Why Didn't Voldemort Want to Kill Lilly?
sjmc...@gmail.com
ruthless, so why would he even bother telling Lilly more than once to
move out the way? Heck, why tell her at all; you'd think he would just
blast her and be done with it.
BubblyBabs
<sjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110952239....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I've wondered that myself... There's more to that bit then we know about
I'm sure...
Babs
Colin McAlpine CS2001
The road is longgggggggggg with many a winding ttttttttturn!!!!!!1
I think, that as ruthless as he is theres still love in him somewhere.
Check out Darth Vader and Skeletor - evil personifified.
Alyson
Maybe, as horrible as it sounds, he wanted Lily to see him kill Harry before
he killed her.
Brent Braten
My thought is that he wanted Lily for himself after James and Harry were
gone. I'm not saying Voldemort really cared all that much for what Peter
wanted but he may have somehow felt compelled to at least make the offer.
BB
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
200...@wongfaye.com
> he killed her.
voldemort is tactical he has to keep up apperances to his deatheaters
maybe if he just could have struck and killed harry alone he would
have looked more powerful than having to blast everyone in his way
i have this little theory that maybe he and snape had an agreement
that he wouldn't harm lily and that is what drove snape out of the DEs
and may have ben the reason he joined maybe voldemort promised snape
lily
voldemort the master manipulator probably promised each of the
deatheaters their hearts desire
i wonder if the deatheaters have anything to do with the beefeaters?
Jen
<200...@wongfaye.com> wrote in message
news:92f8438f.05031...@posting.google.com...
>> Maybe, as horrible as it sounds, he wanted Lily to see him kill Harry
>> before
>> he killed her.
>
> voldemort is tactical he has to keep up apperances to his deatheaters
> maybe if he just could have struck and killed harry alone he would
> have looked more powerful than having to blast everyone in his way
>
> i have this little theory that maybe he and snape had an agreement
> that he wouldn't harm lily and that is what drove snape out of the DEs
> and may have ben the reason he joined maybe voldemort promised snape
> lily
That's a good theroy
Thomas Madura
It is clear that Riddle did not consider Lily to be a threat to him -
but that Harry was the threat based on the part of the prophecy he had
learned.
I continue to believe that somehow James and Harry are the last
decendants of Godrich Gryffindor and that would have marked James - and
also made Harry the likely person from the prophecy - where Neville was
NOT the logical one. Based on Salazar Slytherin's behavior - it would
have been logical for him to seek revenge on Godrich Gryffindor and his
family - and since Riddle is the Heir to Slytherin - that Riddle would
have also chosen the heirs to Gryffindor as his enemy. Lily - being
muggle born - could not possibly trace her roots in that manner and
therefore is not part of the revenge plot.
gjw
We've discussed this to death in the past, to no avail. I've usually
referred to it as why Voldemort "hesitated" before killing her. It
seems extremely out of character for him.
My opinion is that there are three possibile alternatives:
1. He retained some vague memory about the maternal protection magic
and
gjw
Damn. Hit the Send key accidentally, before I finished writing the
post. Here's the rest...
and had an intuitive feeling that it might be dangerous to kill her
before killing Harry. When she defied him again, his anger made him
ignore that feeling, so he killed her.
2. Snape had feelings for Lily, and on learning that Voldemort
planned to kill the Potter family, asked Voldemort to spare Lily.
Voldemort came there planning not to kill her if he could avoid it.
When she refused to cooperate, he said to hell with it and killed her.
(For this to work, Snape would have had to be vital to Voldemort's
plans.)
3. Possibly the most likely (and most disappointing) explanation:
Rowling simply wanted to emphasize the sacrificial nature of Lily's
death. Had Voldemort simply killed her on sight, it wouldn't have made
that clear. By having Voldemort offer her a chance to live (even if it
were clearly out of character for him), her death becomes a noble
choice, and a voluntary sacrifice.
sjmc...@gmail.com
her then?
Toon
That is one of the many mysteries of his final night. Why didn't V
want to kill the parental Potters?
Toon
(200...@wongfaye.com) wrote:
>
>i have this little theory that maybe he and snape had an agreement
>that he wouldn't harm lily and that is what drove snape out of the DEs
>and may have ben the reason he joined maybe voldemort promised snape
>lily
Which is impossible. V is the main villain. He owes nobody anything.
He'd never spare Lily, a mud blood, on behalf of Snape. He'd kill
her, then Snape for trying to dictate what he should do. he'd have
killed Wormtial fro daring to suggest using somebody other than Harry
if he didn't need the little git so desperately.
Toon
Wich doesn't fit the plot as we know it. V had no more interest in
James than Lily. Harry was the target, as Harry was one of two kids
born as the 7th month died, to parents who thrice defied him. and the
logical antithesis to him was a fellow half blood.
lesliem...@netscape.net
sjmc...@gmail.com wrote:
> I can buy that, but why didn't he use some kind of charm to restrain
> her then?
Lily might have been able to break any restaining spell Voldemort could
cast, and may have cast protective charms that would guard against all
but the "unstoppable" Killing Curse.
Richard Eney
Which is where the Sirius Kase+Tamar theory comes in...
Voldemort was planning to take over Harry's body and be "raised"
by the parents, or at least by one of them, or finally by
whoever was going to raise the orphan. But the takeover failed.
=Tamar
Troels Forchhammer
gjw <g...@example.net> enriched us with:
> Damn. Hit the Send key accidentally, before I finished writing the
> post. Here's the rest...
It happens ;-)
> On 15 Mar 2005 21:50:39 -0800, sjmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> This is something I can't figure out. He is described as
>> extremely ruthless, so why would he even bother telling Lilly
>> more than once to move out the way? Heck, why tell her at all;
>> you'd think he would just blast her and be done with it.
>
> We've discussed this to death in the past, to no avail.
I don't know about 'no avail', but certainly without any clear-cut
conclusion, or even something that remotely resembles a consensus ;-)
> I've usually referred to it as why Voldemort "hesitated" before
> killing her. It seems extremely out of character for him.
>
> My opinion is that there are three possibile alternatives:
Excellent summary.
> 1. He retained some vague memory about the maternal protection
[...]
Still a definite possibility.
> 2. Snape had feelings for Lily,
[...]
Snape or another person Voldemort was depending on. Someone who'd be
willing to lower himself in Voldemort's eyes by admitting his desire
for Lily -- an unworthy (in their eyes) 'Mudblood'.
Even if Snape did have such feeling for Lily, I would find it very
unlikely that he would be willing to admit to them to his fellow Death
Eaters.
> (For this to work, Snape would have had to be vital to
> Voldemort's plans.)
Precisely. Lily as a reward to Wormatail, anyone?
> 3. Possibly the most likely (and most disappointing) explanation:
> Rowling simply wanted to emphasize the sacrificial nature of
> Lily's death.
[...]
If there be no story-internal reason for Voldemort's hesitation, and
his intention not to kill Lily ("your mother needn't have died"), then
I would, admittedly, be disappointed.
We need, IMO, a fourth possibility:
4. There is some other connection between the two, direct or indirect,
which hasn't been guessed yet.
This is of course extremely weak, but that is the nature of such an
explanation -- basically all it says is that there is a consistent
story-internal explanation, but that we haven't been able to guess it
yet.
Of the three first, more concrete, explanations, the first is, to me,
the least unsatisfactory . . .
I will hope that the fourth proves to be true ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.
- Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
Jan van Aalderen
I don't see much connection there. Except, perhaps, that death must be
inflicted before any beef can be eaten. By humans, that is.
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Jan van Aalderen, Amstelveen
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Wie mijn raad volgt, doet zulks geheel op eigen risico!
Reactie op usenetpostjes in de groep. Email zie ik niet.
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
gjw
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>> 2. Snape had feelings for Lily,
>[...]
>
>Snape or another person Voldemort was depending on. Someone who'd be
>willing to lower himself in Voldemort's eyes by admitting his desire
>for Lily -- an unworthy (in their eyes) 'Mudblood'.
>
>Even if Snape did have such feeling for Lily, I would find it very
>unlikely that he would be willing to admit to them to his fellow Death
>Eaters.
If it happened, my guess is that he didn't mention it in front of the
other Death Eaters. He probably met with Voldemort alone and made his
request.
>> (For this to work, Snape would have had to be vital to
>> Voldemort's plans.)
>
>Precisely. Lily as a reward to Wormatail, anyone?
Not impossible. And Wormtail was probably with Voldemort when he
killed the Potters. But there hasn't been any foreshadowing at all of
any relationship between Peter and Lily. There isn't much for Snape
either, of course, but there are a few vague possibilities, such as
her defending him from James, his eventual defection from Voldemort,
and of course his own fierce hostilty towards both James and Harry.
>We need, IMO, a fourth possibility:
>
>4. There is some other connection between the two, direct or indirect,
>which hasn't been guessed yet.
Sure. While it's unlikely that Lily and Riddle would know each other
(given the age difference), but it's certainly possible that they had
encountered each other before (beyond her defying him three times). I
just can't quite come up with what kind of encounter it might be that
would cause Voldemort to want to spare her...
Peter Mason
> >4. There is some other connection between the two, direct or indirect,
> >which hasn't been guessed yet.
>
> Sure. While it's unlikely that Lily and Riddle would know each other
> (given the age difference), but it's certainly possible that they had
> encountered each other before (beyond her defying him three times). I
> just can't quite come up with what kind of encounter it might be that
> would cause Voldemort to want to spare her...
Perhaps her connection with Voldemort and his reluctance to kill her
at Godric's Hollow is tied in with her successfully defying him three
time, an extraordinary feat in itself.
Thomas Madura
Wouldn't it be a real kick if it turned out that Lily and Riddle were
related on their muggle sides?
Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
[...]
>> unlikely that he would be willing to admit to them to his fellow
>> Death Eaters.
>
> If it happened, my guess is that he didn't mention it in front of the
> other Death Eaters. He probably met with Voldemort alone and made his
> request.
Yes, if it every happened, that would be the way. It would still be a
confession of an undesirable weakness on Snape's part -- one that I find
it difficult to imagine.
>> Precisely. Lily as a reward to Wormatail, anyone?
>
> Not impossible. And Wormtail was probably with Voldemort when he
> killed the Potters.
And he was, in any case, the one who had handed the Potters to
Voldemort -- on a silver dish, almost.
> But there hasn't been any foreshadowing at all of any relationship
> between Peter and Lily.
They were in the same house, and Peter sycophantically admired
everything James did and everything James admired. I think it is quite
consistent with his character to wish to cement his treachery to his
fellow Marauders by taking Lily.
This is, obviously, not foreshadowing -- only an attempt at supplying a
motivation based on the evidence.
> There isn't much for Snape either, of course, but there are a few
> vague possibilities, such as her defending him from James,
That isn't much to build on, and that situation can equally well be read
both ways (for instance that Snape came to /hate/ Lily at least as
strongly as he hated James).
I don't think any of the other circumstances are usable in this
discussion -- there is no hint of a connection with Lily in any of that
(same as for Wormtail above).
> his eventual defection from Voldemort,
I dare say that I can almost hear the entirety of Harry Potter fandom
clamouring for that explanation Snape gave Dumbledore, rather yesterday
than tomorrow! ;-)
> and of course his own fierce hostilty towards both James and Harry.
His hostility toward James was well established long before Lily showed
any interest in James.
As for Harry, the argument could be used both ways.
>> 4. There is some other connection between the two, direct or
>> indirect, which hasn't been guessed yet.
>
> Sure. While it's unlikely that Lily and Riddle would know each other
> (given the age difference),
I quite agree, which was why I explicitly included the possibility of an
indirect connection (the 'Snape's secret love' theory is one such -- I
am sure that one could imagine other that didn't have the same
weaknesses).
> but it's certainly possible that they had encountered each other
before
> (beyond her defying him three times). I just can't quite come up with
> what kind of encounter it might be that would cause Voldemort to want
to
> spare her...
Me neither (he admitted gaily).
There wouldn't be much need to postulate such a vague catch-all
possibility if I had any concrete ideas as to how it could be done. As I
said this is basically just an assertion that Rowling doesn't 'cheat'
about this, but that we haven't (yet?) guessed how she envisions it to
work.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is t.forch(a)email.dk
"It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent whatsoever," he
said. "Have you thought of going into teaching?"
- (Terry Pratchett, Mort)
gjw
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <60hk31l2nmtkqbdr0...@4ax.com>,
>gjw <g...@example.net> enriched us with:
>>
>> On 17 Mar 2005 20:52:54 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
>> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> In message <news:2jsh31dgmatu9h710...@4ax.com>
>>> gjw <g...@example.net> enriched us with:
>>>>
>>>> 2. Snape had feelings for Lily,
>>>
>[...]
>>> Even if Snape did have such feeling for Lily, I would find it very
>>> unlikely that he would be willing to admit to them to his fellow
>>> Death Eaters.
>>
>> If it happened, my guess is that he didn't mention it in front of the
>> other Death Eaters. He probably met with Voldemort alone and made his
>> request.
>
>Yes, if it every happened, that would be the way. It would still be a
>confession of an undesirable weakness on Snape's part -- one that I find
>it difficult to imagine.
So do I. But even Snape must have a soft spot in his hear somewhere.
;) And so far, we haven't seen it.
>> But there hasn't been any foreshadowing at all of any relationship
>> between Peter and Lily.
>> There isn't much for Snape either, of course, but there are a few
>> vague possibilities, such as her defending him from James,
>
>That isn't much to build on, and that situation can equally well be read
>both ways (for instance that Snape came to /hate/ Lily at least as
>strongly as he hated James).
Yes, at first, this was mere speculation on my part. But I believe I
have the smoking gun in the form of a statement by Ms. Rowling during
a June 18, 2003 BBC interview, when she seemed a bit flustered by a
question about exactly this subject, then refused to answer it. Here
it is:
Q: Are we going to discover anything more about Snape ?
JKR: Yes.
Q: And Harry's mother? Did he have a crush on Harry's mother or
unrequited love or anything like that?
JKR: Hence his animosity to Harry?
Q: Yes.
JKR: You speculate?
Q: I speculate, yes, I'm just asking whether you can tell us.
JKR: No I can't tell you.
>> his eventual defection from Voldemort,
>
>I dare say that I can almost hear the entirety of Harry Potter fandom
>clamouring for that explanation Snape gave Dumbledore, rather yesterday
>than tomorrow! ;-)
I'm one of them. But I think there's a pretty good chance that the
defection might have been brought about my Snape learning of
Voldemort's planned attack on the Potter's. Even if Snape asked
Voldemort to spare Lily, he knew LV well enough to know that he
couldn't be trusted to do so. He might have gone to Dumbledore as a
last resort...
>> and of course his own fierce hostilty towards both James and Harry.
>
>His hostility toward James was well established long before Lily showed
>any interest in James.
Yes, but consider how much more hostile he would be if you added (to
the already existing hostility) losing Lily to him...
He might even blame James for getting Lily killed (if James encouraged
her anti-Voldemort ways), or for not protecting her at Godric's
Hollow. Of course, he'd secretly blame himself, for failing to stop
Voldemort, but most people find it easier to blame others.
Ted
Richard Eney
Thomas Madura <Thom-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Wouldn't it be a real kick if it turned out that Lily and Riddle were
>related on their muggle sides?
That would only make him want to kill her immediately. He hated
his muggle relatives.
=Tamar
Chipforth Spoon
"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:113ppd5...@corp.supernews.com...
I believe Lily saved V life at some stage, most likely during one of the
trice deifying times James got the upper hand and was about to finish V off
when Lily stopped him out of pity, and therefore V had to offer her a
choice " move aside Lily" .
The pity of Lily may rule the fate of many.
AJ.
gjw
Ah, I rather like that theory. It's unlikely, but at least it's fresh!
:)
Peter Mason
Yes I know that I'm just thinking it was her presence that allowed her
and James and the Longbottoms to successfully defy the Dark Lord
Thrice.
Klaus Opel
>This is something I can't figure out. He is described as extremely
>ruthless, so why would he even bother telling Lilly more than once to
>move out the way? Heck, why tell her at all; you'd think he would just
>blast her and be done with it.
my guess: even while Voldemort is very powerful, it takes some power to
kill somebody and recovery takes some time.
Like a weightlifter who will pull 80 kg once without a prob-
lem, but if he does it multiple times in a row, strain will
tell.
So because there was no need to kill Lilly, Voldemort didn't
want to use power he might need another time.
