Harry's immortality

[TheGuy]

Good day folks.

This is my first post on this forum. To start off, I only got into the series last year. Since then, I've read the entire series twice. Now, only after completing the 7th book for the second time did I get - what is in my mind - a clearer picture on the whole Harry Potter-Voldemort relationship.

One thing that really came to me - once again, at least a solid observation in my mind - after reading the series for second time was that Harry had multiple layers of protection against death.

I'd like you folks to peruse my observations and then leave your opinions, as I just feel like I need to get these out and see what others say. So, below are my ''layers of protection'' protecting Harry from death.

1 - Straight from the beginning; Lily's love, which is manifested in her blood that courses through Harry's veins. The first layer.
2 - Harry is an inadvertent Horcrux. The part of Voldemort in him would further protect his soul. The Horcrux - the piece of Voldemort's soul - would ''die'' first before Harry could. A second layer of protection.
3 - Lily's blood - and hence her love - coursing through Voldemort's veins after he used Harry's blood during his rebirth. What does this mean? Even if Voldemort tried to kill Harry he couldn't because as long as he himself was alive, so was Lily's love alive within him. This would also give reason to Dumbledore's smile when he found out about this as he knew it was another layer of protection. A third layer.
4 - Harry was the Master of Death. He may have only had physical possession of the cloak and the stone, but the wand was his and would swear allegiance to him alone. Since Draco Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore - the original owner - Draco became the second owner and seeing as Harry forcefully removed Draco's own wand - which had disarmed Dumbledore - he became the third owner of the wand. Snape had only killed Dumbledore, not disarm him in possession of the wand, making his death at the hands of Voldemort inconsequential in ownership of the Elder Wand. This was proven by the ineffective spells Voldemort was casting, the wand was not his. A fourth layer of protection.

My conclusion is; Voldemort would never have been able to kill Harry. As long as Voldemort was alive, Harry would be alive. Ironically, this makes Harry the immortal one in the Harry-Voldemort saga and not Voldemort, as he so desperately wished to be.

What say you?

[EXPELIAMUS]

I agree with 1 and 2, Harry avoided death twice. I actually don't understand your 3rd point. Are you saying that because Voldy has Lily's blood in him, that Harry can't be killed? If so, then are you saying that a part of Harry/Lily is alive in Voldy acting as a Horcrux of some sort? Also, is it confirmed that Lily's protection magically installed some death barrier in baby Harry's blood from then on? If not, then your 3rd point isn't true. Harry ended up killing Voldy, who in your point of view has Lily's blood. I believe the DH2 would've made it clear that your 3rd point was another layer, since it's the last movie.

I don't agree with 4, you can still be killed even if the Elder Wand's allegiance is to you. Having the wand doesn't automatically make you invincible since someone can sneak up on you from behind or in your sleep. That being said, in order for someone to be a master of death, you need all 3 in your possession at the same time IMO. I like the idea that something cool would happen once you get all 3, like transform into something god-like, but it could also just be a theoretical term. Because someone has 3 of these super cool things, it would be like you are the master of avoiding getting killed because no one can see you and you have a lot of power and in general you can talk to the dead people you loved again. However, you may still die if the 3 DH owner was careless and the opponent is clever, but that's just my opinion.

Now that I think about point 2 further, Harry could die and Voldy's soul in him may survive, similar to Quirrell with Voldy in him from SS. That is, if someone besides Voldy killed Harry. I could be wrong but I thought only Voldy killing Harry would result in the horcrux in Harry and Harry dying. Dumbledore told Harry that he didn't have to return to the world of the living if he didn't want to. I know Harry's body on earth was somewhat moving or at least had a pulse when Harry was with Dumbledore. Yeah I'm confused.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by EXPELIAMUS

I agree with 1 and 2, Harry avoided death twice. I actually don't understand your 3rd point. Are you saying that because Voldy has Lily's blood in him, that Harry can't be killed? If so, then are you saying that a part of Harry/Lily is alive in Voldy acting as a Horcrux of some sort? Also, is it confirmed that Lily's protection magically installed some death barrier in baby Harry's blood from then on? If not, then your 3rd point isn't true. Harry ended up killing Voldy, who in your point of view has Lily's blood. I believe the DH2 would've made it clear that your 3rd point was another layer, since it's the last movie.

