[HPFGU-Movie] Re: My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Main)

[mugg1eb0rn at aol.com]

A response from someone who is usually a lurker:
 
In a message dated 8/10/2011 2:51:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
bboyminn at yahoo.com writes:

Steve  replies:

Sorry, just wanted to add that that was a pretty concise and  accurate 
description of what happened. And, for the very most part, I agree.  

I would add that while Harry was in Limbo, it seemed as if Voldemort  was 
also in Limbo, but held there by Harry's fate. If Harry doesn't go back,  I'm 
not sure Voldemort could go back. Though perhaps, I'm not certain, he  
would have again been left as a disembodied spirit. 

I find it  interesting that Voldemort failed to kill Harry the first time 
because of  Lily's protection. The protection of her self-sacrifice. The 
second time, the  time we are discussing, Lily's protection was still in effect, 
though  Voldemort had some small portion of it in him. Regardless of 
Voldemort have a  small degree of that protection, I really don't think he was 
protected to the  degree that Harry was. 

So, the forest spell being unable to kill  Harry, killed the only thing it 
could which was the fragment of Voldemort's  soul contained in Harry. 

Precisely how their fates are bound together  in that moment, are not 
completely clear to me, but it does seem as if Harry  is in charge. He makes the 
decision as to whether he goes 'On' or goes 'back'  and Voldemort must 
follow suit. The one part I'm not sure of is if Harry  chooses to go 'On', what 
happens to Voldemort? Dead or Disembodied? I suspect  disembodied, otherwise 
there is no point in having Harry go back.  






In the forest, the horcrux in Nagini was still alive and well,  so 
Voldemort would NOT have died or become disembodied. He would have been  stunned, as 
we saw, but the piece of his soul in Nagini would have protected  him. 
Harry realized that, I'm sure, so he knew he had to come back and finish  
things, one way or the other.
 
jamelia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]