Klaus
--
1. if you want emails to reach me and not spamgourmet please replace
the local part of my adress ("Dev-Null") by something else.
2. http://www.klaus-opel.de lots of pictures from the Canary Islands
Jan van Aalderen
> In message <60hk31l2nmtkqbdr0...@4ax.com>,
> gjw <g...@example.net> enriched us with:
>
>
> I dare say that I can almost hear the entirety of Harry Potter fandom
> clamouring for that explanation Snape gave Dumbledore, rather yesterday
> than tomorrow! ;-)
>
>
>>and of course his own fierce hostilty towards both James and Harry.
>
>
> His hostility toward James was well established long before Lily showed
> any interest in James.
But possibly not before James started showing an interest in Lily, which
we know happened earlier and which also would have been noticed by Snape
and would explain his animosity to James just as well.
.................
Spaminator
<dev-...@Klaus-Opel.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >This is something I can't figure out. He is described as extremely
> >ruthless, so why would he even bother telling Lilly more than once to
> >move out the way? Heck, why tell her at all; you'd think he would just
> >blast her and be done with it.
>
> my guess: even while Voldemort is very powerful, it takes some power to
> kill somebody and recovery takes some time.
> Like a weightlifter who will pull 80 kg once without a prob-
> lem, but if he does it multiple times in a row, strain will
> tell.
> So because there was no need to kill Lilly, Voldemort didn't
> want to use power he might need another time.
>
> Klaus
There has never been any indication that using spells requires any
"effort" or will drain you. Granted, I have wondered why the death
eaters don't just keep yelling Avada Kadavara when they're dueling
since there's no defense against it.
However, I look at it this way. Voldemort is supposed to be the most
powerful wizard alive (except for Dumbledore) and he very rarely kills
anyone himself. So if Death Eaters are capable of casting Avada
Kadavara once and then casting other powerful curses afterwards like
the Crucio curse then I wouldn't think Voldemort would have any
problems at all casting it three or four times in a row.
Also, if the "energy" idea holds true for one spell then it should for
all of them so it would seem that Harry would have been utterly
exhausted (spell casting wise) after having practiced the Accio spell
countless times and the same would have held true after he had
practiced the jinxes and curses so many times as they were practicing
in book 4. Even if those are less draining spells they would take some
energy to cast.
Besides, I like the idea that Voldemort had some sort of reason not to
want to kill Lilly. It's more interesting that way ;-)
Pip R. Lagenta
>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:41:50 +0100, Klaus Opel
><dev-...@Klaus-Opel.de> wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>>This is something I can't figure out. He is described as extremely
>>>ruthless, so why would he even bother telling Lilly more than once to
>>>move out the way? Heck, why tell her at all; you'd think he would just
>>>blast her and be done with it.
>>
>>my guess: even while Voldemort is very powerful, it takes some power to
>> kill somebody and recovery takes some time.
>> Like a weightlifter who will pull 80 kg once without a prob-
>> lem, but if he does it multiple times in a row, strain will
>> tell.
>> So because there was no need to kill Lilly, Voldemort didn't
>> want to use power he might need another time.
>
>Wormtail kills Cedric with the same AK curse, and doesn't seem
>particularly tired because of it.
I agree that we have no real evidence that casting a spell exhausts
people. However, I have long looked for such evidence, because I have
suspected that it was true. My suspicion comes from the style of wand
use during duels and battles. During a duel or battle, the witch or
wizard changes up the spells used. The only time a spell is repeated
is when it does not work the first time. We never see a wand used
like a machine gun. Things like
"STUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFY"
are not shown to us as successful ways to battle. The only
explanation that I can think of involves some kind of "recharge time"
needed for the repetition of a spell. No characters in the novels,
however, have discussed such a thing, to my knowledge.
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
gjw
<dev-...@Klaus-Opel.de> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>>This is something I can't figure out. He is described as extremely
>>ruthless, so why would he even bother telling Lilly more than once to
>>move out the way? Heck, why tell her at all; you'd think he would just
>>blast her and be done with it.
>
>my guess: even while Voldemort is very powerful, it takes some power to
> kill somebody and recovery takes some time.
> Like a weightlifter who will pull 80 kg once without a prob-
> lem, but if he does it multiple times in a row, strain will
> tell.
> So because there was no need to kill Lilly, Voldemort didn't
> want to use power he might need another time.
But we have seen no indication that casting a spell exhausts anyone.
gjw
It's probably just a literary choice on Rowling's part. The story
wouldn't flow as well if people repeated the curses...
Pip R. Lagenta
O.K. See, now, you know... That is just *way* too boring of an
explanation. It's magic! Let's use our imaginations here.
gjw
<morbiu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>I agree that we have no real evidence that casting a spell exhausts
>>>people. However, I have long looked for such evidence, because I have
>>>suspected that it was true. My suspicion comes from the style of wand
>>>use during duels and battles. During a duel or battle, the witch or
>>>wizard changes up the spells used. The only time a spell is repeated
>>>is when it does not work the first time. We never see a wand used
>>>like a machine gun. Things like
>>>"STUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFYSTUPEFY"
>>>are not shown to us as successful ways to battle. The only
>>>explanation that I can think of involves some kind of "recharge time"
>>>needed for the repetition of a spell. No characters in the novels,
>>>however, have discussed such a thing, to my knowledge.
>>
>>It's probably just a literary choice on Rowling's part. The story
>>wouldn't flow as well if people repeated the curses...
>
>O.K. See, now, you know... That is just *way* too boring of an
>explanation. It's magic! Let's use our imaginations here.
Unfortunately, since the stories _are_ fictional, one does have to
factor in the author's motives now and then...
Troels Forchhammer
> <dev-...@Klaus-Opel.de> wrote:
>>
Spoiler space for GoF (17 lines):
SO PERIL
PRO LIES
ISLE PRO
PIERS LO
EL SPIRO
EL RIP SO
LEO RIPS
OPEL SIR
IS PROLE
LORE SIP
ROSE LIP
EROS LIP
SORE LIP
PER SILO
PRE OILS
RE POLIS
<snip>
>> my guess: even while Voldemort is very powerful, it takes some power
>> to kill somebody and recovery takes some time.
>> Like a weightlifter who will pull 80 kg once without a prob-
>> lem, but if he does it multiple times in a row, strain will
>> tell.
>> So because there was no need to kill Lilly, Voldemort didn't
>> want to use power he might need another time.
>
> But we have seen no indication that casting a spell exhausts anyone.
> Wormtail kills Cedric with the same AK curse, and doesn't seem
> particularly tired because of it.
And later in the graveyard sequence Voldemort, apparently unaffected,
casts a sequence of Cruciatus and Imperius Curses, followed in the end
by a killing curse, and it never appears to require an effort of him.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is t.forch(a)email.dk
A good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read.
- (Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!)
Troels Forchhammer
<snip>
>> I believe Lily saved V life at some stage, most likely during one of
>> the trice deifying times James got the upper hand and was about to
>> finish V off when Lily stopped him out of pity, and therefore V had
>> to offer her a choice " move aside Lily" .
>
> Ah, I rather like that theory. It's unlikely, but at least it's fresh!
> :)
Agreed.
With a bit of elaboration it might even be made more than 'unlikely' --
Lily /would/ after all (probably) want to spare Voldemort's life,
bringing him to justice rather than just killing him.
My main problem is rather the assumption that James and Lily were able
to get the upper hand over Voldemort -- in particular when considering
the ease with which he dealt with them individually (even together, I
can't imagine how they could have defeated him; it is rather a long
stretch from 'defy' to 'defeat', IMO).
>> The pity of Lily may rule the fate of many.
Have you been reading Tolkien again ;-)
There are some very interesting passages in /The Letters of J.R.R.
Tolkien/ about the role of Bilbo's and Frodo's pity:
"... it is the Pity of Bilbo and later Frodo that ultimately
allows the Quest to be achieved ..."
[Letter #153, To Peter Hastings (draft) (September 1954)]
" But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's
own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and
forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would
have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly[1] betray him, and
could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill
him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the
ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if
disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him
in the end - but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a
precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most
beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo! By a
situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself,
and relieved of his burden."
[Letter #181, To Michael Straight [drafts] (probably January or February
1956)]
"He (and the Cause) were saved - by Mercy : by the supreme
value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury."
[Letter #191, From a letter to Miss J. Bum (draft) (26 July 1956)]
"It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected
to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome -
in themselves. In this case the cause (not the 'hero') was
triumphant, because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and
forgiveness of injury, a situation was produced in which all
was redressed and disaster averted. Gandalf certainly foresaw
this. See Vol. I p. 68-9."
[Letter #192, From a letter to Amy Ronald (27 July 1956)]
The reference is to Gandalf's comment starting "Pity? It was Pity that
stayed [Bilbo's] hand. Pity, and Mercy: [...]"
I could continue, but I'm sure you get the picture. In some ways I see
the exercise of Pity in this form as an aspect or extension of the
exercise of the more specific love -- and love is, it is my strong
belief, what made Lily special.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is t.forch(a)email.dk
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great
men are almost always bad men.
- Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887.
Troels Forchhammer
<snip>
> Unfortunately, since the stories _are_ fictional, one does have to
> factor in the author's motives now and then...
With Rowling I'd say 'quite often' instead of 'now and then'.
She does seem to care more about the telling of the story and the flow
of the plot than she does about story-internal consistency. Not to say
that she doesn't care about consistency -- I believe that she does, and
that she truly does try to keep the internal consistency of the world
and story, but I think that ultimately the telling of the story is more
important to her.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is t.forch(a)email.dk
Lo! we have gathered, and we have spent, and now the time of payment
draws near.
- Aragorn Son of Arathorn, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Butterfly
the other side and quit being a Death Eater.
gjw wrote:
> Damn. Hit the Send key accidentally, before I finished writing the
> post. Here's the rest...
>
> >ruthless, so why would he even bother telling Lilly more than once
to
> >move out the way? Heck, why tell her at all; you'd think he would
just
> >blast her and be done with it.
>
>
> referred to it as why Voldemort "hesitated" before killing her. It
> seems extremely out of character for him.
>
> My opinion is that there are three possibile alternatives:
>
> and had an intuitive feeling that it might be dangerous to kill her
> before killing Harry. When she defied him again, his anger made him
> ignore that feeling, so he killed her.
>
> 2. Snape had feelings for Lily, and on learning that Voldemort
> planned to kill the Potter family, asked Voldemort to spare Lily.
> Voldemort came there planning not to kill her if he could avoid it.
> When she refused to cooperate, he said to hell with it and killed
her.
> (For this to work, Snape would have had to be vital to Voldemort's
> plans.)
>
> Rowling simply wanted to emphasize the sacrificial nature of Lily's
made
> that clear. By having Voldemort offer her a chance to live (even if
it
> were clearly out of character for him), her death becomes a noble
> choice, and a voluntary sacrifice.
Butterfly
about that.
Toon
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <eh2s31pf5bokcqbhi...@4ax.com>,
>gjw <g...@example.net> enriched us with:
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:16:58 -0000, "Chipforth Spoon"
>> <ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>
><snip>
>
>>> I believe Lily saved V life at some stage, most likely during one of
>>> the trice deifying times James got the upper hand and was about to
>>> finish V off when Lily stopped him out of pity, and therefore V had
>>> to offer her a choice " move aside Lily" .
>>
>> Ah, I rather like that theory. It's unlikely, but at least it's fresh!
>> :)
>
>
>Agreed.
>
>With a bit of elaboration it might even be made more than 'unlikely' --
>Lily /would/ after all (probably) want to spare Voldemort's life,
>bringing him to justice rather than just killing him.
>
>My main problem is rather the assumption that James and Lily were able
>to get the upper hand over Voldemort -- in particular when considering
>the ease with which he dealt with them individually (even together, I
>can't imagine how they could have defeated him; it is rather a long
>stretch from 'defy' to 'defeat', IMO).
But they could never defeat V. Only Harry could. Unless you wanna
get technical and say only their combined might (As Harry) could
defeat V.)
Troels Forchhammer
Toon <to...@toon.com> enriched us with:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:25:08 +0100, "Troels Forchhammer"
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> My main problem is rather the assumption that James and Lily were
>> able to get the upper hand over Voldemort -- in particular when
>> considering the ease with which he dealt with them individually
>> (even together, I can't imagine how they could have defeated him;
>> it is rather a long stretch from 'defy' to 'defeat', IMO).
>
> But they could never defeat V. Only Harry could. Unless you
> wanna get technical and say only their combined might (As Harry)
> could defeat V.)
The prophecy is indeed one problem, though I suppose that one could get
around that with technicalities ;-) they're two, so obviously not 'the
one' -- and one might take the position that the prophecy doesn't
explicitly state that no combination of other wizards would have been
able to achieve what happened to Voldemort in his first fall from power
(it could even be argued that it is ridiculous to take the position
that this would be impossible for e.g. the entire Order of the Phoenix
heaping spells on an unaided Voldemort).
So I think the prophecy itself can be circumvened, though the arguments
may be hollow sophistry. The assumption that Lily and James were able
to achieve it on their own is still my main problem.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to
(a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks.
- (Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites)
Chipforth Spoon
>"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
news:3ajrvlF...@individual.net...
> In message <eh2s31pf5bokcqbhi...@4ax.com>,
>> gjw <g...@example.net> enriched us with:
> >
> > On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:16:58 -0000, "Chipforth Spoon"
>> > <ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I believe Lily saved V life at some stage, most likely during one of
> >> the trice deifying times James got the upper hand and was about to
> >> finish V off when Lily stopped him out of pity, and therefore V had
> >> to offer her a choice " move aside Lily" .
> >
> > Ah, I rather like that theory. It's unlikely, but at least it's fresh!
> > :)
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> With a bit of elaboration it might even be made more than 'unlikely' --
> Lily /would/ after all (probably) want to spare Voldemort's life,
> bringing him to justice rather than just killing him.
>
> My main problem is rather the assumption that James and Lily were able
> to get the upper hand over Voldemort -- in particular when considering
> the ease with which he dealt with them individually (even together, I
> can't imagine how they could have defeated him; it is rather a long
> stretch from 'defy' to 'defeat', IMO).
Not an impossibility however, we are talking of a time when Voldermort may
have still been experimenting with mortality any number of circumstances
could have lead to him been weakened at a particular point in time, and if
we look at Snapes debt to Harry then a similar Voldemort debt to Lily could
perhaps go back years.
>
> >> The pity of Lily may rule the fate of many.
>
> Have you been reading Tolkien again ;-)
Guilty as charged ;-o
I enjoyed reading that thank you, I don't suppose you could point me in the
right direction for the original version of the Hobbit? ( I've heard
somebody else has written the unchanged text in some book on tolkien, but
I've no idea who or the title of their book).
>
> I could continue, but I'm sure you get the picture. In some ways I see
> the exercise of Pity in this form as an aspect or extension of the
> exercise of the more specific love -- and love is, it is my strong
> belief, what made Lily special.
Yes, The love of Lily may rule the fate of many.
AJ.
Chipforth Spoon
"Toon" <to...@toon.com> wrote in message
news:u1fa41p4gokcqk8fv...@4ax.com...
A, Is that true pre Prophecy days ?
B, They clearly did not defeat V... the reason could be weakness or pity,
Harry may possess neither, we shall see.
AJ.
Toon
Has to be. Notice how not even Dumbledore could. And I'm sure he
tried numerous times. Enough to create a fear in V. otherwise,
there'd have to be an event when V was no longer vulnerable to
everybody, and only Harry conveniently has the means to stop him
(brought on by V's attempts to stop Harry from stopping him.)
Troels Forchhammer
<ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> enriched us with:
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3ajrvlF...@individual.net...
>>
> Voldermort may have still been experimenting with mortality any
> number of circumstances could have lead to him been weakened at a
> particular point in time, and if we look at Snapes debt to Harry
> then a similar Voldemort debt to Lily could perhaps go back years.
Agreed, it is not an impossibility.
<snip>
> I enjoyed reading that thank you, I don't suppose you could point
> me in the right direction for the original version of the Hobbit?
> ( I've heard somebody else has written the unchanged text in some
> book on tolkien, but I've no idea who or the title of their book).
(Looking slightly to the left)
That would be /The Annotated Hobbit/ by J.R.R. Tolkien, annotated by
Douglas A. Anderson. Mine is a Harper-Collins, but I'm sure it is also
available from Houghton Mifflin.
It is brilliant! (And I believe that there's an annotated version of
LotR -- or perhaps a companion -- coming from the same hand). Douglas
Anderson also wrote an introduction to the LotR edition in celebration
of the Hobbit's fiftieth anniversary.