Well....

Technically the first and third points are kind of the same point being stated in two different ways. Actually the ways they are stated aren't all that different:

Point one: Lily's love, which is manifested in her blood...
Point three: Lily's blood - and hence her love...

Same thing being said twice. For the purposes of the story, Lily's love and Harry's blood protection are the same thing because the one came from the other. (And technically, Lily's blood has no bearing on the matter as her love imparts protection in Harry's blood, not her own.)

While Harry is alive and calls the Dursley's house home Lily's love/blood protection would protect Harry from being killed by Voldemort or being touched by Voldemort without him experiencing excruciating pain. It is Lily's love, which lives in Harry's blood, that caused Voldemort's curse to rebound so techinically once Voldemort regenerates using Harry's blood it can be assumed that the same would happen if Harry attempted to kill Voldemort using the killing curse. It is also shown that once Voldemort regenerates using Harry's blood he can now cause Harry excruciating pain by touching him as Harry caused Quirrelmort excruciating pain in PS/SS.

I don't agree with 4, you can still be killed even if the Elder Wand's allegiance is to you. Having the wand doesn't automatically make you invincible since someone can sneak up on you from behind or in your sleep. That being said, in order for someone to be a master of death, you need all 3 in your possession at the same time IMO. I like the idea that something cool would happen once you get all 3, like transform into something god-like, but it could also just be a theoretical term. Because someone has 3 of these super cool things, it would be like you are the master of avoiding getting killed because no one can see you and you have a lot of power and in general you can talk to the dead people you loved again. However, you may still die if the 3 DH owner was careless and the opponent is clever, but that's just my opinion.

I kind of disagree with your disagreement. The people who were killed who were in possession of the Elder Wand were not in possession of the other two Hallows so it's not an accurate statement to say that when in possession of all three hallows one could still be defeated and the Elder Wand's allegiance won by someone who did not possess the other hallows. As far as we know, Harry is the only person to ever be in possession of all three Hallows at once; the three brothers each invented a separate hallow and, as far as their story is told, never possess more than the one they alone invented so since their invention and the deaths of the three brothers the three hallows have never been united under the banner of a single person - until Harry.

The whole "Master of Death" thing is then a fallible concept because no one could say for certain that one who possesses all three hallows at once would truly master death, that is a supposition made by those who study that hallows and is a completely untested hypothesis until Harry unites them. And seeing as how the only person in history who would ever unite the Hallows and prove or disprove this hypothesis is Harry and he survives his encounter with Voldemort while in posession of the hallows we could say that yes, being the master of all three hallows does make one Master of Death.

[EXPELIAMUS]

Thanks now I get what he is saying about the blood. I don't remember, when did Harry literally have the elder wand, the cloak, and the stone at once? I thought he only held the wand as Vold was dying and then afterwards until he broke it (film) or put it back in DD's tomb (book), so I never thought he had all 3 DH during battle let alone by himself. Yeah nothing is proven about literally having all DH when dueling, it could go either way but I'm inclined to believe that anyone can die even with the DH. If owning them transforms them into a being that cannot die, then that would be cool and would answer the question. If not, then you can still die IMO, wizards are still human after all, any slip up can occur during battle.

I understand in principle how Harry had all 3 in "possession", but to me, he didn't have them in a literal sense together. The cloak is his but he doesn't wear it a lot, the stone in the snitch is okay, and the wand is "his" due to allegiance. I give more importance to holding them in the literal sense in order to qualify his status as the master of death.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by EXPELIAMUS

Thanks now I get what he is saying about the blood. I don't remember, when did Harry literally have the elder wand, the cloak, and the stone at once? I thought he only held the wand as Vold was dying and then afterwards until he broke it (film) or put it back in DD's tomb (book), so I never thought he had all 3 DH during battle let alone by himself.

