Mother love

[davewitley]

No: HPFGUIDX 31329

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Lea" <spaceyoo at 0...> wrote:

> I am a little sceptical about the theory we are being presented 
with in the
> books, in which Harry survives because of his mothers love and 
sacrifice.

I can understand your scepticism.  The problem I have is the way it 
is presented - it sneaks from being the explanation of how Quirrell 
burned to being the main theme of harry's survival and Voldemort's 
downfall.  I can't quite put my finger on it, but it feels as if JKR 
is breaking a rule somehow here - if it's a red herring (or second-
time foreshadowing?) it feels wrong somehow - as if the explanation 
is being associated with the narrative POV rather than just Harry 
(and V).  Something like that.  So I tend to accept it because of 
that.  Can anybody express it better - or explain how it will be 
alright for her to overturn it later?

> We are pretty sure that no one else has ever survived the AK curse, 
let
> alone one cast by Voldie himself, but does it make sense that Harry 
was the
> only person in the wizarding world who had someone to die for him?

I have less difficulty with this.  I don't believe we are ever told 
that it's a simple matter of dying - it's Lily's love, which is 
expressed and reaches its apogee in her death, that provides the 
protection.

I think the fundamental problem is this: love is a human quality, and 
cannot be reduced to a rule.  This is what I mean by Voldemort having 
a mechanistic understanding.  Likewise, maternal death by itself 
(even in sacrifice) is not necessarily enough.  This becomes a 
problem because in later life there *is* a mechanistic quality to the 
protection: touch Quirrell, he burns; get Harry's blood, you get some 
protection.  It is reconciling these two aspects which to me is the 
core issue.

David