The text of the standard edition is included without any modifications
(except references to notes). The notes are collected in sidebars and
include not only the changes between the editions, but also other
interesting notes and much artwork from many different versions of the
book -- which of course includes all Tolkien's own drawings relating to
The Hobbit.
>> I could continue, but I'm sure you get the picture. In some ways
>> I see the exercise of Pity in this form as an aspect or extension
>> of the exercise of the more specific love -- and love is, it is
>> my strong belief, what made Lily special.
>
> Yes, The love of Lily may rule the fate of many.
Precisely!
Troels Forchhammer
It depends, I believe, on how you interpret "The one with the power to
vanquish the Dark Lord".
There are some questions regarding that statement, that
a) What is meant by 'the one'? Is it the only entity, collective or
individual with the stated power? Is it the only individual entity?
b) What is meant by 'the power'? Is this the theoretical ability, or
is something more implied? E.g. the ability to be in the right place
and the right time to succeed?
c) Is the statement valid for the time before Tom Riddle became the
Dark Lord? Tom Riddle was a baby once, surely it would have been
possible to kill him then.
d) Does the prophecy limit the realm of the possible? In other words:
does the prophecy foretell what will happen or what can happen?
There's a huge difference -- in particular: is it impossible for
others to kill Harry or Voldemort before their meeting, or does the
prophecy only state that the will not do it?
Starting from the last, and easiest part:
With respect to d) I believe in the 'will' interpretation rather than
the 'can' interpretation -- that is, that e.g. Lucius Malfoy could
probably easily kill Harry any day, but the prophecy asserts that the
circumstances will be such that he doesn't do it -- there will, for
instance, be a house-elf that prevents him from doing it (if you share
the belief that Malfoy was attempting the killing curse on Harry at the
end of CoS, as many, myself included, believe he does /in the film/).
I also think that the prophecy's specific reference to 'the Dark Lord'
implies an answer to c. That is, that it is irrelevant until Voldemort
returned from his travels and set himself up as the Dark Lord.
That still leaves the two first questions unanswered, and the specific
topic under discussion (whether Lily and James could possibly have
overpowered Lord Voldemort early in their career) cannot be answered
without answers to these.
Clearly it is possible to interpret the prophecy in such a way that the
described situation is allowable. Interpreting 'the one' as 'the only
singular entity' would, I'd say, be sophistry -- stretching the literal
interpretation too far, but I could easily accept that 'with the power'
doesn't exclusively refer to 'sufficiently powerfully magical'. Love is
not the same from person to person, and it might require a special kind
of love to truly vanquish the Dark Lord, a kind of love that Lily may
not have possessed, but which Harry (possibly due to all the losses he
has suffered to Voldemort both directly and indirectly) will have.
In the end my answer to your question must be an unequivocal 'it
depends' ;-)
> B, They clearly did not defeat V...
Precisely.
Regardless of why they didn't (if they did have the chance), it could
probably be interpreted as their lack of that special power.
> the reason could be weakness or pity, Harry may possess neither,
> we shall see.
Harry does possess both weaknesses and pity (Sirius in OotP and
Wormtail in CoS respectively), but whether they will hinder him in the
end is still to be seen.
Personally I think that Harry's role in defeating Voldemort is likely
to be passive -- Voldemort will fall to his own devices: oft evil will
shall evil mar.
I am reminded also of Sam's words about Galadriel:
" 'I don't know about perilous,' said Sam. 'It strikes me
that folk takes their peril with them into Lórien, and
finds it there because they've brought it. But perhaps you
could call her perilous, because she's so strong in
herself. You, you could dash yourself to pieces on her,
like a ship on a rock; or drownd yourself, like a hobbit
in a river. But neither rock nor river would be to blame."
That is close to how I see Voldemort's ultimate fall, with Harry as the
rock or river.
Chipforth Spoon
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
While totally agreeing with your analysis I also totally disagree, is this
possible? perhaps I'm missing the point, an adaptation of your C would
perhaps clarify or more likely cloud my point.
c) Is the statement valid for the time before the statement was
prophesized?
Are we saying Lord V was untouchable, or as I beleive -became- untouchable?
Yes some time pre-prophecy V must have been invulnerable, but some time
pre-invulnerable V surly was vulnerable. The way I see it is this Lord V was
experimenting with immortality, from which at some point he dipped himself
in the river of "hate" and thus became invulnerable apart from his (Harry)
Heal. Then we get the prophecy. My point been, I don't believe it to be
likely, but is it not possible for James and Lily to have had an altercation
with Lord V before he was invulnerable to all but "The one with the power to
vanquish the Dark Lord"?
I will go further and suggest in one of Lord V's experiments he acquired
information that helped him decide Harry and not Neville was "The one with
the power". Information such as; Old Ma Sticks saying to him..." Jump in the
river dreary and you'll be invulnerable to all except perhaps the offspring
of one that had saved your life---- Mars is bright tonight".
>
> > B, They clearly did not defeat V...
>
> Precisely.
>
> Regardless of why they didn't (if they did have the chance), it could
> probably be interpreted as their lack of that special power.
Yes I see this as the more likely (if they did have the chance) possibility.
>
> > the reason could be weakness or pity, Harry may possess neither,
> > we shall see.
>
> Harry does possess both weaknesses and pity (Sirius in OotP and
> Wormtail in CoS respectively), but whether they will hinder him in the
> end is still to be seen.
Interesting, I wonder whether he will pity Voldermort in the end;
>
> Personally I think that Harry's role in defeating Voldemort is likely
> to be passive -- Voldemort will fall to his own devices: oft evil will
> shall evil mar.
>
> I am reminded also of Sam's words about Galadriel:
>
> " 'I don't know about perilous,' said Sam. 'It strikes me
> that folk takes their peril with them into Lórien, and
> finds it there because they've brought it. But perhaps you
> could call her perilous, because she's so strong in
> herself. You, you could dash yourself to pieces on her,
> like a ship on a rock; or drownd yourself, like a hobbit
> in a river. But neither rock nor river would be to blame."
>
> That is close to how I see Voldemort's ultimate fall, with Harry as the
> rock or river.
You are probably a lot closer than me, I know Harry's 'the one', still all I
see is... Neville with earmuffs!
AJ.
Chipforth Spoon
>"Troels Forchhammer" wrote
> > "Chipforth Spoon"
> <snip>
>
> > I enjoyed reading that thank you, I don't suppose you could point
> > me in the right direction for the original version of the Hobbit?
> > ( I've heard somebody else has written the unchanged text in some
> > book on tolkien, but I've no idea who or the title of their book).
>
> (Looking slightly to the left)
>
> That would be /The Annotated Hobbit/ by J.R.R. Tolkien, annotated by
> Douglas A. Anderson. Mine is a Harper-Collins, but I'm sure it is also
> available from Houghton Mifflin.
>
> It is brilliant! (And I believe that there's an annotated version of
> LotR -- or perhaps a companion -- coming from the same hand). Douglas
> Anderson also wrote an introduction to the LotR edition in celebration
> of the Hobbit's fiftieth anniversary.
>
> The text of the standard edition is included without any modifications
> (except references to notes). The notes are collected in sidebars and
> include not only the changes between the editions, but also other
> interesting notes and much artwork from many different versions of the
> book -- which of course includes all Tolkien's own drawings relating to
> The Hobbit.
>
AJ.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns96279D5E...@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> In message <news:d26d99$cvp$3...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
>> "Chipforth Spoon" <ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> enriched us with:
>>>
<snip>
>> It depends, I believe, on how you interpret "The one with the
>> power to vanquish the Dark Lord".
>>
>> There are some questions regarding that statement, that
>>
>> a) What is meant by 'the one'? Is it the only entity,
>> collective or individual with the stated power?
>> Is it the only individual entity?
>>
>> b) What is meant by 'the power'?
>> Is this the theoretical ability, or is something more
>> implied? E.g. the ability to be in the right place and
>> the right time to succeed?
>>
>> c) Is the statement valid for the time before Tom Riddle
>> became the Dark Lord?
>> Tom Riddle was a baby once, surely it would have
>> been possible to kill him then.
>>
>> d) Does the prophecy limit the realm of the possible?
>> In other words: does the prophecy foretell what will
>> happen or what can happen?
>> There's a huge difference -- in particular: is it
>> impossible for others to kill Harry or Voldemort before
>> their meeting, or does the prophecy only state that the
>> will not do it?
<snip>
>> In the end my answer to your question must be an unequivocal 'it
>> depends' ;-)
>
> While totally agreeing with your analysis I also totally disagree,
> is this possible? perhaps I'm missing the point, an adaptation of
> your C would perhaps clarify or more likely cloud my point.
>
> c) Is the statement valid for the time before the statement was
> prophesized?
Yes, the question about the temporal validity of the statement should
probably consider three periods:
1) From the birth of Tom Riddle until he became 'The Dark Lord'
2) From he became 'The Dark Lord' and until the prophecy was made
3) After the prophecy was made
Clearly the parts of the prophecy that deals with the specific
abilities of 'the one' and the interactions between the Dark Lord and
'the one' are only relevant for the period after the prophecy. The
interesting aspect is how to interpret 'the one'.
Is this 'the only entity ever to have the power to vanquish Tom
Riddle'? We seem to agree that this cannot be the case.
It could be 'the only entity ever to have the power to vanquish this
particular Dark Lord' -- i.e. the only entity with the power to
vanquish Tom Riddle /after/ he became the Dark Lord.
It could also be 'the only entity ever to have the power to vanquish
any Dark Lord' -- with respect to Tom Riddle this won't make any
difference, but it would be a terrible interpretation for other Dark
Lords.
Finally it could also mean 'the only entity to have, in the future, the
power to vanquish the Dark Lord who is also Tom Riddle, since he has
not been vanquished yet'.
Personally I think that 'the one with the power to vanquish the Dark
Lord' implies that this is the only one to have the power to vanquish
this particular Dark Lord for the entirety of this existence. I.e. that
the statement covers periods 2 and 3 above.
This does, however, not preclude the kind of scenario where Lord
Voldemort narrowly escapes being vanquished to others -- regardless of
what the reason might be, it would, in the language of the prophecy, be
because they lacked the power to vanquish him, even if they did have
the physical/magical powers to actually defeat him, they might still
lack the mental powers needed to have 'the power to vanquish the Dark
Lord'.
> Are we saying Lord V was untouchable, or as I beleive -became-
> untouchable?
I don't think that Lord Voldemort, a.k.a. Tom Riddle, a.k.a. the Dark
Lord, is, will be or ever has been untouchable.
I am extremely vulnerable to having a plane crash on top of me, but
that doesn't mean that it will happen -- I am even willing to make the
prediction that I will not die by having a plane crash on top of me.
That doesn't mean that I wouldn't die if it happened, only that won't
happen.
The prophecy, I believe, can be seen as making the same kind of
prediction, though with even greater certainty (I believe the
confidence in the prophecy is absolute). Voldemort can possibly be
killed in a hundred ways by a multitude of different people -- all that
is stated is that this will not happen (at least not until he has
killed Harry). Well, probably not by any of a multitude, but by a
multitude co-operating ;-)
Voldemort may well be truly invulnerable to anyone but Harry, but it
depends on the interpretation of 'power' -- the planes may lack the
power to crash where I am.
If Voldemort can only be ultimately defeated by some special love-power
that only Harry possess, then it is naturally a consequence of his
various experiments in immortality. As to when these experiments were
so complete that he was invulnerable to anything but that special
power, it is impossible to say for sure -- he may have achieved that
early in his career (long before James and Lily left Hogwarts), or he
may have just finished the last experiments when he decided to go
against Harry -- at least the need to achieve some protection against
the powers of Lily and James could explain why he waited for fifteen
months after Harry's birth (and an unknown period between the prophecy
and Harry's birth) before coming after the Potters.
> Yes some time pre-prophecy V must have been invulnerable, but some
> time pre-invulnerable V surly was vulnerable. The way I see it is
> this Lord V was experimenting with immortality, from which at some
> point he dipped himself in the river of "hate" and thus became
> invulnerable apart from his (Harry) Heal.
Something like that could very well be the case. I still think it
depends on how the prophecy is interpreted, though.
You would then suggest that the statement is valid for the period after
all Voldemort's protections and experiments into immortality were in
place? A new point in time where we should divide our time interval,
one that might be anywhere between his becoming the Dark Lord and the
attack on the Potters (in particular it might be both before and after
the prophecy was made).
> Then we get the prophecy. My point been, I don't believe it to
> be likely, but is it not possible for James and Lily to have
> had an altercation with Lord V before he was invulnerable to
> all but "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord"?
Entirely possible.
Given your interpretation of Voldemort's invulnerability and the 'power
to vanquish the Dark Lord', it is a likely scenario, though of course
the timing may be wrong (if Voldemort had all his protections in place
early in his 'Dark Lord' career).
The idea doesn't depend entirely on that one interpretation, though the
interpretation of the scenario would change a bit. If 'power' is
interpreted in the broadest possible sense, then Lily's reticence would
constitute that element that is lacking in their power to vanquish
Voldemort, and he might not be invulnerable to all other than Harry.
> I will go further and suggest in one of Lord V's experiments he
> acquired information that helped him decide Harry and not Neville
> was "The one with the power". Information such as; Old Ma Sticks
> saying to him..." Jump in the river dreary and you'll be
> invulnerable to all except perhaps the offspring of one that had
> saved your life---- Mars is bright tonight".
Heh! Heh! ;-)
There are many questions that we would like to have answers to, and it
would be nice to have a simple theory that answers them all ;-)
>> Regardless of why they didn't (if they did have the chance), it
>> could probably be interpreted as their lack of that special
>> power.
>
> Yes I see this as the more likely (if they did have the chance)
> possibility.
Well, it does require a particularly broad interpretation of 'having
the power' . . .
The point that I think is important in this is that there are so many
unknown parameters that depend strongly on interpretation so that we
have a large number of possibilities that cannot be precluded at this
point, and which may be mutually exclusive. Until we know some more
about some of the important questions, there isn't much we can do.
For me, the important questions are:
(First Rowling's two questions, which are probably related):
1) Why didn't Voldemort die when his killing curse rebounded?
I.e. what is the nature of the experiment that allowed him to
survive his own killing curse?
2) Why didn't Dumbledore attempt to kill Voldemort in OotP?
My best guess is that it is related to the first question --
that Dumbledore knew that if he did try, the same would happen
again, and Dumbledore wants a final solution.
3) Why did Voldemort attempt to spare Lily's life?
4) How did Voldemort know that Harry, not Neville, is 'the one'
forespoken of in the prophecy?
5) Why did Voldemort wait fifteen months after the birth of Harry
before he tried to kill Harry?
6) What is the nature of Voldemort's weakness?
This is possibly (probably?) related to his 'theft' of Lily's
protection on Harry (GoF -- he got it by using Harry's blood,
and his sharing of the protection caused 'a gleam of something
like triumph' in Dumbledore's eyes).
A definite answer to any of these questions will probably allow us to
advance our theories quite a bit -- though possibly only by eliminating
some of them ;-)
>> Harry does possess both weaknesses and pity (Sirius in OotP and
>> Wormtail in CoS respectively), but whether they will hinder him
>> in the end is still to be seen.
>
> Interesting, I wonder whether he will pity Voldermort in the end;
" 'Yes,' said Frodo. 'But do you remember Gandalf's words:
Even Gollum may have something yet to do? But for him,
Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring. The Quest would
have been in vain, even at the bitter end. So let us
forgive him! For the Quest is achieved, and now all is
over. I am glad you are here with me. Here at the end of
all things, Sam.'"
(LotR VI,3 'Mount Doom')
Couldn't resist ;-)
There is also:
" But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for
them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"
(Matthew, 5:44)
The Christian aspect of the Harry Potter books is less obvious than in
LotR, but it is nevertheless present in the ethics of the books -- I
would not be surprised if at least some of the bad guys would find
redemption and forgiveness in death, but Voldemort may be beyond that.
Wormtail will, I strongly suspect, be eligible for this kind of
redemption through sacrifice -- with the bond created between him and
Harry in PoA, it seems to me that the situation has been set up for
something of that kind.
>> Personally I think that Harry's role in defeating Voldemort is
>> likely to be passive -- Voldemort will fall to his own devices:
>> oft evil will shall evil mar.
