.

Tom Riddle says in CoS that his mother named him Tom for his father and Marvolo for his maternal grandfather.

Purplehawk will have the exact quote as always :)


:blush: :blush: :blush: Oh dear - this is embarassing :blush: :blush: :blush:

Certainly so, and I should have known - sorry if I had somebody confused

Sabine

[whizbang121]

Not quite - Voldie's middle name is supposed to be after his maternal grandfather. I hadn't considered that it might have been his father's father's name. The books don't definitely state which it is, do they? It just seemed natural that as his mother named him .......

As to how Tom M. Riddle knew his origins, it's not quite like with Harry. Harry was lied to, but there were people who knew. TMR's mother died alone when he was a baby, ...
... so there would be no one at the orphanage or elsewhere who knew the story and could pass it on. It is either a literary device or something he made up on his own.
Well, there might have been a letter, or the witch may have lived long enough to tell someone. She named him. She might have left more information.