Harry's immortality

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by willfitz

But how do you reconcile this with the fact that the main thing we see that the old blood protection offered- ie the ability to touch and cast spells on Harry- are gone upon Voldemort's reincarnation?

That could be because Harry's blood is inside Voldemort, that it had a somewhat moderating effect (Dumbledore refers to the "touch" issue as "that particular barrier" -- the ability to physically touch Harry with no consequence to Voldemort. But nothing was said about negating the protection keeping Harry from being killed by Voldemort, and Dumbledore seems to confirm that it was still there during the King's Cross conversation (my previous post).

Here is the discussion from GOF about Voldemort using Harry's blood. Notice both Harry and Dumbledore only talk about the one particular aspect as changing.

GOF, pages 695-696 US hardcover edition When Harry told of Wormtail piercing his arm with the dagger, however, Sirius let out a vehement exclamation and Dumbledore stood up so quickly that Harry started. Dumbledore walked around the desk and told Harry to stretch out his arm. Harry showed them both the place where his robes were torn and the cut beneath them. "He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used someone else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said the protection my -- my mother left in me -- he'd have it too. And he was right -- he could touch me without hurting himself, he could touch my face." For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. But next second, Harry was sure he had imagined it, for when Dumbledore had returned to his seat behind the desk, he looked as old and weary as Harry had ever seen him. "Very well," he said, sitting down again. "Voldemort has overcome that particular barrier. Harry, continue please."

Now if you go back and read Dumbledore's comments to Harry in King's Cross, it does seem that he is confirming that the original protection for Harry in his blood from death by Voldemort's hand not only was still effective, but it was now also present in Voldemort. Which would appear to give Harry an extra layer of protection. The only change appears to be that Voldemort could now touch Harry without harming himself. But that's it. The way I see it, anyway.

[JohanT]

To branch off of the current discussion, what would have occured had Harry not been a horcrux? Would his blood in Voldemort's veins protect him from death, when hit with the Avada Kedavra curse? In Deathly Hallows, it appears as though, due to the shared blood, the horcrux was the target of the curse, rather than Harry himself. Had the horcrux not been there, is there a possibility (though not specified) that Harry would have died?

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by JohanT

To branch off of the current discussion, what would have occured had Harry not been a horcrux? Would his blood in Voldemort's veins protect him from death, when hit with the Avada Kedavra curse? In Deathly Hallows, it appears as though, due to the shared blood, the horcrux was the target of the curse, rather than Harry himself. Had the horcrux not been there, is there a possibility (though not specified) that Harry would have died?

Firstly, I'd like to clear up the fact that Harry was NOT a horcrux, as stated by JKR. Such creation is intentional, involves the use of a separate dark spell to create a container.

To address your question, if Harry had not had the soul-piece in him, there would be no need for the sacrifice in the forest, and I think the story would have changed significantly. And as we're discussing the book as it is, not as it might have been written (of which we have no idea as JKR would have been writing it), I don't think it's possible to discuss it.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

Now if you go back and read Dumbledore's comments to Harry in King's Cross, it does seem that he is confirming that the original protection for Harry in his blood from death by Voldemort's hand not only was still effective, but it was now also present in Voldemort. Which would appear to give Harry an extra layer of protection. The only change appears to be that Voldemort could now touch Harry without harming himself. But that's it. The way I see it, anyway.

But it isn't the only effect. His curses are now also able to hit and affect Harry, as evidenced by the fact that his cruciatus curses work on Harry.

I don't think there's really any evidence that the blood protection specifically protected against Harry's death at Voldemort's hand originally; it seems more that the protection was against Voldemort touching (physically or magically) Harry in any way, and that seems to have been eroded by using Harry's blood.

So I do see the new protection as replacing the old one, and in truth, the way it is presented it seems to me to add another layer- while Harry's blood runs in Voldemort's veins, it seems that he is protected from everyone, not just Voldemort. That was, of course, not the case before-hand.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

Firstly, I'd like to clear up the fact that Harry was NOT a horcrux, as stated by JKR. Such creation is intentional, involves the use of a separate dark spell to create a container.

To address your question, if Harry had not had the soul-piece in him, there would be no need for the sacrifice in the forest, and I think the story would have changed significantly. And as we're discussing the book as it is, not as it might have been written (of which we have no idea as JKR would have been writing it), I don't think it's possible to discuss it.

I think that's spot on.

However, I don't believe that anything would have occurred differently if the soul piece did not exist in Harry. Harry's return to his body was not presented as being facilitated by the quasi-Horcrux, but rather by Voldemort's use of Harry's blood.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by willfitz

But it isn't the only effect. His curses are now also able to hit and affect Harry, as evidenced by the fact that his cruciatus curses work on Harry.