>>
>> I am reminded also of Sam's words about Galadriel:
>>
>> " 'I don't know about perilous,' said Sam. 'It strikes me
>> that folk takes their peril with them into Lórien, and
>> finds it there because they've brought it. But perhaps you
>> could call her perilous, because she's so strong in
>> herself. You, you could dash yourself to pieces on her, like
>> a ship on a rock; or drownd yourself, like a hobbit in a
>> river. But neither rock nor river would be to blame."
>>
>> That is close to how I see Voldemort's ultimate fall, with Harry
>> as the rock or river.
>
> You are probably a lot closer than me, I know Harry's 'the one',
> still all I see is... Neville with earmuffs!
LOL!
Another possibility is that Voldemort has externalised part of his
power, like the Ogre of the folk tale, who can only be destroyed by
destroying his heart which is in an iron chest somewhere, or like
Sauron who put a great part of his power in the One Ring.
The Harry Potter books, however, doesn't seem to follow the structure
that is traditional for that kind of stories -- they usually involve
the travelling kind of quest (the quest to find the object and/or
destroy it).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of
wisdom.
- Gandalf, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Chipforth Spoon
>"Troels Forchhammer" wrote
>
>> "Chipforth Spoon" enriched us with:
> >
>> > "Troels Forchhammer" wrote in message
>
>
>
<Snip>
>
> > Yes some time pre-prophecy V must have been invulnerable, but some
> > time pre-invulnerable V surly was vulnerable. The way I see it is
> > this Lord V was experimenting with immortality, from which at some
> > point he dipped himself in the river of "hate" and thus became
> > invulnerable apart from his (Harry) Heal.
>
> Something like that could very well be the case. I still think it
> depends on how the prophecy is interpreted, though.
>
> You would then suggest that the statement is valid for the period after
> all Voldemort's protections and experiments into immortality were in
> place? A new point in time where we should divide our time interval,
> one that might be anywhere between his becoming the Dark Lord and the
> attack on the Potters (in particular it might be both before and after
> the prophecy was made).
Yes more or less, perhaps not -all- Voldemort's protections but all the
important ones, I would also suggest one of Voldermorts more successful
experiments triggered of the prophecy, though again a time period would only
be guessable could be the week before equally it could have taken ten years
to be prophesized. I personally don't see the prophecy preceding the
'experiment' though I accept the possibility.
<Snip>
> The point that I think is important in this is that there are so many
> unknown parameters that depend strongly on interpretation so that we
> have a large number of possibilities that cannot be precluded at this
> point, and which may be mutually exclusive. Until we know some more
> about some of the important questions, there isn't much we can do.
Agreed, even if an idea stands up its likely to be wrong.
>
> For me, the important questions are:
>
> (First Rowling's two questions, which are probably related):
>
> 1) Why didn't Voldemort die when his killing curse rebounded?
> I.e. what is the nature of the experiment that allowed him to
> survive his own killing curse?
I find this an odd question given its source, for I can't see how we should
know its answer, yet I don't think Jo would have teased us with it if it was
not solvable. My best guess is, its the question and not the answer that's
important. In other words V has done something (it doesn't matter what) to
protect himself from a killing curse.
>
> 2) Why didn't Dumbledore attempt to kill Voldemort in OotP?
> My best guess is that it is related to the first question --
> that Dumbledore knew that if he did try, the same would happen
> again, and Dumbledore wants a final solution.
I would agree.
>
> 3) Why did Voldemort attempt to spare Lily's life?
:-)
>
> 4) How did Voldemort know that Harry, not Neville, is 'the one'
> forespoken of in the prophecy?
Now as for this, I believe we know more than we may think, first we know DD
is quite bright, and that he has greater access to both the Longbottoms and
the Potters than LV has. Then we know DD has more knowledge of the prophecy
than LV. Add to this the apparent fact that DD waits for LV to make the
choice. I would guess Voldermort had knowledge that DD did not have, and
that the deciding factor was to do with one of V's 'experiments'.
>
> 5) Why did Voldemort wait fifteen months after the birth of Harry
> before he tried to kill Harry?
This may be a crush question but then again why not wait 7 years? as the
prophecy almost in itself protects V from 'planes landing on his head'.
>
> 6) What is the nature of Voldemort's weakness?
> This is possibly (probably?) related to his 'theft' of Lily's
> protection on Harry (GoF -- he got it by using Harry's blood,
> and his sharing of the protection caused 'a gleam of something
> like triumph' in Dumbledore's eyes).
Yes and does Voldemort know the nature of his weakness? the 'gleam' to me
suggests DD knows.
>
> A definite answer to any of these questions will probably allow us to
> advance our theories quite a bit -- though possibly only by eliminating
> some of them ;-)
If you were Jo, would you be tempted to post the true 'theory' just to make
sure it didn't get eliminated?
AJ.
Jan van Aalderen
> On 29 Mar 2005 17:36:38 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>
..................
>
> But in a similar way, if someone from the future knows that Harry
> kills Voldemort (or vice versa), then no one else would have killed
> him, even as a child. Physically, they certainly would have been able
> to kill him in his crib, but history has shown that they either chose
> not to or did not have the opportunity. So from a practical
> standpoint, it is impossible for anyone but Harry to kill him.
You've got your linguistics wrong here, while exact wording is just what
is essential when discussing the prophecy. From whatever standpoint, the
prophecy does *NOT* imply that it is or will be impossible for anyone
but Harry to kill him. What it does imply (error in interpretation
prohibited), is that it is impossible that anyone but Harry *will* kill
him, since it is a prophecied fact that it is Harry who will kill him.
Chipforth Spoon
"Bob" <B...@example.net> wrote in message
news:u05k41p6thth533rs...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:01:01 +0100, "Chipforth Spoon"
> <ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >>"Troels Forchhammer" wrote
> >>
> >>> "Chipforth Spoon" enriched us with:
> >> >
> >>> > "Troels Forchhammer" wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) Why didn't Voldemort die when his killing curse rebounded?
> >> I.e. what is the nature of the experiment that allowed him to
> >> survive his own killing curse?
> >
> >I find this an odd question given its source, for I can't see how we
should
> >know its answer, yet I don't think Jo would have teased us with it if it
was
> >not solvable. My best guess is, its the question and not the answer
that's
> >important. In other words V has done something (it doesn't matter what)
to
> >protect himself from a killing curse.
>
>
> I believe I've figured out Rowling's little riddle (even though she
> was pretty sure that no one would). I believe that it will be shown
> that during his experiments for immortality, Voldemort traded his
> ability to love (an important part of his humanity) for immortality.
> He has always underestimated love, and no doubt didn't value it enough
> to hang onto it when the opportunity came to exchange it for
> immortality. Even now, he doesn't realize what he has lost. Whatever
> means he used to achieve this magical swap (a spell, a bargain with
> dark powers, whatever), didn't give him the full immortality he was
> seeking - that is, his body could still be destroyed. But it gave him
> partial immortality, allowing his mind/soul to survive on earth after
> the death of his physical form (and eventually regain a new body). I
> don't think that Voldemort even knows that the magical trade was
> successful (that's how little he values what he gave away) - he just
> knows that something he tried worked. But no doubt, that inability to
> love will come back to haunt him later, when he confronts Harry...
You may have something, I can't see any gapping holes in your idea at least,
but for me it doesn't feel right, strong emotions seem to be needed in
strong magical charms, I can see Voldemort not bothering about loving
anybody and I could accept his love for power could be described as lust,
yet I think if he sacrificed love altogether he would at the same time (IMO)
lose his ability to perform pertronus type spells and I just can't see
Voldemort sacrificing some of his more powerful abilities. Still if you are
correct then he certainly didn't say 'move aside Lily' out of love.
<Snip>
>
>
> >> 4) How did Voldemort know that Harry, not Neville, is 'the one'
> >> forespoken of in the prophecy?
> >
> >Now as for this, I believe we know more than we may think, first we know
DD
> >is quite bright, and that he has greater access to both the Longbottoms
and
> >the Potters than LV has. Then we know DD has more knowledge of the
prophecy
> >than LV. Add to this the apparent fact that DD waits for LV to make the
> >choice. I would guess Voldermort had knowledge that DD did not have, and
> >that the deciding factor was to do with one of V's 'experiments'.
>
>
> Unfortunately, I suspect this will be just another example of JKR
> pulling something convenient out of her hat. I don't think that
> Dumbledore WOULD know why Voldemort made his choice. If the scenario
> were real, chances are that it would just be a hunch on Dumbledore's
> part that Voldemort chose another half-blood like himself.
My point been DD did not seem to know who the prophecy referred to, where as
Voldermort did.( Now DD may only not have known who Voldemort was going to
chose, and Voldermort may have been guessing with a view to killing both in
any case) from my recollection DD still seems unclear why V chose Harry,
doesn't he say to Harry something like 'V chose the half-blood like himself
' but know real reason why, and it also appears to me that it was a choice
and not a guess on V's part.
>To me, it
> would seem far more in character for the bigoted Riddle to pick a
> pure-blood (Neville) over a half-blood, even though he is one himself.
> To that kind of mindset, a pure-blood would just have to seem far more
> dangerous than a mixed-blood. It would also seem extremely likely that
> Voldemort would attempt to kill BOTH of the children who might have
> been mentioned in the prophecy. Without any firm evidence of who "the
> one" really is, the only rational move would be to kill both of them.
Again DD words- 'He chose the boy he thought most likely to be a danger to
him'- does appear to suggest that DD believes Voldermort made a choice. I
would agree if V had succeeded with killing Harry and felt any doubt he
would have visited the Longbottoms, but I don't believe Voldemort had any
doubt.
AJ.
Chipforth Spoon
>"Troels Forchhammer" wrote in
>
> Another possibility is that Voldemort has externalised part of his
> power, like the Ogre of the folk tale, who can only be destroyed by
> destroying his heart which is in an iron chest somewhere, or like
> Sauron who put a great part of his power in the One Ring.
I was just thinking about this, Voldermort has put part of his power in
something. Well someone.
>
> The Harry Potter books, however, doesn't seem to follow the structure
> that is traditional for that kind of stories -- they usually involve
> the travelling kind of quest (the quest to find the object and/or
> destroy it).
>
Someone once said, there are only three stories the one where somebody is
arriving, and the one where somebody is leaving.
AJ.
Troels Forchhammer
Bob <B...@example.net> enriched us with:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:01:01 +0100, "Chipforth Spoon"
> <ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Troels Forchhammer" wrote
>>>
<reinserting earlier stuff>
>>> You would then suggest that the statement is valid for the
>>> period after all Voldemort's protections and experiments into
>>> immortality were in place? A new point in time where we should
>>> divide our time interval, one that might be anywhere between his
>>> becoming the Dark Lord and the attack on the Potters (in
>>> particular it might be both before and after the prophecy was
>>> made).
>>
>> Yes more or less, perhaps not -all- Voldemort's protections but
>> all the important ones,
I would suggest that it would then have to be one in particular --
something so vile that it irreversibly tarnished Voldemort's soul.
The problem is to have a good place to put the cut-off point if we're
talking about a continuous process. It might be easy enough in many
situations, but in literature we need something that stands out, 78%
of all protections achieved just doesn't work well in fantastic
literature ;-)
>> I would also suggest one of Voldermorts more successful
>> experiments triggered of the prophecy, though again a time period
>> would only be guessable
[...]
The timing of the prophecy suggests (rather strongly, IMO) that it was
Lily's pregnancy that was the triggering factor, which might mean that
any other necessary conditions had been fulfilled previously.
>> I personally don't see the prophecy preceding the 'experiment'
>> though I accept the possibility.
Neither do I, to be honest, though it might explain the strange period
Voldemort waited between the prophecy and his attack (why not attack
Lily while she was still pregnant?)
>>> The point that I think is important in this is that there are so
>>> many unknown parameters that depend strongly on interpretation
>>> so that we have a large number of possibilities that cannot be
>>> precluded at this point, and which may be mutually exclusive.
>>> Until we know some more about some of the important questions,
>>> there isn't much we can do.
>>
>> Agreed, even if an idea stands up its likely to be wrong.
In my experience we're likely to see that all our theories are mostly
wrong, but that they also get something right ;-)
>>> For me, the important questions are:
>>>
>>> (First Rowling's two questions, which are probably related):
Forgot to mention the reference:
<http://www.jkrowling.co.uk/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80>
J.K. Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival
>>> 1) Why didn't Voldemort die when his killing curse rebounded?
>>> I.e. what is the nature of the experiment that allowed him
>>> to survive his own killing curse?
>>
>> I find this an odd question given its source, for I can't see how
>> we should know its answer, yet I don't think Jo would have teased
>> us with it if it was not solvable.
"I don't think that it is guessable. It may be -- someone
could guess it -- but you should be asking yourself that
question, particularly now that you know about the
prophesy."
(ibid)
She does seem to think that it is at the very least very difficult to
guess.
>> My best guess is, its the question and not the answer that's
>> important. In other words V has done something (it doesn't
>> matter what) to protect himself from a killing curse.
Given Rowling's wording, I am sure that the important thing is
precisely what he did to protect himself.
> You may not have been around to read my earlier posts on the
> subject.
>
> I believe I've figured out Rowling's little riddle (even though
> she was pretty sure that no one would). I believe that it will be
> shown that during his experiments for immortality, Voldemort
> traded his ability to love (an important part of his humanity) for
> immortality.
This was one of the directions that the discussions went immediately
after the transcript had been put up
See for instance
<http://groups.google.gg/groups?threadm=Xns9547DF5B...@212.242.40.196>
<http://tinyurl.com/4obpn>
<http://groups.google.gg/groups?threadm=sqPTc.910$Mf6...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>
<http://tinyurl.com/59jj3>
<http://groups.google.gg/groups?threadm=412aad15...@news.west.earthlink.net>
<http://tinyurl.com/6z2m7>
My main problem with this idea is that it is far too obvious to fit her
descriptions ;-)
It is possible that Rowling wants us to be more specific -- giving up
his ability to love is, after all, rather a general way of putting it.
Possibly the how, where and when are also important.
I am still sure that Voldemort has given up part of his humanity --
something related to love is a good guess, IMO, but I think that it
needs more than that.
<snip>
>>> 3) Why did Voldemort attempt to spare Lily's life?
>>
>> :-)
>
> Not getting into THAT again right here... ;)
No, not getting into the discussion of why, only stating that it is
probably important ;-)
>>> 4) How did Voldemort know that Harry, not Neville, is 'the one'
>>> forespoken of in the prophecy?
I should probably have added, 'or did he know?' to include the
possibility that the attack on Harry was a random shot, but one which
did settle the prophecy on Harry.
>> Now as for this, I believe we know more than we may think, first
>> we know DD is quite bright, and that he has greater access to
>> both the Longbottoms and the Potters than LV has. Then we know DD
>> has more knowledge of the prophecy than LV. Add to this the
>> apparent fact that DD waits for LV to make the choice.
All of this is naturally implied in the question itself -- if
Dumbledore had known which boy was the predestined 'one', then it would
have been a simple matter to suggest that Voldemort somehow had got
access to that information: either the information that allowed
Dumbledore to make his conclusion or just the conclusion itself.
It is Dumbledore's reliance on Voldemort's decision that makes this
question interesting at all.
The part of the prophecy that Voldemort didn't hear would not have
helped him particularly. 'As his equal' is already implied in the fact
that the one will have power to vanquish Voldemort, and the 'power the
Dark Lord knows not' wouldn't help him either; he doesn't know the
power (though he may know of it), and thus he can't predict which boy
is likely to come to possess it.
Both the Potters and the Longbottoms appear to have been relatively
well known and liked in the magical community (excepting, of course,
that part that supported Voldemort), and gaining knowledge about them
probably wasn't all that difficult: Crucio and Imperio a few wizards
and he'd know more than he cared to learn . . .
>> I would guess Voldermort had knowledge that DD did not have,
Or at least knowledge that Dumbledore hasn't revealed yet, unless, of
course, it was an instinctive decision.
>> and that the deciding factor was to do with one of V's
>> 'experiments'.
>
> Unfortunately, I suspect this will be just another example of JKR
> pulling something convenient out of her hat. I don't think that
> Dumbledore WOULD know why Voldemort made his choice.
Actually I think that this is what makes the question interesting.
Assuming that Dumbledore does not know the reason for Voldemort to
choose Harry raises the question of why he did do that.
> If the scenario were real, chances are that it would just be a
> hunch on Dumbledore's part that Voldemort chose another half-
> blood like himself.