Yeah, there are a lot of issues I have with Harry being the master of the wand but it not being in his physical possession but the wand "knowing" he was it's "true" master... convuluted malarky, IMO. I didn't much care for the end of DH.

Yeah nothing is proven about literally having all DH when dueling, it could go either way but I'm inclined to believe that anyone can die even with the DH. If owning them transforms them into a being that cannot die, then that would be cool and would answer the question. If not, then you can still die IMO, wizards are still human after all, any slip up can occur during battle.

Well, if we're talking about the fourth point in terms of the hallows giving Harry immortality I don't think they did. Harry would still have to die at some point.

The story of the three brothers getting these objects from death himself is allegorical. The three brothers didn't defeat death by making him give up his power to them, they invented three objects that in one way or another deal with the subject of death (the stone: recalling the dead, the wand: inflicting death, the cloak: sheilding one from death) but since death is not a guy walking around waiting to snatch you up and take you to the underworld the cloak is only useful in sheilding you from someone trying to cast a killing curse at your or something, it wouldn't keep you from dropping dead of old age.

To me, the term Master of Death is misleading. It doesn't mean that Harry would be able to choose when he wanted to die or choose not to die at all; he could be walking down the road, the stone in his pocket, the cloak over his arm and the wand in his hand and still be killed by someone casting a curse at him from behind. A better term for it would be, simply, Master of the Hallows, but that doesn't sound nearly as impressive.

I understand in principle how Harry had all 3 in "possession", but to me, he didn't have them in a literal sense together. The cloak is his but he doesn't wear it a lot, the stone in the snitch is okay, and the wand is "his" due to allegiance. I give more importance to holding them in the literal sense in order to qualify his status as the master of death.

If you want to get really technical, Harry would only really be "master of death" in the "Tale of the Three Brothers" sense if he were using all the hallows at once; if he were wearing the cloak (hiding from death), brought someone back from the dead with the stone (humiliating death) and in possession of or using the wand (using the power of death).

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Well....

Technically the first and third points are kind of the same point being stated in two different ways. Actually the ways they are stated aren't all that different:

Actually, if I understand the OP correctly, the two protections being referred to are 1) the protection which protected Harry up until the graveyard in GoF, and which saved him in PS, killing Quirrell, and 3) the protection which was created upon the creation of Voldemort's second body using Harry's (Lily's) blood, rendering the initial protection void.

Both protections are related to Lily's blood, but they are not the same thing. Rather, in order to destroy 1), Voldemort created 3). The first protection prevented him from being able to touch Harry, but when he returns in GoF, he claims to have solved this by using Harry's blood, and proves that this is true. Dumbledore, though, tells us that in doing this, he made a sort of Horcrux-like second protection where as long as Lily's blood was running in Voldemort's veins, Harry was protected from dying.

[EXPELIAMUS]

Originally Posted by willfitz

The first protection prevented him from being able to touch Harry, but when he returns in GoF, he claims to have solved this by using Harry's blood, and proves that this is true. Dumbledore, though, tells us that in doing this, he made a sort of Horcrux-like second protection where as long as Lily's blood was running in Voldemort's veins, Harry was protected from dying.

Interesting. How exactly would Lily's blood in V protect Harry from dying if Lily's protection in Harry ceases to exist? Would Lily's blood in V simply negate/weaken a killing curst cast at Harry? That would be pretty cool and funny at the same time.

Voldemort: RRRaaa, just die already! Avada Kedavra!
Harry: *gets hit, shrugs it off* Hahaaa. That tickles. Anything else, your royal nose-less-ness?

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by EXPELIAMUS

Interesting. How exactly would Lily's blood in V protect Harry from dying if Lily's protection in Harry ceases to exist? Would Lily's blood in V simply negate/weaken a killing curst cast at Harry? That would be pretty cool and funny at the same time.

