Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

[GingerCat1]

I'm not sure if this really counts as a Plot hole, inconsistency or contradiction but i can't help but feel that the amount of points a seeker gets for catching the snitch was something that if she could JKR would change as the way she wrote it is very difficult to lose a game if a teams seeker catches the snitch and it almost makes every other position on the team pointless.

I think 50 or 75 points would have been better as 150 is way too much.

[black_rose_witc]

While I'm not sure whether the Killing Curse was a recent invention or whether it had been around for a while, but it is made clear in the books that Harry was the only person known to have survived it. In that, I don't think there is any doubt. My opinion of the "old magic comment," however, was that dying as a sacrifice to protect another provided a magical protection of which knowledge had existed for a very long time.

Avada Kedavra can't have been a recently invented spell, or at least not very recently, since in the first chapter of GoF it is revealed that fifty years prior, the Riddles had all been killed by the AK--or rather, they all dropped dead for seemingly no reason, according to muggles, and it is later revealed that Voldemort dispatched them himself with the Killing Curse.

However, I do agree that while there may have been no precedent for someone surviving that particular spell, since Harry is time and again established as its only known survivor, the precedent would lie in the act itself--that his mother sacrificed herself to save him. The 'old magic' of which Dumbledore speaks has, I am sure, documented incidents where one person was bestowed powerful protection by someone else choosing to die so they could live.

These were not the facts with which Dumbledore pieced together the events of that night, these were, in fact, the very things which he figured out. All he had to begin with was the fact that James was dead on the first floor, and Lily lay dead next to Harry, who was scarred by alive, and Voldemort had, by all accounts, disappeared.

I probably should rephrase. I presume that anyone, given the scene: husband dead, lets say in the living room, wife dead next to the cradle, baby alive with a scar on his head, could piece together that the husband had died first, then the wife, and because of the scar that was all that was left of the curse Voldemort had surely used against him (it was, after all, his signature spell), Harry had clearly been protected somehow. Therefore, even without seeing the scene himself (though I think Hagrid may have mentioned the scene more for Minerva's, and our, benefit than Dumbledore's, because we know Dumbledore went to their house shortly afterward; I think he may even have been the first one there, looking to return James' cloak, but don't quote me, I may be remembering wrong) Dumbledore could have easily assumed (and we know he makes many a guess on his hunches, hence his mistakes tending to be rather worse than most peoples') that Lily died saving Harry. And given that set of what he would assume to be facts, he could draw the conclusion that only Lily's blood--the blood that ran in her sister--would be able to protect Harry, though obviously he would be putting his own protective measures around the Dursley house.

Also, I agree with Willfitz in that the mere fact that Harry had survived the Killing Curse (which would be the most logical spell to assume Voldemort had used on him) would point to the kind of protection someone would bestow upon another by choosing to die in their place.

Thirdly, I would be very hesitant to suggest that the memories of babies can be accessed and perused like the fully formed memories of a self-aware adult. As you have used this method of argument against me in the past, I will say that because we haven't seen the memories of a baby ever used, it cannot be true.

As Xenophilius would say, since you cannot prove the thing to not be true, it therefore must be true. And since Xenophilius was right about the Deathly Hallows, I contend that there are a great many things we have never seen magic do that can be done, accessing the memories of babies being one of them.

More seriously, though, it is just my opinion that babies memories are not in any way accessible, considering most humans can't remember anything before a certain age, and Harry, even when prompted by his own curiosity, could only remember the events one small thing at a time (a scream, a flash of green, flying on a motorcycle).

Actually, there is a time when Harry remembers a great deal more about what happened when his mother and father were killed--any time the dementors came close to him. He remembered his father telling Lily to take him and run, he remembered Lily pleading with Voldemort to kill her in his place, he remembered Voldemort shouting the killing curse. The reason most humans can't remember much of anything in their very early years is, their brain has only barely started developing. They don't develop long-term memory pathways in their brain until around the age of five years old, differing on the child obviously. However, they do have very short-term memory, and it has been shown that traumatic events occurring in ones very early years can leave an imprint in their subconscious that will affect them for the rest of their lives. If Harry truly had absolutely no memory, conscious or subconscious, of the event other than the flash of green light, Dementors wouldn't be able to make him relive it. They can't create memories of the event, they just bring it to the forefront of their victim's mind, to the exclusion or all else.

Edit:

I'm not sure if this really counts as a Plot hole, inconsistency or contradiction but i can't help but feel that the amount of points a seeker gets for catching the snitch was something that if she could JKR would change as the way she wrote it is very difficult to lose a game if a teams seeker catches the snitch and it almost makes every other position on the team pointless.

I think 50 or 75 points would have been better as 150 is way too much.

Actually, there is at least one major instance where the snitch getting caught didn't win the game--the Quidditch World Cup. If you have good enough Chasers, Beaters, and a Keeper, the other teams Seeker is pretty obsolete, as seen when Krum caught the snitch, but Ireland won the cup by a pretty fair margin. It has been established, too, that major quidditch games can go on for days, or even weeks before the snitch is caught. The only way catching the snitch would be a sure victory would be if the game was under about five minutes, which I think Harry actually pulled off once or twice in school. Plus, Katie, Angelina, and Alicia were established as pretty phenomenal chasers, especially together.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by willfitz

First of all, I don't think it was important that Voldemort's giving Lily a choice was absolutely plain and clear. Harry hadn't been killed, which meant that he must have been somehow protected. I think that that would have been enough for Dumbledore to figure out that the protection was due to Lily choosing to die for Harry.

Actually, that is very important because that had never happened before - per Jo. Nobody had ever been given that choice in that particular way before and that was why Harry was protected and survived where others had not.

People had sacrificed themselves to save others, but it didn't result in that person being given a magical protection like Harry had. James sacrificed himself to save Lily and Harry, but that didn't give either of them a magical protection because he wasn't given a choice. There was no precedent for this because it had never happened before - per Jo.

Mugglenet/TLC Interview, part 1, 7/16/2005 JKR: [silence] Can't tell you. But he did offer, you're absolutely right. Don't you want to ask me why James's death didn't protect Lily and Harry? There’s your answer, you've just answered your own question, because she could have lived and chose to die. James was going to be killed anyway. Do you see what I mean? I’m not saying James wasn't ready to; he died trying to protect his family but he was going to be murdered anyway. He had no - he wasn't given a choice, so he rushed into it in a kind of animal way, I think there are distinctions in courage. James was immensely brave. But the caliber of Lily's bravery was, I think in this instance, higher because she could have saved herself. Now any mother, any normal mother would have done what Lily did. So in that sense her courage too was of an animal quality but she was given time to choose. James wasn't. It's like an intruder entering your house, isn't it? You would instinctively rush them. But if in cold blood you were told, "Get out of the way," you know, what would you do? I mean, I don't think any mother would stand aside from their child. But does that answer it? She did very consciously lay down her life. She had a clear choice - ES: And James didn't. JKR: Did he clearly die to try and protect Harry specifically given a clear choice? No. It's a subtle distinction and there's slightly more to it than that but that's most of the answer. MA: Did she know anything about the possible effect of standing in front of Harry? JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, knew that could happen. MA: So no one - Voldemort or anyone using Avada Kedavra - ever gave someone a choice and then they took that option [to die] - JKR: They may have been given a choice, but not in that particular way.

Harry surviving wouldn't explain that to Dumbledore. It could just as easily be surmised that Voldemort cast the curse and Lily threw something in the way - i.e. Dumbledore using the statue in OOTP - causing the curse to rebound and hit both Voldemort and Lily instead. But Dumbledore figures out what did happen even though this was an unprecedented and unique event.

Secondly, in the first chapter of PS, Hagrid describes the scene he found in Godric's Hollow to Dumbledore: "House was almost destroyed, but I got him out all right before the Muggles started swarmin' around." Not only does it sound as though Hagrid was one of the first to be on the scene, but it sounds, by the way he describes it to Dumbledore, as though Albus had not seen the scene himself.