I think it is the general dissatisfaction with that explanation that
has prompted this question. Regardless of how we look at it, this
doesn't really work as an explanation -- I think it is an observation
that Dumbledore makes to explain not Voldemort's choice, but rather
Dumbledore's own assertion that Voldemort did make a choice.
> To me, it would seem far more in character for the bigoted Riddle
> to pick a pure-blood (Neville) over a half-blood, even though he
> is one himself.
Precisely.
And it is this that inspires the discussion. For Voldemort to choose
the half-blood over the pure-blood there must, it is generally held,
have been some other factors, some further knowledge about either boy,
that made that choice 'right' for Voldemort. It is this further
knowledge that we pursue.
<snip>
> As such, in a realistic scenario, he probably would have gone
> after Harry first simply because he found out where he was
> being hidden, and planned to kill Neville later when the
> opportunity arose.
That doesn't work. Harry wasn't hidden until it was known that
Voldemort was targeting the Potters. His decision to attack Harry
thus precedes the hiding, and the causality is the other way around.
There is no suggestion of any kind of extra protection of either
family prior to Dumbledore receiving the intelligence from one of
his spies that Voldemort was after the Potters, so if it was merely
a toss of a coin that had decided whom he went after first, he
should have reverted his strategy when it became clear that the
Potters had been hidden, and gone after Neville instead (he did have
about a week to do so, which should be more than enough to take out
Neville).
> But I think that JKR was just trying to make a point, and threw
> logic to the wind in the process.
In what sense?
Do you mean to say that there might be no rational reason for
Voldemort to have chosen Harry over Neville other than that the
books are about Harry? This has indeed been suggested before, and
it remains a possibility that must be considered.
> Of course, I hope I'm wrong.
I am reconciled with the fact that Rowling doesn't strive for
scientific consistency in her books (that I wouldn't be able to is
possibly another reason why it's good that I don't write books <G>),
but so far I think she has been fairly consistent about character
motivation, which lends some strength to my sharing of your hope ;-)
> And in this case, I hope Dumbledore's wrong. But that's unlikely.
Again, wrong in what way?
I don't think he attempts to give any reason for why Voldemort chose as
he did -- only that he tried to explain why the attack on Harry must
have been the result of a deliberate choice rather than Harry losing a
mental tossing of a coin.
>>> 5) Why did Voldemort wait fifteen months after the birth of
>>> Harry before he tried to kill Harry?
>>
>> This may be a crush question but then again why not wait 7 years?
>> as the prophecy almost in itself protects V from 'planes landing
>> on his head'.
>
> Might have been trying to figure out which child to kill first.
> Might not have been able to get at either one of them at first.
> Might have been waiting for some indication of which child was the
> right one...
> Might have been on a Caribbean cruise above the Love Boat. ;)
Might have been consulting other Seers
Might have been completing his experiments and defenses
Might just have had other business that were more pressing than the
killing of an infant
And many other ideas, yes.
There are lots of suggestions to how to answer any of the questions I
have posed, but there is no definite knowledge. This question may or
may not be important, we cannot know.
>>> 6) What is the nature of Voldemort's weakness?
>>> This is possibly (probably?) related to his 'theft' of Lily's
>>> protection on Harry (GoF -- he got it by using Harry's blood,
>>> and his sharing of the protection caused 'a gleam of
>>> something like triumph' in Dumbledore's eyes).
>>
>> Yes and does Voldemort know the nature of his weakness? the
>> 'gleam' to me suggests DD knows.
>
> Indeed. Somehow, the taking of Harry's "love contaminated" blood
> will have an unforseen effect on Mr. Riddle's immortality
Yes, I agree. This much could be derived already after GoF.
<http://google.gg/groups?threadm=3E5CA753...@ThisIsFake.dk>
> the strength of which is based on his inability to experience love.
I think that it is likely that this is somehow a part of if.
> Perhaps the mere presence of it in his bloodstream has already
> rendered his pact null and void...
Again I think it is too simple to stand on its own -- there must be
more to it, otherwise Rowling wouldn't have imagined it so very
difficult to guess (unless you wish to claim that she is bluffing, but
that would be contrary to what is, in my experience, her usual style).
Paul W. Lints
>
> >"Troels Forchhammer" wrote in
>
> >
> > Another possibility is that Voldemort has externalised part of his
> > power, like the Ogre of the folk tale, who can only be destroyed by
> > destroying his heart which is in an iron chest somewhere, or like
> > Sauron who put a great part of his power in the One Ring.
>
> I was just thinking about this, Voldermort has put part of his power in
> something. Well someone.
>
Heh, after watching the movies and reading SS/CoS, I was utterly convinced
that Harry was playing the part of Voldemort's One Ring. After reading
more, though, it seems too much like Dumbledore's end of book speech is
supposed to be taken as gospel. Which rules out Voldemort transferring his
power intentionally :(
--
Paul W. Lints UIN:25030144
pwl...@deleteme.csupomona.edu
gjw
<ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> wrote:
>> I believe I've figured out Rowling's little riddle (even though she
>> was pretty sure that no one would). I believe that it will be shown
>> that during his experiments for immortality, Voldemort traded his
>> ability to love (an important part of his humanity) for immortality.
>> He has always underestimated love, and no doubt didn't value it enough
>> to hang onto it when the opportunity came to exchange it for
>> immortality. Even now, he doesn't realize what he has lost. Whatever
>> means he used to achieve this magical swap (a spell, a bargain with
>> dark powers, whatever), didn't give him the full immortality he was
>> seeking - that is, his body could still be destroyed. But it gave him
>> partial immortality, allowing his mind/soul to survive on earth after
>> the death of his physical form (and eventually regain a new body). I
>> don't think that Voldemort even knows that the magical trade was
>> successful (that's how little he values what he gave away) - he just
>> knows that something he tried worked. But no doubt, that inability to
>> love will come back to haunt him later, when he confronts Harry...
>
>You may have something, I can't see any gapping holes in your idea at least,
>but for me it doesn't feel right, strong emotions seem to be needed in
>strong magical charms
Yes, but you'll notice that Harry is incapable of casting an effective
"Crucio" curse, because he lacked the negative emotions needed. I
think we'll soon see that on the flip side, Voldemort has an achilles
heel of his own when it comes to love.
>> Unfortunately, I suspect this will be just another example of JKR
>> pulling something convenient out of her hat. I don't think that
>> Dumbledore WOULD know why Voldemort made his choice. If the scenario
>> were real, chances are that it would just be a hunch on Dumbledore's
>> part that Voldemort chose another half-blood like himself.
>
>My point been DD did not seem to know who the prophecy referred to, where as
>Voldermort did.
But Voldemort knew even less that Dumbledore. Remember that
Voldemort's spy only heard the first part of the prophecy. All he knew
is that one of the two boys born at that time would pose a danger to
him. To the best of our knowledge, Voldemort had no reliable evidence
that would let him distinguish between the two candidates.
If we are to believe Dumbledore (as we usually are), we're to believe
that Voldemort forgot all about logic and just guessed that it would
be Harry, based on the slim fact that the two shared a few qualities,
including not being pure-bloods. That seems out of character for
Voldemort. But if Rowling wants to write it that way, we can't stop
her...
>( Now DD may only not have known who Voldemort was going to
>chose, and Voldermort may have been guessing with a view to killing both in
>any case) from my recollection DD still seems unclear why V chose Harry,
>doesn't he say to Harry something like 'V chose the half-blood like himself
>' but know real reason why, and it also appears to me that it was a choice
>and not a guess on V's part.
Here's the exact text:
'He chose the boy he thought most likely to be a danger to him,'
said Dumbledore. 'And notice this, Harry: he chose, not the pure-blood
(which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being
or knowing) but the half-blood, like himself. He saw himself in you
before he had ever seen you, and in marking you with that scar, he did
not kill you, as he intended, but gave you powers, and a future, which
have fitted you to escape him not once, but four times so far —
something that neither your parents, nor Neville's parents, ever
achieved.'
Notice that DD doesn't state WHY he would think that Harry would be
more of a danger. Under the standard prejudice, he should have thought
that Neville, the pure-blood, would have been the more dangerous of
the two. And the "he saw himself in you..." makes little sense. Harry
wasn't even born yet when the prophecy was made. He was only a baby
when his parents were killed. What could Voldemort have seen in Harry
(at that age) that reminded him of himself (other than half-blood
status), enough to throw away reason and all doubt, and decide for a
certainty that Harry was the only one he had to worry about?
Troels Forchhammer
> Ms. Rowling during a June 18, 2003 BBC interview, when she seemed
> a bit flustered by a question about exactly this subject, then
> refused to answer it. Here it is:
>
> Q: Are we going to discover anything more about Snape ?
> JKR: Yes.
> Q: And Harry's mother? Did he have a crush on Harry's mother or
> unrequited love or anything like that?
> JKR: Hence his animosity to Harry?
> Q: Yes.
> JKR: You speculate?
> Q: I speculate, yes, I'm just asking whether you can tell us.
> JKR: No I can't tell you.
In case you also want the smell of gunpowder, there is also this:
Lydon: Er - one of our connec- ... one of our internet
correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall in love?
JKR: Yeah?
Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that is a
very horrible idea.
Erm ...
Lydon: But you'd get an important kind of redemptive pattern
to Snape
JKR: It is, isn't it ... I got ...
There's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't
because it'd ruin ... I promise you ... whoever asked that
question, can I just say to you that I'm - I'm slightly
stunned that you've said that - erm - and you'll find out
why I'm so stunned if you read book 7. And that's all I'm
going to say.
The Connection, 1999-10-12
<http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/1999/1099-connec
tiontransc.html>
<http://tinyurl.com/2wmk6>
Lydon, by the way, answered with a 'this is encouraging' ;-)
There are some strong indications that Snape is, or at least was,
capable of love, and that his love has had a major influence on his
life, but I can't make it fit very well with a love for Lily.
Naturally it can't be ruled out -- it could be a story about the dragon
and the virgin (I'm not going to say the Beauty and the Beast, because I
don't believe that Snape will be redeemed in the sense of that
fairy-tale), but I don't think it would fit well with his decision to
become a Death Eater and later to defy Voldemort and become Dumbledore's
spy.
In the case where he did love Lily, his decision to join the Death
Eaters could be the backlash of her later obvious love for James (though
in that case, why did Snape hang out with a group of other future Death
Eaters at Hogwarts?), but then his love would have turned to hatred, and
he should have relished the idea of all three Potters being murdered
(and preferably tortured).
If, on the other hand, he had kept his love 'pure', he should not have
joined the Death Eaters in the first place (or at least not have been a
Death Eater for real: in that case he should have been spying for
Dumbledore the whole time).
All in all, as the matters stand currently, I find it more likely that
Snape loved someone else -- Bellatrix, perhaps, if I have to name a
character that we know of.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is t.forch(a)email.dk
I USHERED SOULS INTO THE NEXT WORLD. I WAS THE GRAVE OF ALL HOPE. I WAS
THE ULTIMATE REALITY. I WAS THE ASSASSIN AGAINST WHOM NO LOCK WOULD
HOLD.
"Yes, point taken, but do you have any particular skills?"
- Death consults a job broker (Terry Pratchett, Mort)
gjw
But stop and think about this: have you ever seen Snape with any other
woman (with the exception of his fellow teachers)? He appears to be
unmarried now. We know of no former wife and children. And even when
we see him at Hogwarts he is alone. For all we know, Snape may have
gone his entire life without having an actual girlfriend (although
that wouldn't necessarily rule out strictly sexual relationships, of
the professional variety.) It's possible that the closest he came to
romantic love was a crush on someone he admired from afar. And at
least we've seen him with Lily - so we know they at least knew each
other. I agree with Rowling that nobody would want Snape in love with
them, but it's possible that Lily didn't even know he was interested.
She was, after all, a "mudblood", and the pressure from his Slytherin
peers (along with possible fear of rejection) could have kept him from
ever revealing his feelings to the girl.
>Naturally it can't be ruled out -- it could be a story about the dragon
>and the virgin (I'm not going to say the Beauty and the Beast, because I
>don't believe that Snape will be redeemed in the sense of that
>fairy-tale), but I don't think it would fit well with his decision to
>become a Death Eater and later to defy Voldemort and become Dumbledore's
>spy.
We have no idea what caused him to become a Death Eater. Possibly, it
was a combination of ego, resentment over past abuses, and a desire to
be on the winning side. But I think a crush on Lily fits extremely
well with his defection from Voldemort. If he liked Lily, and if he
learned that Voldemort was going to butcher the Potters (Lily
included), that would be the motivation he needed to go to Dumbledore,
in hopes that Dumbledore could prevent the murders.
Also, it gives Snape yet another reason to hate Harry. And no, I'm
not referring to his jealousy of James (although that certainly
factors in). But Harry was, indirectly, the cause of Lily's death. She
died to save him. If Snape liked Lily, he might still see Harry as the
reason Lily is dead.
>In the case where he did love Lily, his decision to join the Death
>Eaters could be the backlash of her later obvious love for James (though
>in that case, why did Snape hang out with a group of other future Death
>Eaters at Hogwarts?), but then his love would have turned to hatred, and
>he should have relished the idea of all three Potters being murdered
>(and preferably tortured).
I don't think that Lily had much to do with Snape joining the Death
Eaters. His hatred of James may have, though...
>If, on the other hand, he had kept his love 'pure', he should not have
>joined the Death Eaters in the first place (or at least not have been a
>Death Eater for real: in that case he should have been spying for
>Dumbledore the whole time).
Why would his feelings for Lily stop him from joining the Death
Eaters? I'm sure he truly believes that Muggles and mudbloods are
inferiors, and I'm sure he didn't mind much when Voldemort started
abusing them. And I'm sure he felt slightly aghast over the fact that
he had developed feelings for Lily at all (if he did). But the heart
has a mind of its own. And when Voldemort's antics threatened the one
person he cared about, he had to take action to stop it.
>All in all, as the matters stand currently, I find it more likely that
>Snape loved someone else -- Bellatrix, perhaps, if I have to name a
>character that we know of.
You're ignoring my smoking gun. ;)
Rowling's reaction - the hesitation, demonstrated by asking two
questions of her own to stall for time, followed by refusing to answer
the question - was a giveaway, IMO. It would have been easy enough for
her to say, "Snape love Lily? No, of course not, she was a Mudblood."
Toon
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>
>If, on the other hand, he had kept his love 'pure', he should not have
>joined the Death Eaters in the first place (or at least not have been a
>Death Eater for real: in that case he should have been spying for
>Dumbledore the whole time).
Hmm. Is this why Dd trusts Sanpe so much? because he sent him tot he
DE's as a spy? He can't risk saying anything, so eh just says Snape
told his side and he believes him. because he knows from the start
Snape was on DD's side. and with a bunch o friends going Dark, Snape
would be the perfect Mole.
New ABC series: Wizard Mole.
Troels Forchhammer
<Pine.GSO.4.55.05...@garrison.intranet.csupomona.edu>,
Paul W. Lints <pwl...@deleteme.csupomona.edu> enriched us with:
>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Chipforth Spoon wrote:
>>
>>> "Troels Forchhammer" wrote in
>>>
>>> Another possibility is that Voldemort has externalised part of his
>>> power, like the Ogre of the folk tale, who can only be destroyed by
>>> destroying his heart which is in an iron chest somewhere, or like
>>> Sauron who put a great part of his power in the One Ring.
>>
>> I was just thinking about this, Voldermort has put part of his power
>> in something. Well someone.
;-)
> Heh, after watching the movies and reading SS/CoS, I was utterly
> convinced that Harry was playing the part of Voldemort's One Ring.
That wouldn't be nice, would it ;-)
It would mean that Harry would have to be destroyed in order to vanquish
Voldemort . . .
> After reading more, though, it seems too much like Dumbledore's end
> of book speech is supposed to be taken as gospel. Which rules out
> Voldemort transferring his power intentionally :(
Yes, I think you're right.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is t.forch(a)email.dk
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought
which they avoid.
- Soren Kierkegaard
Troels Forchhammer
Jan van Aalderen <reply-in-g...@jva.getxs.nl> enriched us with:
>
> Bob wrote:
>>
>> On 29 Mar 2005 17:36:38 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
>> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>>
<snip>
>>> Clearly the parts of the prophecy that deals with the specific
>>> abilities of 'the one' and the interactions between the Dark Lord
>>> and 'the one' are only relevant for the period after the prophecy.
>>> The interesting aspect is how to interpret 'the one'.
>>
>> I see a prophecy as, in effect, a time-traveling message from the
>> future.