It seems to be something like the opposite of a Horcrux, where Harry's body can't die as long as the blood is still circulating through Voldemort's veins. So, in effect, Harry's body can't be destroyed before Voldemort gets killed, and Voldemort can't be killed until Harry is killed.

[ShadowSonic]

About the "Master of Death" thing, wasn't the whole point of being "Master of Death" simply an internal understanding? It has no real power or anything, the title just means you are someone who understands that death is a natural thing that comes to all. It's just supposed to be a spiritual understanding, not anything relating to immortality.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by ShadowSonic

About the "Master of Death" thing, wasn't the whole point of being "Master of Death" simply an internal understanding? It has no real power or anything, the title just means you are someone who understands that death is a natural thing that comes to all. It's just supposed to be a spiritual understanding, not anything relating to immortality.

It's the difference between the literal reading of the Tale of the Three Brothers and the understand of the moral being taught through the story. The original post seems to take the first interpretation; that Harry was literally the Master of Death and couldn't be killed because he was the master of (if not in possession of) all three hallows.

From canon it seems that Harry wasn't so much invincible because he was master of the hallows but because of the technicality that Draco has disarmed Dumbledore before Snape killed him and because Harry forcibly relieved Draco of his hawthorn wand which seemed to mean he also relieved Draco of the Elder Wand's allegiance. Since Voldemort was technically in possession of the Elder Wand but was was not its true master, he could not use it effectively to kill its true master. Or that's how I interpret the ending of the book.

[ajna]

I haven't read every reply in this thread, but, I have always thought that point 3 was quite true. Until the Horcrux in Harry was destroyed and Voledmort lives, Harry cannot die.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by ajna

I haven't read every reply in this thread, but, I have always thought that point 3 was quite true. Until the Horcrux in Harry was destroyed and Voledmort lives, Harry cannot die.

I assume you meant to say point #2, as you're referring to Voldy's soul fragment in Harry's head.

However, the "horcrux" gave Harry no protection from death. For example, the fall from his broom in POA would have killed him had Dumbledore not been there to slow the impact of his fall. Any of the DE's -- or anyone else but Voldy -- could have killed him. The only protection Harry had was Lily's blood protection, and that was ONLY from death by Voldemort's hand; any other thing/person could have killed Harry, and Voldy's soul fragment would have been been destroyed at the same time regardless of the fact that Voldy was alive.

If you were really referring to point #3 about Voldy using Harry's blood, and Lily's blood protection in his veins, Harry could still die by any means other than Voldy directly; the "horcrux" fragment was not the protection -- Lily's blood was, as we clearly see in DH. If Harry had been hit by an AK or other deadly curse during the battle by someone other than Voldemort, Harry would have died and the Voldy soul fragment along with him.

I also agree that the possession of the Deathly Hallows does not protect Harry from dying or being killed. Each was a powerful tool, but none offered an escape from death.

[TheGuy]

Originally Posted by EXPELIAMUS

I agree with 1 and 2, Harry avoided death twice. I actually don't understand your 3rd point. Are you saying that because Voldy has Lily's blood in him, that Harry can't be killed? If so, then are you saying that a part of Harry/Lily is alive in Voldy acting as a Horcrux of some sort? Also, is it confirmed that Lily's protection magically installed some death barrier in baby Harry's blood from then on? If not, then your 3rd point isn't true. Harry ended up killing Voldy, who in your point of view has Lily's blood. I believe the DH2 would've made it clear that your 3rd point was another layer, since it's the last movie.

1 and 3 are the same in that it deals with Lily's love via her blood protecting Harry, but I interpret it as it is now ''doubled'' as not only does Harry himself have his mother's protection, Voldemort, by using Harry's blood, is indirectly protecting Harry too. It's essentially the same protection, but double fold the way I see it. Even if Voldemort tried to kill Harry, he couldn't, because Lily's love protecting Harry was living in both of them. Why else would Dumbledore have smiled when he found out Voldemort used Harry's blood for his rebirth?