Dumbledore's comments do no specify if he had been there or not. Dumbledore asked Hagrid if there were any problems in getting Harry. All that tells us is that Dumbledore was not there at the same time that Hagrid was. That doesn't preclude Dumbledore going to Godric's Hollow himself after Hagrid left with Harry.

That could indicate that Dumbledore had not seen Hagrid since he gave the order for him to go get Harry, but I don't think it rules it out entirely - we just don't have enough details about those missing 24 hours to be sure. Plus, there were ways that Dumbledore could communicate with Hagrid without seeing him - i.e. sending his patronus to him with a message.

Thirdly, I would be very hesitant to suggest that the memories of babies can be accessed and perused like the fully formed memories of a self-aware adult. As you have used this method of argument against me in the past, I will say that because we haven't seen the memories of a baby ever used, it cannot be true.

More seriously, though, it is just my opinion that babies memories are not in any way accessible, considering most humans can't remember anything before a certain age, and Harry, even when prompted by his own curiosity, could only remember the events one small thing at a time (a scream, a flash of green, flying on a motorcycle).

Actually, that is not true. My earliest memory is something that happened to me when I was 8 months old. It's not very specific, but I remember enough detail that my mom was able to figure out exactly what event I was talking about and tell me about it. People have remembered things from their infancy in quite a bit of detail under hypnosis as well. The memories are there in the subconscious, it just requires special training to be able to access them because they are not conscious memories for an adult. For us muggles, hypnosis is the best way to access memories from infancy - though they can crop up in our dreams as well.

Harry was 15 months old the night his parents were killed. Consciously, he only remembers bits of it - i.e. the flash of green light, Voldemort laughing. Subconsciously, the entire memory is there. The dementors bring that memory out in POA - the longer Harry was exposed, the more details he remembered. Harry even remembers riding the flying motorcycle with Hagrid that night in his dreams years later. A 15 month old child may not have the necessary language skills to tell someone what happened, but having the ability to access their memory - which is covered very well in the text with Legillimency and the pensieve - would allow Dumbledore to see what happened for himself without having to rely on a toddler to tell him anything.

And - just to be clear - I'm not saying that is what Dumbledore did for certain. That's just one possibility. We simply do not know what Dumbledore did during those missing 24 hours so all we can do is speculate about that. But we do know for certain that there was no precedent for what happened that night because that is explained in the text and has been further clarified by Jo. Nothing like that had ever happened before. Harry was not just the first person to survive the killing curse - he was the only person who had ever done so. Lily was not the first person to be willing to sacrifice herself to save someone else, but she was the only person who had ever been given the choice to do so in that particular way. That resulted in Harry being the only person who had ever been given a magical protection like that. What happened that night was a unique set of events that was completely unprecedented.

That doesn't preclude Dumbledore being able to figure out what happened though. He was able to detect traces of magic - as was demonstrated in the cave in HBP - so going to Godric's Hollow would allow him to determine what spells had been cast and what magic had been invoked. He had 24 hours in which to investigate those events and gather evidence before he showed up at Privet Dr. to leave Harry with the Dursleys. We can only speculate about what he did during those 24 hours, but I think he had plenty of time to gather what evidence he needed to figure it out.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Actually, that is very important because that had never happened before - per Jo. Nobody had ever been given that choice in that particular way before and that was why Harry was protected and survived where others had not.

People had sacrificed themselves to save others, but it didn't result in that person being given a magical protection like Harry had. James sacrificed himself to save Lily and Harry, but that didn't give either of them a magical protection because he wasn't given a choice. There was no precedent for this because it had never happened before - per Jo.

I'm not so sure that this quote is as clear as it could be. Certainly, she makes it completely clear that this exact scenario has never occurred. What she seems to be saying, to me, is that no one had survived the killing curse before, using the protection. She says that she tried to make "it" absolutely clear through the series, so to me she can only be referring to the fact that no one had survived the killing curse before, which she does make clear on multiple occasions, and not the conjecture that no one had been given a choice to sacrifice themselves to save someone else, which she never, as far as I can tell, tries to make clear in the series.

In her next answer, she even says that people "may have been given the choice, but not [to resist the killing curse]," and this answer seems to have multiple interpretations. There is your interpretation, as I understand it, which is that no one had ever chosen to die, and my interpretation that, simply, no one had chosen to die in this way via the killing curse. The reason why I am so eager to defend this position is because if it had never happened before, it wouldn't be old magic at all!

Harry surviving wouldn't explain that to Dumbledore. It could just as easily be surmised that Voldemort cast the curse and Lily threw something in the way - i.e. Dumbledore using the statue in OOTP - causing the curse to rebound and hit both Voldemort and Lily instead. But Dumbledore figures out what did happen even though this was an unprecedented and unique event.

However, you are forgetting the scar on Harry's head which could only have been caused by a powerful dark curse. This scar indicated that a curse had hit Harry, which means that your proposed alternate scenario couldn't have happened. Something had to be in place to prevent Harry from dying from the killing curse.

Dumbledore's comments do no specify if he had been there or not. Dumbledore asked Hagrid if there were any problems in getting Harry...

That could indicate that Dumbledore had not seen Hagrid since he gave the order for him to go get Harry, but I don't think it rules it out entirely - we just don't have enough details about those missing 24 hours to be sure. Plus, there were ways that Dumbledore could communicate with Hagrid without seeing him - i.e. sending his patronus to him with a message.

What we do know is that Hagrid was the first on the scene, as he is the one who rescues him directly from the rubble, he meets Sirius at the scene, Sirius gives him the bike, and he leaves. Dumbledore was not present at any of those times, given Dumbledore asks him where he got the bike, if I remember all those facts correctly. I base my opinion also on the fact that Hagrid described the state of the house, which I don't see him doing if Dumbledore had already visited.

I am not saying that Dumbledore didn't visit the house after Hagrid left, but it wouldn't really have been the same, given Harry wasn't there and presumably something had been done about the other bodies. He could, as you rightly say, and as I said in an earlier post, have detected certain types of magic a la the cave, and this might indeed be the simplest answer.

Actually, that is not true. My earliest memory is something that happened to me when I was 8 months old. It's not very specific, but I remember enough detail that my mom was able to figure out exactly what event I was talking about and tell me about it. People have remembered things from their infancy in quite a bit of detail under hypnosis as well. The memories are there in the subconscious, it just requires special training to be able to access them because they are not conscious memories for an adult. For us muggles, hypnosis is the best way to access memories from infancy - though they can crop up in our dreams as well.

Harry was 15 months old the night his parents were killed. Consciously, he only remembers bits of it - i.e. the flash of green light, Voldemort laughing. Subconsciously, the entire memory is there. The dementors bring that memory out in POA - the longer Harry was exposed, the more details he remembered. Harry even remembers riding the flying motorcycle with Hagrid that night in his dreams years later. A 15 month old child may not have the necessary language skills to tell someone what happened, but having the ability to access their memory - which is covered very well in the text with Legillimency and the pensieve - would allow Dumbledore to see what happened for himself without having to rely on a toddler to tell him anything.

I guess the biggest factor that makes me assume this was not possible is that he didn't, and really, why would he leave it to chance. I think it's possible, perhaps, that memories can only be removed which are formed in a completely developed brain, or something. It seems obvious that our memory of events prior to a specific age are a lot more muddy than memories after that date, and from what little research I have conducted on the internet, children's memories only develop to be able to hold sequences in their mind at 30 months. As for the hypnosis experiments, there seems to be a bit of debate over whether such memories are of actual events, or simply the result of hypnotic suggestion, whereby a memory would essentially manifest itself into the person's memory as they are suggested things they may remember. This is venturing a little far away from the scope of the conversation, but at the end of the day, Dumbledore doesn't ever try to use Harry's memory to ascertain the definite events of the evening.

Originally Posted by black_rose_witc

Avada Kedavra can't have been a recently invented spell, or at least not very recently, since in the first chapter of GoF it is revealed that fifty years prior, the Riddles had all been killed by the AK--or rather, they all dropped dead for seemingly no reason, according to muggles, and it is later revealed that Voldemort dispatched them himself with the Killing Curse.