So do I. The interesting part is that this doesn't really create a
distinction between the time before the prophecy is made (i.e. the
statement about what is at that point the future is given: in our case
the day about sixteen years prior to the end of OotP when Sibyl Patricia
Trelawney made her first real prophecy to Albus Dumbledore) and the time
after it is made and until it is fulfilled.
We must assume that the information content of the prophecy belongs to a
time that is no earlier than the fulfilment of the prophecy, and at
that time, all that has happened previously is simply 'the past',
whether it happened before or after the prophecy was made. The only way
to distinguish thus cannot depend on the prophecy itself, but rather on
whether the events described have happened or not.
In our case this is interesting because there are some statements in the
prophecy that seems to apply more generally than just to the future of
the making of the prophecy -- in particular the use of 'the one with the
power to vanquish the Dark Lord' would, IMO, imply (if the contents of
the prophecy is seen as time-travelled information) that this 'one' is
the only entity in the history of the Dark Lord, but as a result of
observation: that this 'one' is the only one who, at the time of the
'creation' of the information content, has been in a position to
vanquish the Dark Lord (there is no guarantee in the prophecy that Harry
actually will vanquish Lord Voldemort -- only that it will be possible
for him).
This is an important point, IMO, when considering prophecies.
Another way to look at prophecies is, naturally, to claim that the
information belongs to the point in time where the prophecy is made, and
that it thus expresses the intention of 'time' or 'the universe'. Such a
scenario would, however (IMO), require the existence of an agency that
upholds this intention, an entity that has the power, the will, the
intention and the purpose of upholding the veracity of the prophecy.
Such an entity would, for practical analysis, be equivalent with God,
and I doubt that we will see such direct divine intervention in
Potterverse.
<snip>
>> I won't get into the fact that sending such a message would most
>> likely alter time itself, causing Lincoln not to go to Ford's
>> theatre (or to at least take extra guards along), because in JKR's
>> scenario, it appears that the prophecy cannot be avoided.
Of course he would still go. If you did send the message back, then he
has already received it all those years ago, and he still went. So
either he didn't believe the message, or was compelled to go anyway
(with the security measures failing), and the message failed to be
reported in the history books (you probably put in the message that he
should destroy the message and /never/ mention it to anyone -- or if you
didn't he chose that path anyway, not wanting to look like a gullible
idiot until the message had been proven).
>> But in a similar way, if someone from the future knows that Harry
>> kills Voldemort (or vice versa), then no one else would have killed
>> him, even as a child.
Precisely.
>> Physically, they certainly would have been able to kill him in his
>> crib, but history has shown that they either chose not to or did
>> not have the opportunity.
Yes.
>> So from a practical standpoint, it is impossible for anyone but
>> Harry to kill him.
Well, yes -- when understanding 'impossible for anyone but Harry' to
mean 'impossible for anyone but Harry to be in the right place at the
right time and with all circumstances right in order to' ;-)
> You've got your linguistics wrong here, while exact wording is
> just what is essential when discussing the prophecy. From whatever
> standpoint, the prophecy does *NOT* imply that it is or will be
> impossible for anyone but Harry to kill him. What it does imply
> (error in interpretation prohibited), is that it is impossible
> that anyone but Harry *will* kill him, since it is a prophecied
> fact that it is Harry who will kill him.
I do think this is what Bob meant by emphasising the practical
standpoint. It might be theoretically possible for many other people to
kill him, but for practical reasons it would prove impossible for them
to achieve it -- because they miss the bus, break their leg, have a
moment of doubt/pity/mercy that allows him to get away or some other
practical impediment. Actually all we can infer is that they either
could not or would not do it or they were unable to get in a position to
go accomplish it. The prophecy doesn't tell us why they did not do it,
only that it doesn't happen.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is t.forch(a)email.dk
"It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent whatsoever," he
said. "Have you thought of going into teaching?"
- (Terry Pratchett, Mort)
Chipforth Spoon
>"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> In message <news:u05k41p6thth533rs...@4ax.com>
> Bob <B...@example.net> enriched us with:
> >
> > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:01:01 +0100, "Chipforth Spoon"
> > <ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Troels Forchhammer" wrote
> >>>
>
> >> I would also suggest one of Voldermorts more successful
> >> experiments triggered of the prophecy, though again a time period
> >> would only be guessable
> [...]
>
> The timing of the prophecy suggests (rather strongly, IMO) that it was
> Lily's pregnancy that was the triggering factor, which might mean that
> any other necessary conditions had been fulfilled previously.
Yes always possible, I just see myself as the poor bloke who has to post the
prophecies off, I think my life would be far easier watching people jumping
into the river and noting the colour of their socks --(" Are Blue and white
strips, he will meet his end on a bus trip with a turkey!")--, than watching
how people get pregnant....erm maybe not!!!!
>
> >> I personally don't see the prophecy preceding the 'experiment'
> >> though I accept the possibility.
>
> Neither do I, to be honest, though it might explain the strange period
> Voldemort waited between the prophecy and his attack (why not attack
> Lily while she was still pregnant?)
It would be a little more difficult to say "Move aside Lily" well not to say
it, but to mean it.
It is an interesting wait for Voldemort though, maybe he had to go on a fact
finding trip, maybe he attempted to undo 'an experiment'.
AJ.
Chipforth Spoon
>"gjw" <g...@example.net> wrote in message
news:jrgm419092mddei9e...@4ax.com...
I see, ... but I feel the difference is Harry had never cast the "Crucio"
curse where as I'm suggesting V has in all probability used "protranus" type
charms and would know the need for lets say strong positive feelings in
working these charms, therefore he would be aware that if he gave up 'Love'
he would lose some of his abilities ( Harry by contrast would perhaps not
have been aware if he gave up 'Hate' then...). You see if you are correct
about Voldemort Achilles heel then, Voldermort would not only know about it,
but would have chose to have it.
Would V happily give up some of his powers to achieve immortality?
>
>
> >> Unfortunately, I suspect this will be just another example of JKR
> >> pulling something convenient out of her hat. I don't think that
> >> Dumbledore WOULD know why Voldemort made his choice. If the scenario
> >> were real, chances are that it would just be a hunch on Dumbledore's
> >> part that Voldemort chose another half-blood like himself.
> >
> >My point been DD did not seem to know who the prophecy referred to, where
as
> >Voldermort did.
>
> But Voldemort knew even less that Dumbledore. Remember that
> Voldemort's spy only heard the first part of the prophecy. All he knew
> is that one of the two boys born at that time would pose a danger to
> him. To the best of our knowledge, Voldemort had no reliable evidence
> that would let him distinguish between the two candidates.
Exactly, 'Voldemort knew even less that Dumbledore' and yet Voldemort knows
who to chose and DD (IMO) still doesn't know why.
>
> If we are to believe Dumbledore (as we usually are), we're to believe
> that Voldemort forgot all about logic and just guessed that it would
> be Harry, based on the slim fact that the two shared a few qualities,
> including not being pure-bloods. That seems out of character for
> Voldemort. But if Rowling wants to write it that way, we can't stop
> her...
I don't believe DD offered Harry a reason, just an observation that
Voldemort chose the half-blood etc. I don't think DD has yet worked out the
reason, but I believe he doesn't think it was a mere guess on Voldemort's
part.
<Snip>
> Here's the exact text:
>
> 'He chose the boy he thought most likely to be a danger to him,'
> said Dumbledore. 'And notice this, Harry: he chose, not the pure-blood
> (which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being
> or knowing) but the half-blood, like himself. He saw himself in you
> before he had ever seen you, and in marking you with that scar, he did
> not kill you, as he intended, but gave you powers, and a future, which
> have fitted you to escape him not once, but four times so far -
> something that neither your parents, nor Neville's parents, ever
> achieved.'
>
> Notice that DD doesn't state WHY he would think that Harry would be
> more of a danger. Under the standard prejudice, he should have thought
> that Neville, the pure-blood, would have been the more dangerous of
> the two. And the "he saw himself in you..." makes little sense. Harry
> wasn't even born yet when the prophecy was made. He was only a baby
> when his parents were killed. What could Voldemort have seen in Harry
> (at that age) that reminded him of himself (other than half-blood
> status), enough to throw away reason and all doubt, and decide for a
> certainty that Harry was the only one he had to worry about?
>
The only conclusion I can arrive at is Voldemort looked in other directions
for his choice. Not at Harry or Neville or the Prophecy for DD knew more
about all three of these and (Imo) DD still doesn't know why Harry was
chosen over Neville.
AJ.
Chipforth Spoon
> On 29 Mar 2005 17:36:38 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>
> future.
How far into the future? 'Vanquish the Dark Lord ' are big words for the
last 15 or so years people may have believed him Vanquished but he's back
lets say Harry uses his power well (IMO) we would have to wait until the end
of all things to know how well! what was it Gandalf said ' always after a
restbit '
>
> If I wrote down a prophecy which said 'Abraham Lincoln will be shot to
> death by John Wilkes Booth while attending Ford's theatre', it
> wouldn't mean that Booth was the only person on earth capable of
> killing Lincoln. It would simply mean that he was the person who WOULD
> kill Lincoln, based on the choices he and other people made in their
> time.
>
> I won't get into the fact that sending such a message would most
> likely alter time itself, causing Lincoln not to go to Ford's theatre
> (or to at least take extra guards along), because in JKR's scenario,
> it appears that the prophecy cannot be avoided.
I'm I getting my books mixed up, I am sure I've read that prophecies aren't
always fulfilled and I thought in was in the HP books?
>
> But in a similar way, if someone from the future knows that Harry
> kills Voldemort (or vice versa), then no one else would have killed
> him, even as a child. Physically, they certainly would have been able
> to kill him in his crib, but history has shown that they either chose
> not to or did not have the opportunity. So from a practical
> standpoint, it is impossible for anyone but Harry to kill him.
>
I'm not sure about this 'The one with the Power' for me is more exacting
than say "The one with the Motive Means and Opportunity " I think maybe many
have almost 'the power' but lack something (luck/speed/pity/love/whatever)
the ingredients needed will be in Harry when the time comes and nobody else
has had the correct mixture since the prophecy was spouted. Now that for me
is different to saying Ben has killed Bill therefore nobody else can.
AJ.
Peter Mason
Chipforth Spoon wrote:
> >"gjw" <g...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:jrgm419092mddei9e...@4ax.com...
"Crucio"
> curse where as I'm suggesting V has in all probability used
"protranus" type
> charms and would know the need for lets say strong positive feelings
in
> working these charms, therefore he would be aware that if he gave up
'Love'
> he would lose some of his abilities ( Harry by contrast would perhaps
not
> have been aware if he gave up 'Hate' then...). You see if you are
correct
> about Voldemort Achilles heel then, Voldermort would not only know
about it,
> but would have chose to have it.
Why would he need to use the patronus charm when he is so well versed
in the Dark Arts. All the patronus can do is repell Leithfolds and
Dementors, which he could just as well substitue with AK or Imperius or
some other dark spell with great destructive capability.
Peter Mason
Chipforth Spoon wrote:
> >"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9629D4A5...@130.133.1.4...
to say
> it, but to mean it.
>
> It is an interesting wait for Voldemort though, maybe he had to go on
a fact
> finding trip, maybe he attempted to undo 'an experiment'.
I'm rather curious do we know for a fact that Voldemort was informed of
the prophecy almost immediately by his spy? Perhaps the delay might
have been because he didn't know of the said prophecy until much later
for some reason or other.
Toon
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message
><Pine.GSO.4.55.05...@garrison.intranet.csupomona.edu>,
>Paul W. Lints <pwl...@deleteme.csupomona.edu> enriched us with:
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Chipforth Spoon wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Troels Forchhammer" wrote in
>>>>
>>>> Another possibility is that Voldemort has externalised part of his
>>>> power, like the Ogre of the folk tale, who can only be destroyed by
>>>> destroying his heart which is in an iron chest somewhere, or like
>>>> Sauron who put a great part of his power in the One Ring.
>>>
>>> I was just thinking about this, Voldermort has put part of his power
>>> in something. Well someone.
>
>;-)
>
>> Heh, after watching the movies and reading SS/CoS, I was utterly
>> convinced that Harry was playing the part of Voldemort's One Ring.
>
>That wouldn't be nice, would it ;-)
>
>It would mean that Harry would have to be destroyed in order to vanquish
>Voldemort . . .
I still say that's the solution.
Toon
with:
>>
>> Bob wrote:
>>>
>>> On 29 Mar 2005 17:36:38 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
>>> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>
><snip>
>
>>>> Clearly the parts of the prophecy that deals with the specific
>>>> abilities of 'the one' and the interactions between the Dark Lord
>>>> and 'the one' are only relevant for the period after the prophecy.
>>>> The interesting aspect is how to interpret 'the one'.
>>>
>>> I see a prophecy as, in effect, a time-traveling message from the
>>> future.
To piggy back a bit, I think this view complicates things. You're
viewing it backwards. The prophecy isn't time traveling back, the
seer time travels fwd. Trelawny goes on a mega jumping journey
through time. She sees things, given specific info. I'm guessing,
she hears a voice explain things (whoever sends the vision speaks.
God, angels, little dude named Charlie, whoever you chose). So, she
hears how the one is to be be born. She sees 7th month, hears dies,
she goes back and watches the Potters thrice defy V, while the
narration says so. A number 3 flashes to reinforce. Power V knows
not. V marks him, etc. In the end, she sees their final battle, but
the vision ends before the finishing moves are made, and she's told
one must kill the other, but she knows not which one.
Of course, the voice might not speak, but implant info, whereas she
just knows this stuff, but I find it's easier to follow hearing than
just knowing.
All of which is strange, as most prophecies, aren't so obliviously
opened ended. This one specifically says a boy will be born who can
kill V, but isn't guaranteed to. What is guaranteed is one of these
two individuals will kill the other.
And Troels is also over complicating things backwards. It's not
anybody else can kill Harry, but won't be able to, it's nobody can
kill Harry but V. Which means anyone else who tries is destined to
fail. W e know because Harry must live to fight V for the final
battle. And Harry is the only one who can vanquish V. Not anybody
can, but they're not in the right place, etc. like Harry is. Only
Harry can, and all others will fail. And they will fail because they
1, Aren't upgraded to V's level (marked as equal), and 2, don't have
such an abundance of love, undoubtedly enhanced by Lily's sacrifice.
3), also because we know Harry must face him, so, therefore, nobody
can, even if they were marked,d or if they had overflowing hearts of
love.
Now maybe whatever events lead to Harry's, shall we say Ascension to V
Slayer might one day be repeatable, but that is not guaranteed, and
this could be a once in a lifetime event. One person shall "luck" out
and gain the power to kill V. if he fails, we're screwed (That's also
not including Muggle scientist cloning Harry. Let's keep this less
sci fi shall we? And not debate if a clone could succeed where Harry
failed. Let's just say a clone ill fail.)
Toon
wrote:
He's smart. He can find a new use for them.
Toon
<ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, since he considers love to be weak. That perceived weakness
caused him to ignore Lily's sacrifice as beign a bad for him thing.
Only after is vanquishing did he realize why Lily's sacrifice was a
big flashing neon sign not to kill Harry.
>
>Exactly, 'Voldemort knew even less that Dumbledore' and yet Voldemort knows
>who to chose and DD (IMO) still doesn't know why.
>
I don't think it matters. Whomever he decided to chose becomes the
one. Which ever baby he pursues, events still unfold the same way.
Or else, he goes and kills the backup next, and if he chose Neville,
Alice might not have sacrificed herself as Lily did, and V would kill
Neville, then hit the Potters, be found out, and still empower Harry
enough to defeat him. he doesn't know who to chose, he just best
guesses, and setsup his ultimate defeat.
>> Notice that DD doesn't state WHY he would think that Harry would be
>> more of a danger. Under the standard prejudice, he should have thought
>> that Neville, the pure-blood, would have been the more dangerous of
>> the two. And the "he saw himself in you..." makes little sense. Harry
>> wasn't even born yet when the prophecy was made. He was only a baby
>> when his parents were killed. What could Voldemort have seen in Harry
>> (at that age) that reminded him of himself (other than half-blood
>> status), enough to throw away reason and all doubt, and decide for a
>> certainty that Harry was the only one he had to worry about?
>
I don't think he decided until the boys were born. he didn't
reasearch and learn there were two pregnant women due to give birth en
dof July. Especially as their's no guarnatee either would, or a thrid
do later wouldn't go earlier. V had to wiat until Aug to even try to
find the candidates, and even then, it took him 15 months thereafter
to chose and go for the kill. So, there's no telling how much he got
on the boys to see Harry as the true threat.