Originally Posted by EXPELIAMUS

I don't agree with 4, you can still be killed even if the Elder Wand's allegiance is to you. Having the wand doesn't automatically make you invincible since someone can sneak up on you from behind or in your sleep. That being said, in order for someone to be a master of death, you need all 3 in your possession at the same time IMO. I like the idea that something cool would happen once you get all 3, like transform into something god-like, but it could also just be a theoretical term. Because someone has 3 of these super cool things, it would be like you are the master of avoiding getting killed because no one can see you and you have a lot of power and in general you can talk to the dead people you loved again. However, you may still die if the 3 DH owner was careless and the opponent is clever, but that's just my opinion.

Yes, anyone else could have killed Harry but Voldemort could not kill Harry with the Elder Wand, which he believed he could, hence his search for the wand and why he killed Snape. He believed Snape owned the wand and he believed controlling the Wand, the ultimate wand, would allow him to kill Harry with it. But he could not, as he was not the owner, Harry was and the Wand would not kill it's rightful owner. Harry had physical possession of the cloak - it was in his robes -, he had just used the resurrection stone and and as mentioned, while not being in physical possession of the Elder Wand, it would swear allegiance to him and him alone unless someone defeated him in a duel. Draco's wand disarmed Dumbledore of possession of the wand, making Draco the owner before Harry forcefully removed Draco's wand, transferring ownership of the Elder Wand to Harry. That wand had no affinity for Voldemort. It would be next to useless in his hands.

Originally Posted by EXPELIAMUS

Now that I think about point 2 further, Harry could die and Voldy's soul in him may survive, similar to Quirrell with Voldy in him from SS. That is, if someone besides Voldy killed Harry. I could be wrong but I thought only Voldy killing Harry would result in the horcrux in Harry and Harry dying. Dumbledore told Harry that he didn't have to return to the world of the living if he didn't want to. I know Harry's body on earth was somewhat moving or at least had a pulse when Harry was with Dumbledore. Yeah I'm confused.

I don't think Voldemort could kill Harry without harming his own soul - the Horcrux within Harry - for all the other reasons. Lily's protection two fold - her blood in Harry and Voldemort - and Harry's position as master of death. Even if we dispute that Harry never direct possession of all 3 at the same time, the Elder Wand - which Voldemort was using - would not kill Harry because it was rightfully his wand as no one had disarmed him of it. Thus, the Horcrux within Harry was the only vulnerable ''soul'' when Voldemort cast the Killing Curse in the forest.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by TheGuy

1 and 3 are the same in that it deals with Lily's love via her blood protecting Harry, but I interpret it as it is now ''doubled'' as not only does Harry himself have his mother's protection, Voldemort, by using Harry's blood, is indirectly protecting Harry too. It's essentially the same protection, but double fold the way I see it. Even if Voldemort tried to kill Harry, he couldn't, because Lily's love protecting Harry was living in both of them. Why else would Dumbledore have smiled when he found out Voldemort used Harry's blood for his rebirth?

I don't think it can be considered as the same protection, as things definitely change after Harry's blood is used for Voldemort's new body. Namely, he can touch him now, and curses don't bounce off of him when they come from Voldemort's wand. It is definitely a different protection, as key elements of the original one simply don't apply.

Dumbledore was of course ecstatic that Voldemort used Harry's blood because it was the only way that the Horcrux in Harry could really be destroyed without killing Harry (permanently).

[TheGuy]

Originally Posted by willfitz

I don't think it can be considered as the same protection, as things definitely change after Harry's blood is used for Voldemort's new body. Namely, he can touch him now, and curses don't bounce off of him when they come from Voldemort's wand. It is definitely a different protection, as key elements of the original one simply don't apply.

Dumbledore was of course ecstatic that Voldemort used Harry's blood because it was the only way that the Horcrux in Harry could really be destroyed without killing Harry (permanently).