I don't think there's really any evidence that the blood protection specifically protected against Harry's death at Voldemort's hand originally; it seems more that the protection was against Voldemort touching (physically or magically) Harry in any way, and that seems to have been eroded by using Harry's blood.

So I do see the new protection as replacing the old one, and in truth, the way it is presented it seems to me to add another layer- while Harry's blood runs in Voldemort's veins, it seems that he is protected from everyone, not just Voldemort. That was, of course, not the case before-hand.

However, Dumbledore in King's Cross tells Harry the blood protection was in both of them once Voldy used Harry's blood. So if it was in Harry, it would still work to keep him from being killed. Harry's blood may have been in Voldy, but as far as the protection was concerned, Voldy is Voldy and his hand cannot be the cause of Harry's death. (I posted recently on Dumbledore saying "Lily's protection inside both of you!" , page 709, DH US edition, with further conversation backing up that comment on pages 710-711).

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

However, Dumbledore in King's Cross tells Harry the blood protection was in both of them once Voldy used Harry's blood. So if it was in Harry, it would still work to keep him from being killed. Harry's blood may have been in Voldy, but as far as the protection was concerned, Voldy is Voldy and his hand cannot be the cause of Harry's death. (I posted recently on Dumbledore saying "Lily's protection inside both of you!" , page 709, DH US edition, with further conversation backing up that comment on pages 710-711).

Yes, it did still keep him from being killed, but I don't think we can say it was by the same method that the original protection offered.

The way I see it is just that the magic in the blood offered a magical link between the blood in Harry and the blood in Voldemort. Dumbledore describes what kept Harry alive as a sort of 'double-bond,' which supports this. In my opinion, it acted in a similar way to a Horcrux: Harry's body could be restored via this magical bond so long as the blood was still alive in the body of Voldemort.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by willfitz

Yes, it did still keep him from being killed, but I don't think we can say it was by the same method that the original protection offered.

The way I see it is just that the magic in the blood offered a magical link between the blood in Harry and the blood in Voldemort. Dumbledore describes what kept Harry alive as a sort of 'double-bond,' which supports this. In my opinion, it acted in a similar way to a Horcrux: Harry's body could be restored via this magical bond so long as the blood was still alive in the body of Voldemort.

I don't see how we can say that it is not the same method. While details surrounding it changed, the core protection is still valid in both of them. How can it not be? It's the same blood; the protection is either in it or it's not, and it's the same. It still only affords Harry protection from death by Voldemort. It's of no use to Voldemort at all, unless he wanted to go the "remorse" route.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

I don't see how we can say that it is not the same method.

Because, frankly, it isn't. In the original protection, Voldemort attempted to curse Harry, and Harry did not attempt to defend himself. This resulted in the spell backfiring and killing Voldemort.

After using Harry's blood, Voldemort attempts to curse Harry, and Harry does not defend himself. The result is Harry being blasted to a netherworld where he can choose to be killed or return to his body,and Voldemort being temporarily stunned, or else just knocked down.

I see this as a big difference in method of protection, personally.

It still only affords Harry protection from death by Voldemort.

This is something I wonder, as I say. Does it still only protect Harry from death by Voldemort, or is does the 'double-bond' protect Harry from dying while Voldemort is alive?

Dumbledore's comment that Voldemort casting the curse himself was vital (to Snape in TPT) could just as easily be not because it prevented Harry's death, but because it solidified the fact that Voldemort was now powerless against just about everyone who would oppose him (due to the protection granted by Harry).

[horcrux4]

Originally Posted by willfitz

Because, frankly, it isn't. In the original protection, Voldemort attempted to curse Harry, and Harry did not attempt to defend himself. This resulted in the spell backfiring and killing Voldemort.

After using Harry's blood, Voldemort attempts to curse Harry, and Harry does not defend himself. The result is Harry being blasted to a netherworld where he can choose to be killed or return to his body,and Voldemort being temporarily stunned, or else just knocked down.

I see this as a big difference in method of protection, personally.

I think the AK in the Forest must have backfired in some way for Voldemort's soul to be in Kings Cross with Harry & Dumbledore. We never see anyone else being affected like that after casting an AK. I agree though that it's not the same as when Harry was a baby so the protection must have been modified by Voldemort's sharing Harry's blood. It seems to have been substantially weakened while having the extra ingredient of tethering Harry to life while Voldemort lived.

This is something I wonder, as I say. Does it still only protect Harry from death by Voldemort, or is does the 'double-bond' protect Harry from dying while Voldemort is alive?

Dumbledore's comment that Voldemort casting the curse himself was vital (to Snape in TPT) could just as easily be not because it prevented Harry's death, but because it solidified the fact that Voldemort was now powerless against just about everyone who would oppose him (due to the protection granted by Harry).