People do still wonder whether the curse was an invention of Voldemort, and I don't think that JKR has specified either way. I personally don't see any reason to assume it hasn't been around for ever, though. Anything below a century was what I considered recent in the wizarding world, given the time frame we are talking about.

As Xenophilius would say, since you cannot prove the thing to not be true, it therefore must be true. And since Xenophilius was right about the Deathly Hallows, I contend that there are a great many things we have never seen magic do that can be done, accessing the memories of babies being one of them.

Fair enough, I was quite tongue-in-cheek in invoking this method of argument, and I actually agree with you that theories can be proposed which aren't directly supported in canon, as long as they aren't directly contradicted. The main reason I said that was because I personally don't think, based on the fact that Dumbledore didn't use it, that he could have.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by willfitz

I'm not so sure that this quote is as clear as it could be. Certainly, she makes it completely clear that this exact scenario has never occurred. What she seems to be saying, to me, is that no one had survived the killing curse before, using the protection. She says that she tried to make "it" absolutely clear through the series, so to me she can only be referring to the fact that no one had survived the killing curse before, which she does make clear on multiple occasions, and not the conjecture that no one had been given a choice to sacrifice themselves to save someone else, which she never, as far as I can tell, tries to make clear in the series.

In her next answer, she even says that people "may have been given the choice, but not [to resist the killing curse]," and this answer seems to have multiple interpretations. There is your interpretation, as I understand it, which is that no one had ever chosen to die, and my interpretation that, simply, no one had chosen to die in this way via the killing curse. The reason why I am so eager to defend this position is because if it had never happened before, it wouldn't be old magic at all!

Personally, I think it is very clear in that quote as well as in the books - nobody had ever had a magical protection like that before because nobody had ever been given that particular choice in that way. James' death did not give Lily or Harry protection because he was not given a choice. Lily's death did give Harry protection because she was offered a choice. That was part of why Harry was so famous - his survival was a complete mystery because nobody had ever had that kind of protection before. Dumbledore figured this mystery out, but he didn't really explain it to anyone but Harry and he never explained how he figured it out even to Harry.

The "ancient magic" Dumbledore refers to is love - not the actual protection. Lily made that choice because she loved her son and that created something new and unique - protecting him against Voldemort. Dumbledore believed that love - or the ability to love - was a form of magic in and of itself. Not everything Dumbledore said to Harry was literal - i.e. Pettigrew being in Harry's debt because he saved his life. He was not referring to an actual spell being done there when he called that magic - he was simply referring to Pettigrew feeling like he owed something to Harry and that possibly being beneficial to Harry in the future. He was right, but Harry didn't invoke any kind of spell by saving Pettigrew - he just gave Pettigrew another reason to feel guilty and show a moment's pity.

That was the whole point really - what happened to Harry was completely unique. That's why nobody but Dumbledore really understood it. Many thought that Harry must have some kind of special magical power and that's why they so readily believed that he was destined to defeat Voldemort. Many wondered if Voldemort tried to kill Harry because he saw him as competition - another dark wizard to be feared. Even some of the Death Eaters were curious and wondered if Harry might be the next Dark Lord for them to rally around. Harry's fame as "The Boy Who Lived" was completely tied up in the mystery of how he survived and why he had this unique magical protection.

However, you are forgetting the scar on Harry's head which could only have been caused by a powerful dark curse. This scar indicated that a curse had hit Harry, which means that your proposed alternate scenario couldn't have happened. Something had to be in place to prevent Harry from dying from the killing curse.

Scars can be caused by anything. Harry's room was destroyed in that explosion so there was debris. If Dumbledore hadn't already figured out that Voldemort had killed Lily first and then cast the killing curse on Harry, then - without examining Harry - there would be no reason for him to think that Harry's scar was due to anything magical at all. He could just as easily have been hit by debris in the explosion or even hit his head in his crib because the explosion caused him to fall. Dumbledore knew that Harry's scar was no ordinary scar because he had already ascertained what had happened that night. That was the entire basis of the protective enchantment he created around #4 Privet Dr. The question is how he figured that out.

What we do know is that Hagrid was the first on the scene, as he is the one who rescues him directly from the rubble, he meets Sirius at the scene, Sirius gives him the bike, and he leaves. Dumbledore was not present at any of those times, given Dumbledore asks him where he got the bike, if I remember all those facts correctly. I base my opinion also on the fact that Hagrid described the state of the house, which I don't see him doing if Dumbledore had already visited.

I am not saying that Dumbledore didn't visit the house after Hagrid left, but it wouldn't really have been the same, given Harry wasn't there and presumably something had been done about the other bodies. He could, as you rightly say, and as I said in an earlier post, have detected certain types of magic a la the cave, and this might indeed be the simplest answer.

Dumbledore was never one to tell people what he was doing - even with Harry, he was very vague about things like that. Hagrid would not know what Dumbledore did during those 24 hours. Hagrid had complete faith in Dumbledore and never questioned him. He did what Dumbledore told him to do and didn't ask for explanation. Even McGonagall didn't know where Dumbledore was or what he was doing during those 24 hours - that's why she spent the whole day waiting for Dumbledore at #4 Privet Dr. She had no idea where he was so she waited in the place where Hagrid told her they were supposed to meet.

I don't think Harry would need to be there anymore than it was necessary for Voldemort to be present in the cave for Dumbledore to ascertain what type of magic Voldemort had used and figure out how it worked in terms of what he needed to do in order to get into the cave and to the island in the center of the lake. As he explained to Harry, magic leaves traces - those traces would be in the house. From what we see in the cave, all Dumbledore would have to do is be in the rooms where the magic was done to figure out what it was and how it worked.

I guess the biggest factor that makes me assume this was not possible is that he didn't, and really, why would he leave it to chance. I think it's possible, perhaps, that memories can only be removed which are formed in a completely developed brain, or something. It seems obvious that our memory of events prior to a specific age are a lot more muddy than memories after that date, and from what little research I have conducted on the internet, children's memories only develop to be able to hold sequences in their mind at 30 months. As for the hypnosis experiments, there seems to be a bit of debate over whether such memories are of actual events, or simply the result of hypnotic suggestion, whereby a memory would essentially manifest itself into the person's memory as they are suggested things they may remember. This is venturing a little far away from the scope of the conversation, but at the end of the day, Dumbledore doesn't ever try to use Harry's memory to ascertain the definite events of the evening.

Dumbledore had already ascertained the definite events of that evening before Harry ever came to Hogwarts. It wasn't necessary for him to examine Haryr's memory at that point because he was already certain about what happened that night. He may or may not have done so when Harry was 15 months old. Since it is not necessary to actually remove a memory and view it in the pensieve - we are shown that memories can be seen just using Legillimency in OOTP - Dumbledore could have been doing that as he was holding Harry after Hagrid brought him to #4 Privet Dr. that night to confirm what he had already deduced. We can only speculate as to whether or not Dumbledore examined Harry's memory that night or at any point during those 24 hours prior to him arriving at #4 Privet Dr. I think it is plausible for him to have done so, but I don't think it was entirely necessary because he would have been able to ascertain what magic had been done simply by going to the house.

I do agree that a child's memory can be influenced, but considering that I myself have quite a few memories about things that happened to me well before I was 30 months old, I don't think that happens as frequently as some people would like to believe. I've never actually undergone hypnosis - I just remember those things. Nobody planted memories for me or tried to influence me when I talked about what I remembered - and my parents were very surprised by the things I do remember. It is generally accepted that traumatic events in particular will be remembered - and this was something very traumatic for Harry. That's why being exposed to the dementors brought that memory out of his subconscious. Nobody influenced that memory - the Dursleys never even told Harry the truth about what happened and he remembered bits and pieces of it before he found out the truth. That memory came from his mind and we are shown that his memory was accurate in DH when we see Voldemort's memory of that night.