Just that the boy is his equal, and Harry follows suit. V = Muggle
dad, withc mom. H = Muggleborn Mom, wizard dad. Now, one cna guess
thta Mrs. Riddle was the firts to break pureblood status, mathcing V
and Harry up more. Pure mom vs pure dad, and muggle dad vs muggleborn
mom. Just enough differences to make Harry unique, but enough
slimilarities to eb his equal but opposite.
Chipforth Spoon
"Toon" <to...@toon.com> wrote in message
news:3ivs41958e7gf0ffo...@4ax.com...
What, Harry gets destroyed and Voldemort finds he can't live without him?
AJ.
Chipforth Spoon
"Peter Mason" <tanke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112396027.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I don't know for a fact , but I do know one of Voldemorts spies heard half
the prophecy (then got caught listening ????) so it would seem likely 'the
spy' informed his master at the earliest opportunity. I don't think V would
be too pleased if 'the spy' waited weeks before divulging the information.
AJ.
Chipforth Spoon
First off, I meant patronus -type- charms, We have seen the patronus charm
appears to require strong positive emotions for its success, so its not a
big jump to suggest other strong charms would also need strong positive
emotions, therefore I'm perhaps-ing that Voldemort without 'love' would be
unable to perform many strong useful charms.
Second off, I believe Voldemort gets off on thinking he's the most powerful
wizard of all time, a claim in which he has to already pooh pooh DD's
talents, so (IMO) he would not be over keen on school children been capable
of performing spells that he could not, whether the said spells where of any
particular use would not matter.
I'm not saying the theory is wrong, actually I think its rather well thought
out, I just find it hard to credit that Voldemort would -willing- give up a
strong emotion in a world where strong emotions are turned into power.
AJ.
>
Troels Forchhammer
> news:1112396027.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
<snip>
>> I'm rather curious do we know for a fact that Voldemort was
>> informed of the prophecy almost immediately by his spy? Perhaps
>> the delay might have been because he didn't know of the said
>> prophecy until much later for some reason or other.
>
> I don't know for a fact,
I don't recall any specific statements either.
> but I do know one of Voldemorts spies heard half the prophecy
About the first third, actually ;-)
The last he heard was, apparently, "as the seventh month dies" -- at
least we know definitely that he did not hear the following sentence.
> (then got caught listening ????)
And ousted, yes.
> so it would seem likely 'the spy' informed his master at the
> earliest opportunity.
In particular since he wasn't apprehended or killed or anything: only
thrown from the Hog's Head.
> I don't think V would be too pleased if the spy' waited weeks
> before divulging the information.
And certainly not months. The wait is at least fifteen months from the
prophecy to the Potters went into hiding, and I can't imagine anything
that would have kept the spy from reporting back to Voldemort in far
less time than that.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought
gjw
<ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> wrote:
You are confusing positive feelings with love. The patronus charm
(which Voldemort can probably cast) does not require love. It simply
requires optimism and happy thoughts. I'm sure that Voldemort is quite
happy when he makes strides towards his goal of world domination...
But love has nothing to do with it.
So far, we haven't seen a spell which requires love behind it. But we
will...
>You see if you are correct
>about Voldemort Achilles heel then, Voldermort would not only know about it,
>but would have chose to have it.
You forget that Voldemort underestimates love. This lack of
understanding of love is what caused him to abandon it in search of
immortality. And, in turn, his present total lack of love now leads
him to dismiss it entirely as a mere weakness.
There is also the strong possibility that one simply can't have it
both ways. It's possible that those who have enough hatred in them to
cast a crucio curse simply can't cast spells requiring love, just as
Harry couldn't generate the emotions he needed to cast crucio.
>> >> Unfortunately, I suspect this will be just another example of JKR
>> >> pulling something convenient out of her hat. I don't think that
>> >> Dumbledore WOULD know why Voldemort made his choice. If the scenario
>> >> were real, chances are that it would just be a hunch on Dumbledore's
>> >> part that Voldemort chose another half-blood like himself.
>> >
>> >My point been DD did not seem to know who the prophecy referred to, where
>as
>> >Voldermort did.
>>
>> But Voldemort knew even less that Dumbledore. Remember that
>> Voldemort's spy only heard the first part of the prophecy. All he knew
>> is that one of the two boys born at that time would pose a danger to
>> him. To the best of our knowledge, Voldemort had no reliable evidence
>> that would let him distinguish between the two candidates.
>
>Exactly, 'Voldemort knew even less that Dumbledore' and yet Voldemort knows
>who to chose and DD (IMO) still doesn't know why.
Does he? We have no idea why he attacked Harry first, except for the
half-blood notion put forward by DD. It could have been mere
convenience, insofar as he knew the location of the Potters (thanks to
Wormtail), while Neville might have been unavailable. I don't think
Voldemort knew who was "the one" at all. Conversely, under
Dumbledore's explanation, Voldemort made it a self-fulfilling
prophecy, marking Harry as "the one" (and transferring some powers to
him) by his attack.
>> If we are to believe Dumbledore (as we usually are), we're to believe
>> that Voldemort forgot all about logic and just guessed that it would
>> be Harry, based on the slim fact that the two shared a few qualities,
>> including not being pure-bloods. That seems out of character for
>> Voldemort. But if Rowling wants to write it that way, we can't stop
>> her...
>
>I don't believe DD offered Harry a reason, just an observation that
>Voldemort chose the half-blood etc. I don't think DD has yet worked out the
>reason, but I believe he doesn't think it was a mere guess on Voldemort's
>part.
It certainly reads that way to me.
><Snip>
>
>> Here's the exact text:
>>
>> 'He chose the boy he thought most likely to be a danger to him,'
>> said Dumbledore. 'And notice this, Harry: he chose, not the pure-blood
>> (which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being
>> or knowing) but the half-blood, like himself. He saw himself in you
>> before he had ever seen you, and in marking you with that scar, he did
>> not kill you, as he intended, but gave you powers, and a future, which
>> have fitted you to escape him not once, but four times so far -
>> something that neither your parents, nor Neville's parents, ever
>> achieved.'
>>
>> Notice that DD doesn't state WHY he would think that Harry would be
>> more of a danger. Under the standard prejudice, he should have thought
>> that Neville, the pure-blood, would have been the more dangerous of
>> the two. And the "he saw himself in you..." makes little sense. Harry
>> wasn't even born yet when the prophecy was made. He was only a baby
>> when his parents were killed. What could Voldemort have seen in Harry
>> (at that age) that reminded him of himself (other than half-blood
>> status), enough to throw away reason and all doubt, and decide for a
>> certainty that Harry was the only one he had to worry about?
>>
>
>The only conclusion I can arrive at is Voldemort looked in other directions
>for his choice. Not at Harry or Neville or the Prophecy for DD knew more
>about all three of these and (Imo) DD still doesn't know why Harry was
>chosen over Neville.
Unfortunately, I suspect that Rowling may not give us any other
reasons for Voldemort's choice. The 'explanation' above (about the
half-blood factor) may be all we get.
Toon
No, the blood link now makes it if Harry kills himself, V dies too.
Troels Forchhammer
<to...@toon.com> enriched us with:
<snip>
>>>> I see a prophecy as, in effect, a time-traveling message from
>>>> the future.
>
> To piggy back a bit, I think this view complicates things.
To be honest I think you're complicating it even more with this.
Essentially there is two possibilities.
If the information contained in the prophecy is contemporary with the
making of the prophecy, then we have the situation where we need the
omni- or superpotent agency enforcing the prophecy -- personally I
don't want to go there.
The other option is that the information belongs to the future that it
is speaking about, in which case you need to have this information
travel back in time to the Seer. That is all that is to it, really.
You're introducing the actual means of that travel, but they're not
important to the temporal view of the contents and the causality of the
prophecy.
<snip>
> And Troels is also over complicating things backwards. It's not
> anybody else can kill Harry, but won't be able to, it's nobody can
> kill Harry but V. Which means anyone else who tries is destined
> to fail.
Which is essentially the same as what I am saying -- only without any
consideration of why, which is important for understanding the
causality of the prophecy.
Given your ideas with respect to the means of the temporal shift of the
information content of the prophecy, I have to say that your ideas
inevitably lead to the same conclusions with respect to what can be
logically inferred from the prophecy (this does not preclude that
Rowling's intention goes further, but given the evidence, and the
assumption that there is no superpotent entity upholding the prophecy,
all we can infer is that the prophecy states what /will/ happen; not
why it will happen that way).
Do you wish to postulate a superpotent entity that is upholding the
prophecy?
> We know because Harry must live to fight V for the final battle.
And? We know /that/ this will happen, but not /why/.
> And Harry is the only one who can vanquish V. Not anybody can, but
> they're not in the right place, etc. like Harry is. Only Harry can,
> and all others will fail.
I can agree that all others will fail -- with respect to the rest, you
might be right, but we cannot tell with the current evidence.
What you're doing is to impose your own interpretation on things. It is
certainly a reasonable interpretation, but it is nevertheless not the
only interpretation.
> And they will fail because they
> 1, Aren't upgraded to V's level (marked as equal), and
> 2, don't have such an abundance of love, undoubtedly enhanced
> by Lily's sacrifice.
> 3, also because we know Harry must face him, so, therefore,
> nobody can, even if they were marked,d or if they had
> overflowing hearts of love.
Once more you're making some interpretation-dependent assumptions
regarding the causality involved.
If you read the prophecy there is nothing that actually states that any
of this are requirements for defeating Voldemort (the Dark Lord). The
marking and the "power the Dark Lord knows not" (love) are used to
identify "the one", but it is never stated that these are mandatory
prerequisites for vanquishing the Dark Lord.
Incidentally I think you're right -- that Lord Voldemort can only be
vanquished by that unique mix of the power of love and his own powers
that were transferred as part of the marking; the mix that exists only
in Harry.
I do not, however, think that only Voldemort has the power to kill
Harry, and that is where I think the analysis of the causality of the
prophecy is interesting.
Jan van Aalderen
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:17:41 +0100, "Chipforth Spoon"
> <ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
> I don't think he decided until the boys were born. he didn't
> reasearch and learn there were two pregnant women due to give birth en
> dof July. Especially as their's no guarnatee either would, or a thrid
> do later wouldn't go earlier. V had to wiat until Aug to even try to
> find the candidates, and even then, it took him 15 months thereafter
The prophecy says "born...", not: "to be born...". I do not recall any
indication how long after both boys were born the prophecy was made. It
must have been after it was made that V learned about it.
Unless, of course, V heared a prophecy, unknown to us, saying that the
prophecy we know of would be made, plus what it would say. :)
> to chose and go for the kill. So, there's no telling how much he got
> on the boys to see Harry as the true threat.
>
.................
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Jan van Aalderen, Amstelveen
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Wie mijn raad volgt, doet zulks geheel op eigen risico!
Reactie op usenetpostjes in de groep. Email zie ik niet.
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Tim Behrendsen
news:11508fl...@corp.supernews.com...
> Toon wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:17:41 +0100, "Chipforth Spoon"
>> <ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
> .......................
>>>
>> I don't think he decided until the boys were born. he didn't
>> reasearch and learn there were two pregnant women due to give birth
>> en
>> dof July. Especially as their's no guarnatee either would, or a thrid
>> do later wouldn't go earlier. V had to wiat until Aug to even try to
>> find the candidates, and even then, it took him 15 months thereafter
>
> The prophecy says "born...", not: "to be born...". I do not recall any
> indication how long after both boys were born the prophecy was made.
> It must have been after it was made that V learned about it.
>
> Unless, of course, V heared a prophecy, unknown to us, saying that the
> prophecy we know of would be made, plus what it would say. :)
The key word is "approaches"... the prophecy was made before they were
born.
Tim Behrendsen
news:5BV3e.52709$AN1.15965@fed1read03...
Not to mention that the last line says "/will be/ born as the seventh
month dies".
Jan van Aalderen
Where exactly is stated, that there was a 15 month time gap between the
prophecy and the Potters going into hiding? It would seem unexplainable.
As far as I remember, DD told them to hide as soon as he learned V was
after them. As DD knew the prophecy was partially overheared, he would -
or at least should - have realized that V was likely to have learned
about it, so any baby born at any end of july - not just the 1st month
of july after the prophecy - would be in danger from "proactive actions"
by V. Hence, DD would have told the parents of any such baby to hide
immediately - not over a year after birth -, unless there were simply
too many candidates. But DD spoke of only 2 candidates.
Hm. I sense another plothole.
Unless, of course, DD had figured out much more then we know now, knew
why V would pick Harry (unlikely, since we would have learned at the end
of OotP, or there would be another plothole) and set the Potters up,
telling Lily what to do, if - "just in case" for her sake; but in his
mind already nearly certain - events would unfold as we know they did.
It seems unlikely, but I hesitate to put it entirely past DD to act with
such ruthless pragmatism.
Coming to think of the prophecy and the "mark as his equal" part: V had
become sort of immortal, as his surviving his AK-bouncer proofed. That
might be one of the aspects in which Harry became his equal, so would
make Harry as "unkillable" as V. That is: as V before he went through
the graveyard-ceremony and returned himself to mortal status.
Troels Forchhammer
<snip>
>> I see a prophecy as, in effect, a time-traveling message from the
>> future.
>
> How far into the future?
At the furthest extent of the events covered in the prophecy, of course
(or later).
In this case the open nature of the prophecy makes the dating a bit
shaky, and there are different ways to look at it.
If you accept the prophecy as a definite statement about the future
(i.e. that this is what will happen, no matter what), then I would say
that the information contained in the prophecy must belong to the time
when Harry and Voldemort are locked in a battle that can only end with
the death of at least one of them.
<snip>
> I'm I getting my books mixed up, I am sure I've read that
> prophecies aren't always fulfilled and I thought in was in the HP
> books?
There is an important distinction in Potterverse between the make-
believe that is Trelawney's usual humbug and the true Seeing that she
has managed twice (that we have any evidence of).
True Seeing -- such as in the two prophecies we have seen -- does
appear to be a correct statement about the future (but "True Seers are
very rare," as McGonagall said).
<snip>
> I'm not sure about this 'The one with the Power' for me is more
> exacting than say "The one with the Motive Means and Opportunity "
"More exacting" as in "defining a subset"?
I agree that the other requires a somewhat broader than normal
interpretation of 'power', though I don't think it is an impossible
interpretation.
Prophecies are, by literary convention, cryptic and often requires a
straining of the interpretation (there are, for instance, many who
thinks that Voldemort's actions on Harry's fifteen months birthday
don't fit any normal definition of 'marking as his equal').
> I think maybe many have almost 'the power' but lack something
> (luck/speed/pity/love/whatever) the ingredients needed will be in
> Harry when the time comes and nobody else has had the correct
> mixture since the prophecy was spouted.
I do agree with that -- that the mixture of powers that Harry possesses
will prove the only way to vanquish Voldemort. The point is that this
cannot be inferred for certain from the prophecy itself (or indeed
inferred for certain at all). We need aditional information to reach
that opinion -- not the least of Rowling's writing etc. i.e. matters
that are outside Potterverse itself.
> Now that for me is different to saying Ben has killed Bill
> therefore nobody else can.
Well -- if Ben has already killed Bill, then I would be happy to accept
that as sufficient argument why nobody else can kill Bill ;-)
But it doesn't say that nobody could have done it before that.
Troels Forchhammer
>>
<snip>
>> And certainly not months. The wait is at least fifteen months
>> from the prophecy to the Potters went into hiding, and I can't
>> imagine anything that would have kept the spy from reporting back
>> to Voldemort in far less time than that.
>
> Where exactly is stated, that there was a 15 month time gap
> between the prophecy and the Potters going into hiding?
/At least/ fifteen months.
The attack on the Potters were on Harry's fifteen months birthday, and
the attack came "barely a week after the Fidelius Charm had been
performed".
The prophecy was made before the boys were born, as is seen from the
wording "will be born as the seventh month dies" in the end of the
prophecy. Also we know that Trelawney was hired as a result of her
making the prophecy. In her first inspection in September Trelawney
says that she has been teaching "nearly sixteen years", while when she
is thrown out in March, she is talking about having "been here sixteen
years", the prophecy is dated "some sixteen years previously" and
Dumbledore speaks of hearing the prophecy "on a cold, wet night sixteen
years ago".