My feeling is that it should tether Harry to life in any killing circumstance while Voldemort is alive. However I've always thought that Dumbledore wanting Voldemort to be the one to kill Harry was because of the blood protection, so I'm torn! Maybe Dumbledore really wasn't sure what effect Voldemort's having taken Lily's blood would have and wanted to ensure Harry had as many protective chances as possible.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by horcrux4

I think the AK in the Forest must have backfired in some way for Voldemort's soul to be in Kings Cross with Harry & Dumbledore.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that that was the soul piece inside Harry. I mean, when they returned, Voldemort certainly didn't give the impression that his own soul had been privy to the details of their conversation.

However, that is, of course, another conversation. The salient point is that what happened in the forest is quite different from what happened in the Potters' house all those 16 years prior.

My feeling is that it should tether Harry to life in any killing circumstance while Voldemort is alive. However I've always thought that Dumbledore wanting Voldemort to be the one to kill Harry was because of the blood protection, so I'm torn! Maybe Dumbledore really wasn't sure what effect Voldemort's having taken Lily's blood would have and wanted to ensure Harry had as many protective chances as possible.

That's possible. I would be perfectly willing to accept that he wanted it because he wasn't sure if Harry would survive or not. If Harry had died, it would have been a good idea to make it so Voldemort couldn't attack anyone anymore. It was a great fail-safe.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by willfitz

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that that was the soul piece inside Harry. I mean, when they returned, Voldemort certainly didn't give the impression that his own soul had been privy to the details of their conversation.

Hermione explained in DH that, when the Horcruxes were destroyed, those soul fragments were destroyed as well - just gone. Here's what Jo said about the creature at Kings Cross on her website - courtesy of The Wayback Machine.

J.K. Rowling Official Site_Wayback Archive What exactly was the mutilated baby-like creature Harry saw at King's Cross in chapter 35 of 'Hallows'? I’ve been asked this a LOT. It is the last piece of soul Voldemort possesses. When Voldemort attacks Harry, they both fall temporarily unconscious, and both their souls - Harry's undamaged and healthy, Voldemort’s stunted and maimed - appear in the limbo where Harry meets Dumbledore.

However, that is, of course, another conversation. The salient point is that what happened in the forest is quite different from what happened in the Potters' house all those 16 years prior.

I agree.

That's possible. I would be perfectly willing to accept that he wanted it because he wasn't sure if Harry would survive or not. If Harry had died, it would have been a good idea to make it so Voldemort couldn't attack anyone anymore. It was a great fail-safe.

That was my take on it. Harry figured out on his own that Dumbledore had given him the Horcrux quest and allowed him to include Ron and Hermione because he would have to die to destroy that fragment of Voldemort's soul inside him. If he were killed while locating and/or destroying one of the Horcruxes, it wouldn't change anything because Ron and Hermione could continue the quest if need be - and get help from the Order if they needed to. That's why Harry told Neville to kill Nagini - he decided to make sure that there were still 3 people who knew what needed to be done.

Harry also saw Dumbledore tell Snape that he believed Harry would sacrifice himself in a way that would truly mean the end of Voldemort. My impression was that, whether or not Harry survived the encounter, his sacrifice would weaken Voldemort by protecting others against him as well as making it possible for Voldemort to be killed with all the Horcruxes being destroyed.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Hermione explained in DH that, when the Horcruxes were destroyed, those soul fragments were destroyed as well - just gone. Here's what Jo said about the creature at Kings Cross on her website - courtesy of The Wayback Machine.

Okay. I wasn't totally happy with applying Hermione's explanation to Harry's case, given he is not, of course, a Horcrux, but JKR's explanation is certainly good enough for me.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by willfitz

Okay. I wasn't totally happy with applying Hermione's explanation to Harry's case, given he is not, of course, a Horcrux, but JKR's explanation is certainly good enough for me.

My impression from Hermione's explanation was that those fragments of soul were completely destroyed because they were separated from the whole - the main soul. They were entirely dependent upon their containers to survive because they were just fragments. That would fit for both the Horcruxes and the fragment of soul in Harry even though they were encased with different means, IMO.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

My impression from Hermione's explanation was that those fragments of soul were completely destroyed because they were separated from the whole - the main soul. They were entirely dependent upon their containers to survive because they were just fragments. That would fit for both the Horcruxes and the fragment of soul in Harry even though they were encased with different means, IMO.

The question though for me is whether the piece in Harry was actually completely separated to the same degree as the Horcrux soul pieces. I mean, there was still a sort of link left over between the piece in Harry and the piece in Voldemort. That same link does not appear to have been there for the Horcruxes, as he needs to go himself to their hiding places to check their security in DH.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by willfitz

The question though for me is whether the piece in Harry was actually completely separated to the same degree as the Horcrux soul pieces. I mean, there was still a sort of link left over between the piece in Harry and the piece in Voldemort. That same link does not appear to have been there for the Horcruxes, as he needs to go himself to their hiding places to check their security in DH.