The main point I was trying to make is that Dumbledore had 24 hours in which he could investigate what happened that night. What happened to Harry was unprecedented, but Dumbledore was intelligent enough to work it out. Considering that it only took him a few minutes to ascertain what type of magic had been used in the cave and how it worked I think that was more than enough time for him to ascertain what magic had been used at the Potter's home that night and devise his own protective enchantment based on that.

[wolfbrother]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Personally, I think it is very clear in that quote as well as in the books - nobody had ever had a magical protection like that before because nobody had ever been given that particular choice in that way. James' death did not give Lily or Harry protection because he was not given a choice. Lily's death did give Harry protection because she was offered a choice. That was part of why Harry was so famous - his survival was a complete mystery because nobody had ever had that kind of protection before. Dumbledore figured this mystery out, but he didn't really explain it to anyone but Harry and he never explained how he figured it out even to Harry.

Particular choice in that particular way. This doesn't make sense to me. Voldemort basically tells Lily to get out of the way, she keeps pleading with him, he asks her to move a few more times and then kills her.
Initially when I read that Harry survived because his mother died for him, I assumed that she tricked Voldemort into some sort of a contract. Nothing of the sort happened. Voldemort agreed to nothing. He was always going to kill Harry. I just find it hard to believe that something like this has never happened before.

The "ancient magic" Dumbledore refers to is love - not the actual protection. Lily made that choice because she loved her son and that created something new and unique - protecting him against Voldemort. Dumbledore believed that love - or the ability to love - was a form of magic in and of itself. Not everything Dumbledore said to Harry was literal - i.e. Pettigrew being in Harry's debt because he saved his life. He was not referring to an actual spell being done there when he called that magic - he was simply referring to Pettigrew feeling like he owed something to Harry and that possibly being beneficial to Harry in the future. He was right, but Harry didn't invoke any kind of spell by saving Pettigrew - he just gave Pettigrew another reason to feel guilty and show a moment's pity.

The Riddle from the diary understood immediately when Harry told him that he survived because his mother died for him. So I believe there was a precedent for it. He says that something like that would cause a "powerful counter charm" and that it was "old magic". This powerful counter charm evidently was powerful enough to deflect an AK curse.

That was the whole point really - what happened to Harry was completely unique. That's why nobody but Dumbledore really understood it. Many thought that Harry must have some kind of special magical power and that's why they so readily believed that he was destined to defeat Voldemort. Many wondered if Voldemort tried to kill Harry because he saw him as competition - another dark wizard to be feared. Even some of the Death Eaters were curious and wondered if Harry might be the next Dark Lord for them to rally around. Harry's fame as "The Boy Who Lived" was completely tied up in the mystery of how he survived and why he had this unique magical protection.

I think Harry's case was the first case where an AK met a counter charm of this sort. Obviously, the general population would not know what happened. The only two people who understood it were Voldemort and Dumbledore - the two most learned wizards of the time.

Scars can be caused by anything. Harry's room was destroyed in that explosion so there was debris. If Dumbledore hadn't already figured out that Voldemort had killed Lily first and then cast the killing curse on Harry, then - without examining Harry - there would be no reason for him to think that Harry's scar was due to anything magical at all. He could just as easily have been hit by debris in the explosion or even hit his head in his crib because the explosion caused him to fall. Dumbledore knew that Harry's scar was no ordinary scar because he had already ascertained what had happened that night. That was the entire basis of the protective enchantment he created around #4 Privet Dr. The question is how he figured that out.

It was a lightning shaped scar. I'm guessing that Dumbledore would be able to differentiate scars caused by dark magic and other means.

I guess the simplest explanation here is that Dumbledore detected the powerful counter charm in the room. Add the fact that he knew Snape had asked Voldemort to spare Lily's life, he must have taken a guess at what happened.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

Particular choice in that particular way. This doesn't make sense to me. Voldemort basically tells Lily to get out of the way, she keeps pleading with him, he asks her to move a few more times and then kills her.
Initially when I read that Harry survived because his mother died for him, I assumed that she tricked Voldemort into some sort of a contract. Nothing of the sort happened. Voldemort agreed to nothing. He was always going to kill Harry. I just find it hard to believe that something like this has never happened before.

I don't find it hard to believe because it's fiction. Jo created the world and everything in it. She decided that nothing like that had ever happened before and made that a significant part of the story.

The Riddle from the diary understood immediately when Harry told him that he survived because his mother died for him. So I believe there was a precedent for it. He says that something like that would cause a "powerful counter charm" and that it was "old magic". This powerful counter charm evidently was powerful enough to deflect an AK curse.

I think Harry's case was the first case where an AK met a counter charm of this sort. Obviously, the general population would not know what happened. The only two people who understood it were Voldemort and Dumbledore - the two most learned wizards of the time.

Being able to figure out how that would work after the fact doesn't mean that it had ever happened before. If it had happened before, then Harry would have discovered that at some point. Hermione would have read about it and told him what she discovered - Dumbledore would have used it as an example when he explained it to Harry. Likewise, nobody would have been all that surprised or confused by Harry surviving if that were the case. Harry was famous because that had never happened before. That was the whole point - Harry's situation was unique.

It was a lightning shaped scar. I'm guessing that Dumbledore would be able to differentiate scars caused by dark magic and other means.

I guess the simplest explanation here is that Dumbledore detected the powerful counter charm in the room. Add the fact that he knew Snape had asked Voldemort to spare Lily's life, he must have taken a guess at what happened.

That would depend on whether he had seen Harry prior to that and examined the scar. If the first time that Dumbledore saw Harry after the attack was the moment when Hagrid showed up at Privet Dr., then he had already worked out what happened without examining Harry. If he had seen Harry at some point during those 24 hours between the attack and Harry being left at Privet Dr., then examining the scar might have contributed to him figuring out what had happened.

The point being that Harry surviving and having a scar on his head were not indications that he had survived the killing curse in and of themselves. The shape of Harry's scar was never significant - Jo picked that shape because she thought it would be cool. A lightening shaped scar could result from any number of injuries. One could just as easily surmise that Voldemort had cast the killing curse and Lily threw herself in front of it and Harry was injured by debris from the explosion. In order for Dumbledore to know that Harry had survived being hit by the killing curse and the scar was the result of that, he had to either have already worked out what happened or taken the opportunity to examine Harry's scar before he went to Privet Dr. that night.

Dumbledore had already worked everything out and put a protective enchantment around #4 Privet Dr. based on the protection created by Lily's sacrifice before he arrived at Privet Dr. that night. Whatever he did to figure that out happened during those 24 hours between the attack and Dumbledore arriving at Privet Dr. I think it is most likely that he simply went to Godric's Hollow and detected what magic had been done there like he did in the cave in HBP. He really wouldn't need anything more than that to figure out what happened, IMO.

[Meggy]

Originally Posted by pteropelyx

I don't know if this has already been answered or not, but I've been wondering for a while;
If Voldemort despises everything to do with muggles, and wants to detach himself from his muggle blood and everything to do with it, then why has he adopted the title 'Lord Voldemort' as wizards don't have Lords or Princes etc so surely it's a muggle term?

As well as this, if Harry has the trace on him why then, in the half-blood prince, does he not get reprimanded by the ministry when Dumbledore visits privet drive and discusses Sirius' will, as he uses magic in the presence of three muggles, and near Harry. I thought that at this point in the story the ministry would have been more than happy to get Harry for underage magic.

That last paragraph also got me wondering. However knowing Dumbledore, I wouldn't be surprised if he informed the Ministry beforehand that he would be visiting the Dursley's house and may use Magic as he probably knew that the Ministry would be all over Harry like a swarm of Bees if they thought he had used Magic.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Personally, I think it is very clear in that quote as well as in the books - nobody had ever had a magical protection like that before because nobody had ever been given that particular choice in that way.

Yeah, I guess that is a personal thing for anyone. Like I said, different people will interpret it differently.

The "ancient magic" Dumbledore refers to is love - not the actual protection.