If we follow the rude 'nine months pregnancy' rule, then Harry would
have been conceived on Hallowe'en two years before the attack, and I
think the prophecy was made no earlier than that, and no later than
mid-July the year Harry was born.
Even allowing a week or two between Dumbledore learning of the threat
against the Potters and the invocation of the Fidelius Charm, we still
get between fifteen months and almost two years between the prophecy
and Dumbledore learning about the threat against the Potters. Since
Voldemort did not attack the Potters before they went into hiding, I
think it's a safe bet that they were warned quite soon (within weeks)
after he decided to attack them.
> It would seem unexplainable.
Precisely!
> As far as I remember, DD told them to hide as soon as he learned V
> was after them.
Yes;
"Dumbledore, who was of course working tirelessly against
You-Know-Who, had a number of useful spies. One of them
tipped him off, and he alerted James and Lily at once."
(PoA-10 'The Marauder's Map')
> As DD knew the prophecy was partially overheared, he would -
> or at least should - have realized that V was likely to have
> learned about it, so any baby born at any end of july - not
> just the 1st month of july after the prophecy - would be in
> danger from "proactive actions" by V.
Isn't the term 'pre-emptive'? ;-)
I don't think that it would apply to boys born at the end of July
the next year, but on the other hand I can't preclude it either. The
phrasing quoted above from the end of the prophecy makes me think of
'the next seventh month' rather than 'any seventh month' (we had some
interesting discussions at one point about the possible interpretations
of 'seventh month', which also included e.g. September, but there was,
IIRC, no consensus regarding this particular question).
> Hence, DD would have told the parents of any such baby to hide
> immediately - not over a year after birth -, unless there were
> simply too many candidates. But DD spoke of only 2 candidates.
We do know with absolute certainty that he did /not/ tell the Potters
to hide until, shall we say, about fourteen months after Harry was
born, and he never spoke of any other candidates (there is also the
'thrice defied' part to identifying the possible parents).
There is also no suggestion of any other kind of extra protection or
surveillance for any of the two families until that point. I think
Dumbledore didn't tell any of them about the prophecy until he knew
which boy Voldemort was going after.
> Hm. I sense another plothole.
Not necessarily, but certainly an interesting question that has still
to be explained.
I hope and believe that Rowling has good reason for both Voldemort's
and Dumbledore's lack of action (in response to the prophecy) during
this period.
<snip>
Chipforth Spoon
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:17:41 +0100, "Chipforth Spoon"
> <ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >>"gjw" <g...@example.net> wrote in message
> >news:jrgm419092mddei9e...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:34:53 +0100, "Chipforth Spoon"
> >> <ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I see, ... but I feel the difference is Harry had never cast the "Crucio"
> >curse where as I'm suggesting V has in all probability used "protranus"
type
> >charms and would know the need for lets say strong positive feelings in
> >working these charms, therefore he would be aware that if he gave up
'Love'
> >he would lose some of his abilities ( Harry by contrast would perhaps not
> >have been aware if he gave up 'Hate' then...).
>
> You are confusing positive feelings with love.
Not for the first time!
> The patronus charm
> (which Voldemort can probably cast) does not require love. It simply
> requires optimism and happy thoughts. I'm sure that Voldemort is quite
> happy when he makes strides towards his goal of world domination...
> But love has nothing to do with it.
Agreed, but I was trying to say "protranus" type charms, the patronus charm
we know needs certain positive feelings I am assuming other strong charms
will require love.
>
> So far, we haven't seen a spell which requires love behind it. But we
> will...
Yes I believe your correct, but I am suggesting Voldemort -has- seen such
spells and knows their power.
>
> >You see if you are correct
> >about Voldemort Achilles heel then, Voldermort would not only know about
it,
> >but would have chose to have it.
>
> You forget that Voldemort underestimates love. This lack of
> understanding of love is what caused him to abandon it in search of
> immortality. And, in turn, his present total lack of love now leads
> him to dismiss it entirely as a mere weakness.
( Quickly re-reading PS )
"if there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love." -PS-The man
with two faces.
You are quite right,,, and I'm totally wrong, I withdraw my point entirely
AJ.
gjw
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>There is also no suggestion of any other kind of extra protection or
>surveillance for any of the two families until that point.
True. But that doesn't mean it wasn't there.
>I think Dumbledore didn't tell any of them about the prophecy until he knew
> which boy Voldemort was going after.
I hope that's not the case. It would seem negligent on Dumbledore's
part. He knew that Voldemort would try to kill at least one of them,
probably both. And it could happen at any time. It would have been
prudent to have taken some measures to protect both of the children.
Probably nothing as extreme as the Fidelus charm (which requires the
family to go into hiding), but I would hope he made some effort to
protect (or at least watch) both boys.
gjw
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <news:d2kd4i$2g2$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>
>"Chipforth Spoon" <ch...@dac.Jeronet.co.uk> enriched us with:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>>> I see a prophecy as, in effect, a time-traveling message from the
>>> future.
>>
>> How far into the future?
>
>At the furthest extent of the events covered in the prophecy, of course
>(or later).
>
>In this case the open nature of the prophecy makes the dating a bit
>shaky, and there are different ways to look at it.
>
>If you accept the prophecy as a definite statement about the future
>(i.e. that this is what will happen, no matter what), then I would say
>that the information contained in the prophecy must belong to the time
>when Harry and Voldemort are locked in a battle that can only end with
>the death of at least one of them.
Agreed.
It could also come from some time after the H/V battle, but only if we
assume that the agency making the prophecy opted not to reveal the
outcome of the battle.
Toon
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>Do you wish to postulate a superpotent entity that is upholding the
>prophecy?
god, personification of fate/destiny/time. DD slightly after the feat
(assuming he lives.) Rn back in time before becoming DD. And
DD/Ron's not superpotnet, just using magic :)
Troels Forchhammer
gjw <g...@example.net> enriched us with:
>
> On 3 Apr 2005 19:43:19 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>
>> There is also no suggestion of any other kind of extra protection or
>> surveillance for any of the two families until that point.
>
> True. But that doesn't mean it wasn't there.
Depending on how you mean that ;-)
It does, IMO, mean that any hypothetical extra (i.e. above and beyond
what was normal for members of the Order of the Phoenix) protection of
the two families was significantly less than the Fidelius Charm.
In terms of argumentation it does mean that it didn't exist -- since
there is no indication of it, there is not any way to argue in favour of
it, and the existence of such a protection is therefore not an
assumption that is valid in argumentation (the burden of proof lies
exclusively with those who would claim it's existence, and since there
is no proof, then there is no argument).
>> I think Dumbledore didn't tell any of them about the prophecy until
>> he knew which boy Voldemort was going after.
>
> I hope that's not the case.
I don't think that he told the families, but I am less sure about a
discrete extra protection for the two families: possibly akin to the
guarding of Harry in the beginning of OotP, but involving fewer people.
Knowledge about the prophecy appears to have been quite restricted:
Rowling suggests as much on her web-site:
"The Lestranges were sent after Neville to kill him
No, they weren't, they were very definitely sent after
Neville's parents. I can't say too much about this because
it touches too closely on the prophecy and how many people
knew about it, but the Lestranges were not in on the
secret."
<http://www.jkrowling.co.uk/textonly/rumours_view.cfm?id=25>
Establishing any kind of overt extra protection would require
explanations that I don't believe Dumbledore was ready to give. He may
have told the two families that he had reasons to believe that Voldemort
might attack them, but set of parents had already defied Voldemort
thrice, and would already know that. This is where the /extra/ part
comes in -- both the Potters and the Longbottoms would already be alert
and better protected than average wizards. I don't think there would be
any reason to tell them about the prophecy -- it wouldn't change
anything, except perhaps create a sense of insecurity and panic in the
two families that could easily make them more vulnerable rather than
less so.
> It would seem negligent on Dumbledore's part.
I don't really think so.
> He knew that Voldemort would try to kill at least one of them,
> probably both.
We can't know exactly what Dumbledore knew, but it is unlikely that he
knew all that we know now.
It is very unlikely that he didn't know that someone had been
eavesdropping on his conversation with Trelawney, but he may not have
known that it was a spy for Voldemort (the eavesdropper was thrown from
the inn, but nothing more).
More likely Dumbledore learned about from his own spies, from whom he
also knew quite a lot about Voldemort's plans.
> And it could happen at any time.
Well -- given a hypothetical extra protection versus Dumbledore's
hypothetical knowledge that such an attack was not going to happen at
any time, I would, since we know that he did know when it was about to
happen, prefer the latter. We do, after all, know that Dumbledore did
learn when the attack was being planned.
> It would have been prudent to have taken some measures to protect
> both of the children.
It might have been, and it is possible that he did (but see above about
that argument), but I don't think that telling the families involved
would have achieved anything.
> Probably nothing as extreme as the Fidelus charm (which requires the
> family to go into hiding), but I would hope he made some effort to
> protect (or at least watch) both boys.
But we already know that he did take measures: he was closely watching
Voldemort, and was alert to any suggestion the Voldemort was targeting
any of the boys.
Should he, if that is the case, have trusted his ability to know in
advance that the attack was about to happen? I can't say -- the evidence
shows that he would have been right in doing so, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that it would be the morally (or even strategically)
right decision.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is t.forch(a)email.dk
"What're quantum mechanics?"
"I don't know. People who repair quantums, I suppose."
- (Terry Pratchett, Eric)
Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> If you accept the prophecy as a definite statement about the future
>> (i.e. that this is what will happen, no matter what), then I would
>> say that the information contained in the prophecy must belong to
>> the time when Harry and Voldemort are locked in a battle that can
>> only end with the death of at least one of them.
>
> Agreed.
>
> It could also come from some time after the H/V battle, but only if we
> assume that the agency making the prophecy opted not to reveal the
> outcome of the battle.
I am, I'll admit, most comfortable with making the prophecy a result of
'natural forces' in Potterverse -- that the 'agency' simply is the laws
of magic ;-)
But yes, the information might be from a later date if we accept the
possibility of a transfer of incomplete knowledge.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is t.forch(a)email.dk
++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start.
- (Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
Jan van Aalderen
Hm. That must be considered rather conclusive evidence. :)
Reconstruction learned, that I verified my memory by searching "born as
the seventh", which was found. The stupid computer forgot to warn me the
string as found had "to be" in front of it. :(
I shouldn't do that sort of things when not fully awake.
Jan van Aalderen
> In message <news:1150b90...@corp.supernews.com> Jan van
> Aalderen <reply-in-g...@jva.getxs.nl> enriched us with:
>
>>As DD knew the prophecy was partially overheared, he would -
>>or at least should - have realized that V was likely to have
>>learned about it, so any baby born at any end of july - not
>>just the 1st month of july after the prophecy - would be in
>>danger from "proactive actions" by V.
>
>
> Isn't the term 'pre-emptive'? ;-)
>
I did consider that, but I think pre-emptive means actiing to prevent
same or similar action from an opponent (pre-emptive nuclear strike),
while pro-active is acting to prevent problems or at least escalation of
a situation (pro-active systemmanagament).
But then, proactive may be just taken to literally from the word
proactief as we use it in dutch.
................
Chipforth Spoon
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> In message <jte151181q9knpc46...@4ax.com>,
> gjw <g...@example.net> enriched us with:
> >
> > On 3 Apr 2005 18:57:38 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
> > <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
> >>
>
> <snip>
>
> >> If you accept the prophecy as a definite statement about the future
> >> (i.e. that this is what will happen, no matter what), then I would
> >> say that the information contained in the prophecy must belong to
> >> the time when Harry and Voldemort are locked in a battle that can
> >> only end with the death of at least one of them.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > It could also come from some time after the H/V battle, but only if we
> > assume that the agency making the prophecy opted not to reveal the
> > outcome of the battle.
>
> I am, I'll admit, most comfortable with making the prophecy a result of
> 'natural forces' in Potterverse -- that the 'agency' simply is the laws
> of magic ;-)
>
> But yes, the information might be from a later date if we accept the
> possibility of a transfer of incomplete knowledge.
' The one with the power to vanquish the Dark lord approaches...'
'The one', not one
'The power', not power
the one with power to vanquish the Dark lord approaches...
could come from a point in future time before a battle commences,
one with power to vanquish the Dark lord approaches...
could come from a point in future time when the battle is concluding,
one with the power to vanquish the Dark lord approaches...
could come from a point in future time when the battle is concluded
The one with the power to vanquish the Dark lord approaches...
could come from a point in future time, but that future point in time would
have to be at the end of all worlds. Else a fish born on Pluto a few years
hence may also have the power.
The AJ.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> In message <news:1150b90...@corp.supernews.com> Jan van
>> Aalderen <reply-in-g...@jva.getxs.nl> enriched us with:
>>>
>>> in danger from "proactive actions" by V.
>>
>> Isn't the term 'pre-emptive'? ;-)
>
> I did consider that,
Sorry -- it was merely meant as a humorous reference to the talk about
pre-emptive strikes in the real world over the last couple of years.
> but I think pre-emptive means actiing to prevent same or similar
> action from an opponent
On the other hand that would fit Voldemort's actions quite well -- kill
the boy before he kills you . . .
gjw
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <bge151hcde20du7fe...@4ax.com>,
>gjw <g...@example.net> enriched us with:
>>
>> On 3 Apr 2005 19:43:19 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
>> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> There is also no suggestion of any other kind of extra protection or
>>> surveillance for any of the two families until that point.
>>
>> True. But that doesn't mean it wasn't there.
>
>Depending on how you mean that ;-)
>
>It does, IMO, mean that any hypothetical extra (i.e. above and beyond
>what was normal for members of the Order of the Phoenix) protection of
>the two families was significantly less than the Fidelius Charm.
>
>In terms of argumentation it does mean that it didn't exist -- since
>there is no indication of it, there is not any way to argue in favour of
>it, and the existence of such a protection is therefore not an
>assumption that is valid in argumentation (the burden of proof lies
>exclusively with those who would claim it's existence, and since there
>is no proof, then there is no argument).
Imagine this scenario. I present you with a large box. The box may be
empty or the box may contain a hat. You are not allowed to touch it or
weigh it, so there is no evidence that it contains a hat. Does that
mean that it definitely does NOT contain a hat? Open it and find out.
If Voldemort was stalking YOUR family, wouldn't you want to know? I
would.
>> He knew that Voldemort would try to kill at least one of them,
>> probably both.
>
>We can't know exactly what Dumbledore knew, but it is unlikely that he
>knew all that we know now.
It's just common sense to anyone who knows Voldemort. If a child poses
a threat to Voldemort, you can pretty much bet that he is going to try
to get rid of him. The only question is when.
>It is very unlikely that he didn't know that someone had been
>eavesdropping on his conversation with Trelawney, but he may not have
>known that it was a spy for Voldemort (the eavesdropper was thrown from
>the inn, but nothing more).
Why was he thrown from the Inn? If he had been a friend of
Dumbledore's, they surely wouldn't have tossed him on his ear.
Apparently, he was someone they knew they couldn't trust.
>More likely Dumbledore learned about from his own spies, from whom he
>also knew quite a lot about Voldemort's plans.
I tend to think that Dumbledore generally knew that Voldemort had
learned of the prophecy, but that his spies gave him specific details
of the planned attack.
>
>> Probably nothing as extreme as the Fidelus charm (which requires the
>> family to go into hiding), but I would hope he made some effort to
>> protect (or at least watch) both boys.
>
>But we already know that he did take measures: he was closely watching
>Voldemort, and was alert to any suggestion the Voldemort was targeting
>any of the boys.
But that assumes that Voldemort (who seems to have attacked the
Potter's house on his own, without a backup army of Death Eaters)
would definitely tell someone in advance about what he was planning to
do - and that the person he told would turn out to be one of
Dumbledore's spies. That seems a risky assumption.
Dave Hinz
> Imagine this scenario. I present you with a large box. The box may be
> empty or the box may contain a hat. You are not allowed to touch it or
> weigh it, so there is no evidence that it contains a hat. Does that
> mean that it definitely does NOT contain a hat? Open it and find out.
Ah yes, the famous "Schroedinger's Hat" experiment.
Troels Forchhammer
<Dave...@spamcop.net> enriched us with:
LOL!
So the answer is, of course, that hat is there with a certain
probability ;-)
As for the analogy, the problem with the original question is that we
don't have the box to open -- and even if the box should contain that
hat, it won't be decorating my head until I have it in my hand, so it
might as well not be there until it comes out of the box. Actually it
is better to imagine that it isn't there . . . that way I won't be
disappointed when I do open the box.