It was separated to the point that it was trapped inside Harry - similar to how the other fragments were encased in objects. Jo said that's what caused the pain in his scar whenever Voldemort was near or feeling strong emotions - that fragment of soul was trying to get out and couldn't. There was still some connection that enabled Harry to see into Voldemort's mind - though I wonder if that was because Harry was a living being because Dumbledore commented on Voldemort having a deep connection with Nagini as well. However, I think the same basic rule would apply - the only way for that fragment to actually rejoin the main soul would be for Voldemort to feel remorse. It depended on Harry to survive the same as the other fragments depended on the objects so, when Harry "died", it was destroyed, IMO.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

It was separated to the point that it was trapped inside Harry - similar to how the other fragments were encased in objects. Jo said that's what caused the pain in his scar whenever Voldemort was near or feeling strong emotions - that fragment of soul was trying to get out and couldn't. There was still some connection that enabled Harry to see into Voldemort's mind - though I wonder if that was because Harry was a living being because Dumbledore commented on Voldemort having a deep connection with Nagini as well. However, I think the same basic rule would apply - the only way for that fragment to actually rejoin the main soul would be for Voldemort to feel remorse. It depended on Harry to survive the same as the other fragments depended on the objects so, when Harry "died", it was destroyed, IMO.

Ultimately, we can conclude that that's probably right. The piece of soul in Harry likely was destroyed upon the curse hitting Harry and killing him (temporarily). I am only saying that without the evidence of JKR's explanation, it was not possible to prove that to be the case.

Kind of a silly tangential discussion, in the end.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by willfitz

Because, frankly, it isn't. In the original protection, Voldemort attempted to curse Harry, and Harry did not attempt to defend himself. This resulted in the spell backfiring and killing Voldemort.

After using Harry's blood, Voldemort attempts to curse Harry, and Harry does not defend himself. The result is Harry being blasted to a netherworld where he can choose to be killed or return to his body,and Voldemort being temporarily stunned, or else just knocked down.

I see this as a big difference in method of protection, personally.

OK. However, I still don't see it as different, because it still protected Harry from being killed by Voldemort. The first time there was no soul-piece in Harry, but that has nothing to do with the protection per se, just the effect on Harry the 2nd time. I'd also like to point out that although knocked unconscious and injured collaterally, Harry seems completely capable physically of performing much the same as he did before the AK...just as he seemed unharmed as a baby. So while the visit to King's Cross is unusual, Voldemort was there as well, and it's my opinion that effect was due to the soul-piece destruction which would, of course, affect both of them (rather than being connected to the blood protection).

Originally Posted by willfitz

This is something I wonder, as I say. Does it still only protect Harry from death by Voldemort, or is does the 'double-bond' protect Harry from dying while Voldemort is alive?

Dumbledore's comment that Voldemort casting the curse himself was vital (to Snape in TPT) could just as easily be not because it prevented Harry's death, but because it solidified the fact that Voldemort was now powerless against just about everyone who would oppose him (due to the protection granted by Harry).

Interesting; I think Harry's protection functions the same as it ever did, but was now kept in 2 places (really inconvenient for Voldemort, isn't it?). Regarding the fact of Dumbledore saying it was essential that Voldemort cast the AK, I think that is because Harry can, of course, be killed by anyone else...Harry's blood protection only applies to Voldemort.

Dumbledore did say he was guessing about Voldy's use of Harry's blood being extra protection, but that doesn't indicate that the original blood protection Harry has would be negated. Still, Dumbledore indicates the choices in play, particularly by Voldemort, created magical interaction/bonds between the two that had never been experienced before. Hence the educated guess.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

OK. However, I still don't see it as different, because it still protected Harry from being killed by Voldemort.

I guess my point is I see them like a Shield Charm and a conjured iron shield- both are ways to protect against a Stunning Spell, but we would consider them to be different, correct?

Interesting; I think Harry's protection functions the same as it ever did, but was now kept in 2 places (really inconvenient for Voldemort, isn't it?). Regarding the fact of Dumbledore saying it was essential that Voldemort cast the AK, I think that is because Harry can, of course, be killed by anyone else...Harry's blood protection only applies to Voldemort.

And that is the key issue, isn't it? Did the blood protection cause Harry to live, or did it simply forge a bond between Harry and Voldemort's blood which itself caused Harry to live? In my opinion, based mainly on the fact that the curse doesn't rebound as it does the first time around, and thus acts differently, the latter is more likely. I feel that if it was the same protection causing Harry to live, it would have had the same effect- a rebounding curse.