I have to disagree with your interpretation here, as well. Voldemort also called it "old magic" which saved Harry, and for Voldemort to acknowledge that love could be considered as a branch of magic, putting it on level footing with his own tactics, would be out of character, as far as I'm concerned.

Scars can be caused by anything.

Not this one, according to canon. Hagrid tells Harry, and by extension us, that his scar was one which could only be caused by a powerful dark curse.

I welcome any alternate scenarios which could possibly have caused the scene, but so far I haven't been able to think of any.

Dumbledore was never one to tell people what he was doing - even with Harry, he was very vague about things like that. .

Right, and I agree it is possible that Dumbledore visited the scene and detected the magic, but only after Hagrid had left. As I said in my post, this is likely the most simple answer.

I don't think Harry would need to be there anymore than it was necessary for Voldemort to be present in the cave for Dumbledore to ascertain what type of magic Voldemort had used and figure out how it worked in terms of what he needed to do in order to get into the cave and to the island in the center of the lake.

I agree:

Originally Posted by willfitz

There is also this possibility: Dumbledore showed in the cave in HBP how adept he was at recognizing the trace of certain types of magic. Perhaps just by visiting the crime scene, he'd be able to discern the type of magic which saved Harry. .

It wasn't necessary for him to examine Haryr's memory at that point because he was already certain about what happened that night. He may or may not have done so when Harry was 15 months old.

Unless Dumbledore had gone to Harry in Godric's Hollow and then left him there, that never happened. Hagrid was the first to rescue Harry, and he says he then met Sirius, who gave him the bike, then Hagrid left for Surrey. We see all of Dumbledore's interaction with Harry at that age in the first chapter of PS.

I do agree that a child's memory can be influenced, but considering that I myself have quite a few memories about things that happened to me well before I was 30 months old, I don't think that happens as frequently as some people would like to believe.

I've decided that their is no support to my claim that children's memories can't be accessed, so I won't continue debating that. You're right that, until directly contradicted, it is possible. Again, though, it simply did not happen as far as I'm concerned. Dumbledore's "lost 24 hours" were not spent in the company of Harry at all, unless he was the type of person who would visit Harry, steal a glance at his memory, then leave him there on the scene.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by willfitz

Yeah, I guess that is a personal thing for anyone. Like I said, different people will interpret it differently.

I only go by the text and what the author reveals. This is not a "choose your own adventure" book - we're being told a story by the author and that's what we have to go by, IMO.

I have to disagree with your interpretation here, as well. Voldemort also called it "old magic" which saved Harry, and for Voldemort to acknowledge that love could be considered as a branch of magic, putting it on level footing with his own tactics, would be out of character, as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, Voldemort did acknowledge that love was a form of magic - he simply considered it weak and disregarded it for the most part. Neither Voldemort nor Dumbledore refers to the protection that Harry was given as "ancient magic" - they both refer to Lily's sacrifice invoking ancient magic. The protection was merely the result of that. Voldemort acknowledged this in the graveyard, but he still considered it weak because he believed he could counter it.

I don't see this as a matter of interpretation because - as I said above - this is not a "choose your own adventure book". The author is telling us a story and a significant factor in that story is that nobody had ever had a magical protection like Harry had before. That was why people were so shocked by his survival - it's why he was known as "The Boy Who Lived". If you disregard that aspect of the story, you are missing the entire point, IMO. If other people had been given a magical protection like that, then what happened to Harry has no meaning and no significance to the story at all.

As I said before, if that had ever happened before, then Harry would have discovered that at some point. Such a thing would have been documented - people would have talked about it. Hermione would have known about it because of all the extra reading and research she did. Dumbledore would have mentioned it when he was explaining what happened to Harry. Other people would have talked about how Harry's situation was not unique and mentioned others who had been given such a protection. That did not happen because Harry's situation was unique - nobody had ever been given a magical protection like that before. Harry was the first and that is important to the story.

Not this one, according to canon. Hagrid tells Harry, and by extension us, that his scar was one which could only be caused by a powerful dark curse.

I welcome any alternate scenarios which could possibly have caused the scene, but so far I haven't been able to think of any.

Hagrid tells Harry that 10 years after the fact. He already believed that Harry's scar was caused by a powerful dark curse because he was there when McGonagall asked Dumbledore about it. That was not something that could be determined simply by knowing Harry had a scar. And Hagrid was not completely correct in his assessment - Dumbledore's comments were just vague enough to allow for that misunderstanding to occur. That was likely deliberate because he didn't want anyone to know about his suspicions that Harry had a piece of Voldemort's soul inside of him.

From what we are shown in the text and other information Jo has revealed, Harry's scar was not the result of being hit by the Avada Kedavra curse, but rather the result of the explosion that followed. That curse does not cause open wounds and does not leave any marks on the body. The difference here is that the curse rebounded and caused an explosion which destroyed part of the house - resulting in a lot of debris. It is most likely that Harry received a cut on his forehead by a piece of debris hitting him. Avada Kedavra would still be the cause because that was the spell that caused the explosion, but not directly because the spell never actually touched Harry - he was shielded by the protection his mother's sacrifice gave him. Harry's scar was never significant in regards to the shape or how he got it. It was only significant because that was the point of entry for the fragment of Voldemort's soul - that's why it hurt him when Voldemort was near him or feeling strong emotions. That fragment of soul sensed Voldemort and was trying to get out the same way it got in.

The point being that there was no way for Dumbledore ascertain that there was anything unusual about Harry's scar without already knowing what had happened at Godric's Hollow or examining Harry's scar himself. The fact that Harry survived and had a scar did not reveal that Voldemort had tried to kill him with Avada Kedavra or that the curse had rebounded or that this was what caused the explosion. As I said before, Harry could just as easily have survived because Lily threw herself between him and the curse - the damage to the house could have been caused by the same spell Hermione used to blast through the floor at Xenophilius Lovegood's house with Harry being wounded by debris - Lily could have had her wand on her and tried to duel Voldemort before being killed. There are a great number of possible scenarios that one could come up with for that situation that would explain Harry surviving and having a wound on his forehead. Dumbledore would have to go to Godric's Hollow to detect what magic had been done in order to know what spells were used and he would have to examine Harry personally to detect any traces of dark magic on him - though I highly doubt there were any since he was shielded from that. Dumbledore was not going to base the protection charm he created at #4 Privet Dr. on an assumption - he did that because he was certain he was right about what happened.

Right, and I agree it is possible that Dumbledore visited the scene and detected the magic, but only after Hagrid had left. As I said in my post, this is likely the most simple answer.

I agree that this is most likely what Dumbledore did. I didn't specifically state that it was after Hagrid left because I felt that much was obvious - Hagrid and Sirius were first on the scene and apparently arrived within minutes of the attack. I was referring to the 24 hours between the attack and Dumbledore arriving at #4 Privet Dr. I think Dumbledore probably had to deal with the Ministry before going to Godric's Hollow - which makes sense because he believed that Sirius had betrayed them and would want to alert the Ministry to that as soon as possible so they could find Sirius.

Unless Dumbledore had gone to Harry in Godric's Hollow and then left him there, that never happened. Hagrid was the first to rescue Harry, and he says he then met Sirius, who gave him the bike, then Hagrid left for Surrey. We see all of Dumbledore's interaction with Harry at that age in the first chapter of PS.

I've decided that their is no support to my claim that children's memories can't be accessed, so I won't continue debating that. You're right that, until directly contradicted, it is possible. Again, though, it simply did not happen as far as I'm concerned. Dumbledore's "lost 24 hours" were not spent in the company of Harry at all, unless he was the type of person who would visit Harry, steal a glance at his memory, then leave him there on the scene.