That is true, I overlooked that bit, I admit. Is it still some sort of protection related to Lily though? A ''barrier'' of sorts? Just like their wands could not destroy each other, so too would Voldemort be unable to destroy Harry.

[ShadowSonic]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

It's the difference between the literal reading of the Tale of the Three Brothers and the understand of the moral being taught through the story. The original post seems to take the first interpretation; that Harry was literally the Master of Death and couldn't be killed because he was the master of (if not in possession of) all three hallows.

From canon it seems that Harry wasn't so much invincible because he was master of the hallows but because of the technicality that Draco has disarmed Dumbledore before Snape killed him and because Harry forcibly relieved Draco of his hawthorn wand which seemed to mean he also relieved Draco of the Elder Wand's allegiance. Since Voldemort was technically in possession of the Elder Wand but was was not its true master, he could not use it effectively to kill its true master. Or that's how I interpret the ending of the book.

So in other words, a bunch of amazing coincidences all combining together to make it look like Harry was unkillable?

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by TheGuy

That is true, I overlooked that bit, I admit. Is it still some sort of protection related to Lily though? A ''barrier'' of sorts? Just like their wands could not destroy each other, so too would Voldemort be unable to destroy Harry.

It's a little conflicting, to be honest, and I still have trouble figuring out exactly what JKR intended. On the one hand, Dumbledore seems to indicate that the protection is Horcrux-like- Harry's body couldn't die as long as the blood was still running in a living body, just like a soul can't pass on as long as a part of it is still in the living world- which would have nothing to do with Lily, but on the other hand he references the fact that it is Lily's blood, and Lily's protection, which is being kept alive in Voldemort's body.

Originally Posted by ShadowSonic

So in other words, a bunch of amazing coincidences all combining together to make it look like Harry was unkillable?

They can be seen as coincidences, or inevitabilities given Voldemort's character, depending on how you look at it.

[ShadowSonic]

If it hadn't been for the random chance of Draco shooting the wand out of DD's hand instead of Snape, then the whole thing would've fallen apart.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by ShadowSonic

So in other words, a bunch of amazing coincidences all combining together to make it look like Harry was unkillable?

In the context of Harry's world where "life" isn't a three-act story and there's no such thing as poetic justice as there is in fiction these things would seem like a random coincidence just as it was a random coincidence that led me to witness a car accident and save a man's life last month. I wasn't fated to see what I saw or do what I did just as if Harry lived in the real world he wouldn't be fated to possess the hallows and defeat Voldemort.

In the context of the books, these things are more in the vein of eventualities since there is no way to change the future, to change the fact that Draco disarms Dumbledore, that Dumbledore defeated Grindlewald, that Grindlewald befriended Dumbledore in their youth, that Dumbledore's mother died unexpectedly causing him to abort his plans for a grand tour of the continent, etc.

Originally Posted by ShadowSonic

If it hadn't been for the random chance of Draco shooting the wand out of DD's hand instead of Snape, then the whole thing would've fallen apart.

And indeed it was that random choice at an opportune moment on the part of Draco that ultimate led Harry to become the master of all three hallows since it seems clear that that was never Dumbledore's intention.

[ShadowSonic]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

In the context of Harry's world where "life" isn't a three-act story and there's no such thing as poetic justice as there is in fiction these things would seem like a random coincidence just as it was a random coincidence that led me to witness a car accident and save a man's life last month. I wasn't fated to see what I saw or do what I did just as if Harry lived in the real world he wouldn't be fated to possess the hallows and defeat Voldemort.

In the context of the books, these things are more in the vein of eventualities since there is no way to change the future, to change the fact that Draco disarms Dumbledore, that Dumbledore defeated Grindlewald, that Grindlewald befriended Dumbledore in their youth, that Dumbledore's mother died unexpectedly causing him to abort his plans for a grand tour of the continent, etc.

So...yes and no?