Actually, there are still 24 hours there in which Dumbledore could have seen Harry. It did not take Hagrid 24 hours to travel from Godric's Hollow to Little Whinging on a flying motorcycle. Even with muggle transportation one can fly all the way from the United States to Britain in less than 24 hours - my husband's flight was around 14 hours and that was with two layovers. Hagrid had to have taken Harry somewhere else first - my guess would be Hogwarts. Likewise, Dumbledore did not make the decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys until after he had ascertained what had happened at Godric's Hollow and was sure he was right - it was the realization that Lily's sacrifice had given Harry a magical protection that inspired Dumbledore to expand upon that and create a second protection around #4 Privet Dr. using Petunia to seal the charm.

Dumbledore sent Hagrid to get Harry immediately because he knew that Harry was still in danger from the Death Eaters, but he did not have any immediate plan as to where Harry would be taken at that point. Logically, Hagrid's instructions would have been to get Harry and take him to a safe place to await further instruction. Given that Voldemort attacked the Potters in the early evening on Halloween - based on the fact that kids were out trick or treating and Lily was just putting Harry to bed - we are actually looking at a time frame closer to 28 hours. My guess would be that the attack happened around 8:00 that evening and the Potters were dead by 8:30 with Hagrid and Sirius arriving sometime between 8:30 and 9:00. We can form a speculative time line of these events even though we don't know exactly what Dumbledore was doing during that time period.

8:00 pm on Halloween (time approximate)

• Voldemort arrives in Godric's Hollow and attacks the Potters
• James is killed trying to give Lily time to escape with Harry
• Lily sacrifices herself to try and save Harry
• Voldemort's killing curse rebounds and causes an explosion

8:30 - 9:00 pm on Halloween

• Sirius arrives after discovering that Pettigrew was missing
• Hagrid shows up to get Harry and refuses to let Sirius take him
• Sirius gives Hagrid his motorcycle
• Sirius leaves to find Pettigrew
• Hagrid leaves with Harry

9:00 pm on Halloween to 8:00 am on November 1

• Dumbledore figures out what happened at Godric's Hollow
• Dumbledore decides to leave Harry with the Dursleys
• Hagrid receives instructions to take Harry to #4 Privet Dr.
• Hagrid tells McGonagall that he is going to meet Dumbledore at Privet Dr.

8:30 am on November 1

• Vernon Dursley leaves for work and sees McGonagall in cat form at the end of Privet Dr. reading a map. (Time is given as "half past eight" in PS/SS)

8:30 am to just before midnight on November 1

• Vernon's day is chronicled in PS/SS
• McGonagall waits outside #4 Privet Dr. for Dumbledore
• Sirius confronts Pettigrew
• Pettigrew fakes his death - killing 12 muggles in the process
• Sirius is arrested
• Hagrid has Harry somewhere safe - probably Hogwarts
• Dumbledore devises the protection charm for #4 Privet Dr.
• Dumbledore writes a letter to the Dursleys

Just before midnight on November 1 - going into November 2

• Dumbledore arrives at #4 Privet Dr.
• McGonagall questions Dumbledore about the previous nights events
• Hagrid arrives with baby Harry
• Dumbledore leaves Harry at #4 Privet Dr.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

I only go by the text and what the author reveals. This is not a "choose your own adventure" book - we're being told a story by the author and that's what we have to go by, IMO.

That is, of course, the fundamental point of discussing canon. If canon cannot be used to prove our points, then what is the point?

You say that you "only go by the text and what the author reveals." You have proposed both that Dumbledore had visited Harry between the attack and his placement on the doormat, and that he may have tried to access Harry's memories at that time. This sort of thing is pure conjecture, not canon. It can be shown to be plausible by canon, but so can my own conjectures.

Unfortunately, Meesha, you are making the mistake of assuming that your own interpretation is an inevitable conclusion to draw from the interview quotes posted. As you can tell, I myself have also read the quotes, seeing as I then reposted them. However, here I am with a different conclusion drawn from the same canon. It happens.

I do not deny you your own interpretation, but to automatically assume that, because my interpretation does not match your own, I am ignoring canon is a critical error, and stands in the way of reasoned discussion. I hereby give you my word that I will not do so, so if I read a passage and draw a conclusion from it, you may assume that I have come by that interpretation honestly, and not by childishly ignoring canon as I see fit, as you suggest.

Neither Voldemort nor Dumbledore refers to the protection that Harry was given as "ancient magic" - they both refer to Lily's sacrifice invoking ancient magic. The protection was merely the result of that. Voldemort acknowledged this in the graveyard, but he still considered it weak because he believed he could counter it.

Here is what Voldemort says:
"His mother left upon him the traces of her sacrifice...this is old magic, I should have remembered it, I was foolish to overlook it....but no matter." (Ellipses aren't mine)

When Voldemort says "this is old magic," there is no doubt in my mind that he is referring to the previous statement, that "His mother left upon him the traces of her sacrifice." I can't see how you can see this another way, but I am open to hearing it.

You say that Voldemort never refers to Lily giving Harry protection as old magic, but that is exactly what this passage is. Further to that, it also appears, based on this quote, that Voldemort admits that he should have known that he couldn't attack Harry. If there was no precedent to suspect that Harry had been protected by Lily's sacrifice, then why would he say this? It just doesn't make sense to me to look at it any other way.

As I said before, if that had ever happened before, then Harry would have discovered that at some point. Such a thing would have been documented - people would have talked about it. Hermione would have known about it because of all the extra reading and research she did. Dumbledore would have mentioned it when he was explaining what happened to Harry. Other people would have talked about how Harry's situation was not unique and mentioned others who had been given such a protection.

I don't think that the uniqueness of Harry came from the fact that he bore the traces of another's sacrifice. I think that this is not unique. However, you are right in saying that Harry's uniqueness was vital and central to the series. Moody and Hagrid, however, tell us that Harry is famous and worshipped for two main reasons: first, no one had ever succeeded in surviving the Killing Curse, and as such no one had ever succeeded in resisting Voldemort. Secondly, because he made Voldemort disappear. These two things go hand in hand. If this protection had never before been used to deflect a Killing Curse, then it had never caused a fatal rebounding curse to kill the perpetrator. Thus, people were in absolute awe of the fact that Harry had not only survived, but destroyed the darkest of dark wizards in the world. Also, combine that with the fact that Voldemort was using Horcruxes, and Harry had a strange scar, and yes, the situation was truly unique.

Dumbledore was not going to base the protection charm he created at #4 Privet Dr. on an assumption - he did that because he was certain he was right about what happened.

I agree, but I think that he needn't have needed to see Harry to know to set up the protection. The fact that Harry was a Horcrux was the only thing that really would have been apparent from seeing Harry's scar, and that there would always be a connection, and Dumbledore admits to only confirming this fact in his 5th year. As such, he did not need to be absolutely certain on this matter, thus could have confidently set up protection without first seeing Harry. My impression is that Dumbledore could have figured everything based on a brief description of the initial scene from Hagrid (as you said before, there is no reason they couldn't have communicated over distance), witnessing the scene after Hagrid had left, and his knowledge of precedent for the magic which happened that evening.

The point being that there was no way for Dumbledore ascertain that there was anything unusual about Harry's scar without already knowing what had happened at Godric's Hollow or examining Harry's scar himself.

There is also the possibility, which I think is perfectly reasonable, that magical scars are somehow different than a regular cut. After all, the scar was never described as bleeding, as far as I remember, and had already formed a scar over the course of 28 hours. If that is the case, and if it was already a scar when Hagrid got to it, then Hagrid could easily have told Dumbledore that he had a magical scar on his head.

Actually, there are still 24 hours there in which Dumbledore could have seen Harry. It did not take Hagrid 24 hours to travel from Godric's Hollow to Little Whinging on a flying motorcycle.

The reason that I don't believe this was the case is the fact that Dumbledore asks Hagrid where he got the motorcycle from. It seems unlikely to me that Dumbledore could have visited Harry and not run into Hagrid at the same time. I doubt he would even have put Harry down. If they talked at all, and I'm sure they would, I feel it would be extremely unlikely that Hagrid wouldn't have told him about meeting Sirius and obtaining the bike etc.


I am starting to wonder if, perhaps, this should be moved to its own thread.....

[black_rose_witc]

I find myself agreeing with points on both sides from which you two are debating, so if it is made into its own thread, do post the link!

Also, I noticed something as I've begun re-reading OotP again. In the very beginning of the book, Harry "had hidden himself behind a large hydrangea bush...", in order to listen to the news through the Dursley's open livingroom window. However, more than once in the following chapter, he makes references to laying "among Aunt Petunia's dying begonias,..."

Now, I'm not flower buff, so I don't know if begonia's are commonly planted around hydrangea bushes or not, but it just seems odd to me that the first time, she references his place as behind the hydrangea bush, and all subsequent times she references his hiding place as among dying begonias.

[willfitz]

OK, I created a new thread to continue the conversation, and it is now up. It is called What did Dumbledore do immediately after the Potter's were killed? .

[Bulldog]

In Half Blood Prince Dumbledore tells Harry that the loss of his hand was a fair trade for 1/7 of Voldemort's soul. In Deathly Hallows we find out that 1/7 of Voldemort's soul really cost Dumbledore his life. This is a serious contradiction in my opinion.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by Bulldog

In Half Blood Prince Dumbledore tells Harry that the loss of his hand was a fair trade for 1/7 of Voldemort's soul. In Deathly Hallows we find out that 1/7 of Voldemort's soul really cost Dumbledore his life. This is a serious contradiction in my opinion.

I disagree. He was not planning on telling Harry that he was dying, so I think that this was just his way of deflecting his concern over his health. It was imperative to his plan that Harry not doubt the "fact" that Snape had killed him, as he only wanted him to find out at the end.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by willfitz

It was imperative to his plan that Harry not doubt the "fact" that Snape had killed him, as he only wanted him to find out at the end.

I don't understand this statement. Why was it important to Dumbledore's plan that Harry believe Snape had killed him? IMO in The Lightning-Struck Tower his request for Harry to find Snape was to facilitate his death without it being obvious that Snape was actually euthanizing him.

Or are you talking about something entirely different?

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

I don't understand this statement. Why was it important to Dumbledore's plan that Harry believe Snape had killed him? IMO in The Lightning-Struck Tower his request for Harry to find Snape was to facilitate his death without it being obvious that Snape was actually euthanizing him.

Or are you talking about something entirely different?

You are disagreeing with me while saying the same thing which I am trying to say.

I mean he wanted to make sure that Harry thought Snape had murdered him. He was trying to keep the fact that it was planned a secret, thus he did not want Harry to know he was already dying. I should have said murdered originally, I guess.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by willfitz

You are disagreeing with me while saying the same thing which I am trying to say.

I mean he wanted to make sure that Harry thought Snape had murdered him. He was trying to keep the fact that it was planned a secret, thus he did not want Harry to know he was already dying. I should have said murdered originally, I guess.

Oh OK, I get it now!

[Dumble3ore]

Goodness this is a huge discussion with HUGE posts

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by willfitz

That is, of course, the fundamental point of discussing canon. If canon cannot be used to prove our points, then what is the point?

You say that you "only go by the text and what the author reveals." You have proposed both that Dumbledore had visited Harry between the attack and his placement on the doormat, and that he may have tried to access Harry's memories at that time. This sort of thing is pure conjecture, not canon. It can be shown to be plausible by canon, but so can my own conjectures.

Unfortunately, Meesha, you are making the mistake of assuming that your own interpretation is an inevitable conclusion to draw from the interview quotes posted. As you can tell, I myself have also read the quotes, seeing as I then reposted them. However, here I am with a different conclusion drawn from the same canon. It happens.

I do not deny you your own interpretation, but to automatically assume that, because my interpretation does not match your own, I am ignoring canon is a critical error, and stands in the way of reasoned discussion. I hereby give you my word that I will not do so, so if I read a passage and draw a conclusion from it, you may assume that I have come by that interpretation honestly, and not by childishly ignoring canon as I see fit, as you suggest.

As I said before, I do not make interpretations - I was taught in school that was not a good way to objectively analyze literature because there can be only one correct answer. We can draw conclusions from the text and speculate regarding things that happened off page, but we cannot know if that speculation is correct or not without confirmation from the author - unless it is something that is directly stated in the text of course. There is nothing wrong with speculation as long as it is based on the text and information given by the author - but it is not definitive and cannot be considered anything more than speculation until the author confirms it.

Based on what we do know, it is probable that Dumbledore went to Godric's Hollow to examine the scene of the crime during those missing 24 hours. Likewise, it is plausible that he did see Harry during that time prior to Hagrid bringing him to Privet Dr. because we know that it did not take Hagrid 24 hours to travel from Godric's Hollow to Little Whinging. We cannot definitively say whether Dumbledore did either of those things or not without confirmation from Jo, but both are plausible scenarios based on the text.

The idea that this had ever happened before is not plausible because it is contradictory to what we are shown in the text - as well as what Jo has revealed in interviews. The whole point was that Harry being given this magical protection was a unique situation - something that had never happened before - and Jo has confirmed that. The text and the author reveal that Harry was the only person who had ever been given a magical protection that would allow him to survive the killing curse - as well as prevent Voldemort from being able to touch him or cast any other spells against him. This is a significant aspect of the story because that is why Harry was so famous. Nobody understood how he survived - it should not have been possible. Dumbledore figures it out, but much of his deduction was based on guesswork - it had never happened before so he had nothing to go on but the evidence he could gather about this specific incident.

Here is what Voldemort says:
"His mother left upon him the traces of her sacrifice...this is old magic, I should have remembered it, I was foolish to overlook it....but no matter." (Ellipses aren't mine)

When Voldemort says "this is old magic," there is no doubt in my mind that he is referring to the previous statement, that "His mother left upon him the traces of her sacrifice." I can't see how you can see this another way, but I am open to hearing it.

You say that Voldemort never refers to Lily giving Harry protection as old magic, but that is exactly what this passage is. Further to that, it also appears, based on this quote, that Voldemort admits that he should have known that he couldn't attack Harry. If there was no precedent to suspect that Harry had been protected by Lily's sacrifice, then why would he say this? It just doesn't make sense to me to look at it any other way.

Voldemort is referring to the magic that was invoked - not the protective spell that was cast because of it. Lily's sacrifice invoked ancient magic, but the protective enchantment that was created was new - as Jo has confirmed both in the text as well as in interviews.

Voldemort did not fully understand this and that is what led to him essentially making the same mistake twice. He believed that Harry being protected because Lily sacrificed herself was an accident because it had never happened before and he convinced himself that it could not be repeated. Voldemort did not realize that it was his action in giving Lily that choice in that particular way that enabled her death to invoke that ancient magic to create a new spell that would protect Harry specifically against him. That is why Voldemort did not realize that he was making the same mistake again when Harry met him in the forest. The choice was slightly different, but it was given in that same particular way. That is what enabled Harry to recreate what happened to him and create a magical protection that was specific to Voldemort for everyone he was sacrificing himself for.

If this was something that had happened before, Voldemort would have been able to research it and figure out what his mistake was so he would not repeat it. He couldn't do that because there was no precedent - as such, his conclusion was that it was an accident and would not happen again. Voldemort was guessing just as much as Dumbledore was - he just wasn't as good at it as Dumbledore.

I don't think that the uniqueness of Harry came from the fact that he bore the traces of another's sacrifice. I think that this is not unique. However, you are right in saying that Harry's uniqueness was vital and central to the series. Moody and Hagrid, however, tell us that Harry is famous and worshipped for two main reasons: first, no one had ever succeeded in surviving the Killing Curse, and as such no one had ever succeeded in resisting Voldemort. Secondly, because he made Voldemort disappear. These two things go hand in hand. If this protection had never before been used to deflect a Killing Curse, then it had never caused a fatal rebounding curse to kill the perpetrator. Thus, people were in absolute awe of the fact that Harry had not only survived, but destroyed the darkest of dark wizards in the world. Also, combine that with the fact that Voldemort was using Horcruxes, and Harry had a strange scar, and yes, the situation was truly unique.

The text and the author reveal that nobody had ever had a magical protection like that before - that is canon and irrefutable, IMO. There were other possible explanations for how Harry survived - as I said before. For all anyone knew, Lily could have been the one who killed Voldemort - throwing herself into the path of the killing curse and casting a spell of her own at the same time. She could have thrown objects into the path of the curse like Dumbledore did in OOTP - resulting in debris that would cause a wound on Harry's head. They didn't know that Lily did not have her wand on her. That's why the most probable explanation is that Dumbledore went to Godric's Hollow and examined the scene of the crime to detect what spells had been done and where they had been done. There was no precedent for this and the fact that Lily was unarmed would not be known to anyone who wasn't in the room with them. Actually going to the scene of the crime was the only way that Dumbledore could figure out that Voldemort had given Lily a choice and that invoked ancient magic. There were no witnesses and no precedent - detecting the magic at the scene is the only possible way for him to have figured it out from what we are shown.

Harry's situation is unique because of the protection he was given - it was the protection that allowed him to survive by causing the curse to rebound on Voldemort. As such, it is the protection itself that was unique. Without the protection, he would not have survived. Even Dumbledore didn't fully understand it - his guesses were very accurate, but they were still guesses and speculation based on the evidence he gathered regarding this specific incident. Dumbledore understood the concept because he understood love where Voldemort did not. But he was still working in the dark because nothing like that had ever happened before. As Dumbledore told Harry in DH - he and Voldemort had "journeyed together into realms of magic hitherto unknown and untested". Dumbledore could not be sure of what would happen because he had no previous incidents to go on - the protection Harry had been given was unique because Lily was the only person who had ever been given that choice in that particular way. Dumbledore could not predict anything with any certainty - all he could do was guess. But - as he told Harry - his guesses were usually good.

I agree, but I think that he needn't have needed to see Harry to know to set up the protection. The fact that Harry was a Horcrux was the only thing that really would have been apparent from seeing Harry's scar, and that there would always be a connection, and Dumbledore admits to only confirming this fact in his 5th year. As such, he did not need to be absolutely certain on this matter, thus could have confidently set up protection without first seeing Harry. My impression is that Dumbledore could have figured everything based on a brief description of the initial scene from Hagrid (as you said before, there is no reason they couldn't have communicated over distance), witnessing the scene after Hagrid had left, and his knowledge of precedent for the magic which happened that evening.

I agree. I don't think it would have been necessary for Dumbledore to examine Harry to figure out what Lily and Voldemort had done. I think examining the house would have been sufficient because he knew how to detect what magic had been done and where it had been done.

My point was merely that we cannot rule out the possibility that he did examine Harry at this point. We don't know what Dumbledore did during those 24 hours specifically and we don't know where Hagrid went with Harry while he was waiting for Dumbledore to give him instructions as to where to take Harry. Likewise, we don't know how Dumbledore delivered those instructions - it could have been his patronus delivering the message, a note delivered by Fawkes, or Dumbledore could have gone to tell Hagrid in person.

Dumbledore had already guessed that Harry might have a piece of Voldemort's soul inside him by the time Hagrid arrived at Privet Dr. with Harry. That would imply that he had the opportunity to examine Harry at some point during those 24 hours. Since the fragment of Voldemort's soul was separated due to the damage he had done to his soul rather than any actual spell, I don't think Dumbledore would have been able to reach that conclusion simply by examining the house and determining what spells had been done there. There would be no magical traces at the house that would reveal that a piece of Voldemort's soul had broken off and attached itself to Harry because there was no spell or enchantment involved in that happening. There is nothing else presented in the text that would explain how Dumbledore came to that guess.

There is also the possibility, which I think is perfectly reasonable, that magical scars are somehow different than a regular cut. After all, the scar was never described as bleeding, as far as I remember, and had already formed a scar over the course of 28 hours. If that is the case, and if it was already a scar when Hagrid got to it, then Hagrid could easily have told Dumbledore that he had a magical scar on his head.

Actually, it is specifically stated in the first chapter of PS/SS that Harry had a cut on his forehead. It had not healed yet.

PS/SS Under a tuft of jet-black hair over his forehead they could see a curiously shaped cut, like a bolt of lightning.

Of course, that cut would leave a scar and Dumbledore made the choice not to even try to heal it so there would be no scar. He had already guessed that Harry had a piece of Voldemort's soul inside him and the cut was the entry point. That was the only significance of Harry's scar - it was the point of entry for that fragment of Voldemort's soul. The killing curse never actually touched Harry.

Pottercast Interview, part 1 JKR: Well, of course, the pain he feels whenever Voldemort is particularly active, is this piece of soul seeking to rejoin the Master Soul. When his scar is hurting him so much, that's not scar tissue hurting him. That's this piece of soul really wanting to get back out the way it entered. It really wants to-- It entered this boy's body through a wound and it wants to rejoin the Master Soul when Voldemort's near him, when he's particularly active, this connection-- it was always there. That's what I always imagined this pain was. Yes. So. There you go. There's a moment when Dumbledore casts a charm and you see a two-headed snake split-- SU: Yes. JKR: Do you remember that? JN: Yes. SU: In essence divided? MA: That's in his office, right? In essence divided? JKR: It's in Dumbledore's office, and he suddenly does this strange-- he performs this strange piece of magic in which he watches images and these are his-- and this snake dividing and that's the way he sees Voldemort's soul dividing. He's playing through his own theory about what's happened and his theory, is of course, correct. That Voldemort, as summed up by the snake, divided. So Harry never understood what the two-headed snake was all about. But that's what it was.

The reason that I don't believe this was the case is the fact that Dumbledore asks Hagrid where he got the motorcycle from. It seems unlikely to me that Dumbledore could have visited Harry and not run into Hagrid at the same time. I doubt he would even have put Harry down. If they talked at all, and I'm sure they would, I feel it would be extremely unlikely that Hagrid wouldn't have told him about meeting Sirius and obtaining the bike etc.

That would be assuming that Dumbledore had seen the motorcycle prior to that. It is more likely that he did not. We know that it did not take Hagrid 24 hours to travel from Godric's Hollow to Little Whinging so he had to have taken Harry somewhere else to await further instruction during that time frame. If Dumbledore delivered that instruction in person so he could examine Harry, they would not have been on the motorcycle - they would have been indoors.

And I would have to say that this actually does indicate that Hagrid and Dumbledore had seen each other prior to meeting at Privet Dr. Dumbledore did not know that Sirius had given Hagrid the motorcycle, but he was not in the least bit surprised to hear that Hagrid had seen Sirius. If this was the first time they had seen each other since Dumbledore ordered Hagrid to go get Harry, then Dumbledore would have shown surprise at the mention of Sirius - as well as concern because he believed that Sirius was the Potters' secret keeper at the time. He would have questioned Hagrid about where he had seen Sirius, what he was doing, if he tried to take Harry, etc... Dumbledore did not do that and the most plausible explanation for why is that Hagrid had already told him about seeing Sirius at Godric's Hollow and answered those questions. The only thing Dumbledore did not know was that Sirius had given Hagrid the motorcycle - it would appear that he was already aware that Hagrid had seen Sirius at Godric's Hollow and only Hagrid could have told him that.

Originally Posted by willfitz

I disagree. He was not planning on telling Harry that he was dying, so I think that this was just his way of deflecting his concern over his health. It was imperative to his plan that Harry not doubt the "fact" that Snape had killed him, as he only wanted him to find out at the end.

I agree. Dumbledore is not contradicting himself or lying here. At that point, all he had lost was his hand and he already knew that the curse was not going to kill him because he had asked Snape to kill him instead. Dumbledore could not allow the curse on the ring to kill him because it was Voldemort who set the curse and that would have made Voldemort the master of the Elder wand - which Dumbledore was trying to prevent. His answer to Harry is truthful because of that - the only thing the curse on the ring cost him was his hand. The curse on the ring did not cost him his life - Snape killed him before that could happen.