Loss of power theory (was Harry's Special Powers)

[Keith Fraser]

No: HPFGUIDX 10514

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, "Kimberly " <moongirlk at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, "Dai Evans" <dwe199 at s...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > you're forgetting his friends. Everything Harry has done in 
fighting 
> > evil, he has done with the help of his friends. That's one of the 
> > more prominent messages of the books; to rely on friends. I 
suspect 
> > it will be the combined talents of Harry, Hermione and Ron (plus 
any 
> > random others) who will ultimately defeat Voldemort, as it has 
> always 
> > been in the books so far.
> > 
> > 
> Dai,
> 
> You're really getting in my head here!  That's one of the main 
things 
> that I think the superharry theory overlooks.  When I was trying 
> unsuccessfully to put together my thoughts last night that's one of 
> the things I was focusing on.  In most of the major crises in the 
> books a group effort was involved in the resolution. 
> 
> examples:
> 
> With the troll - Harry jumped on his back and Ron charmed the 
club.  
> 
> In the forest when Harry fist encountered Quirrell/Voldemort - 
Firenze
> and Hagrid helped Harry escape.
> 
> 'Through the trapdoor' - The trio worked together to get through 
the 
> obstacles, Harry faced Voldemort, and Dumbledore pulled him out.
> 
> The chamber - Ron and Harry had help from the prostrate Hermione 
for 
> the clue and from Moaning Myrtle to find the opening.  Harry had 
help 
> from Dumbledore and Fawkes and from Godric Gryffindor himself while 
> inside the chamber with Riddle.  
> 
> Harry gets by with a little help from his friends, his mentors, and 
> even in some ways the universe in general.
> 
> But even if I didn't agree with Dai on that one, if the key themes 
I 
> see in the books are what were really intended I'd say the 
superharry 
> theory can't be right.
> 
> The two themes that have stood out to me most in Harryland I have 
> taken from the mouth of Dumbeldore:
> 
> The first was when he explained to Harry in CoS that it was his 
> choices that make him who he is, and not his potential.
> 
> The second is at the end of PS/SS when Harry is upset because while 
he 
> kept Voldemort from getting the stone he knew V would come back. 
> Dumbledore said: "Nevertheless, Harry, while you may only have 
delated 
> his return to power, it will merely take someone else who is 
prepared 
> to fight what seems a loosing battle next time - and if he is 
delayed 
> again, and again, why, he may never return to power."  
> 
> To me this says that it's the act of standing up against evil that 
is 
> key, not necessarily being stronger than the evil in question.
> If, as I think, these are two of the important themes in the books, 
> then I'd say the superharry theory would be counterproductive.  
> 
> Then there's one other thing.  I think some people are forgetting 
the 
> thing that stands out to me most about Voldemort - hubris, which in 
> the end I think will be a major contributor to his downfall.  
> 
> Ok all of the above is kind of rambly and may be hard to decipher 
> like my first post on the subject, so let me try to summarize in 
case 
> it didn't make any sense.
> 
> -I think first off that the SuperHarry theory goes against the 
major 
> themes of the book and therefore must not be correct.
> 
> -I think also that Voldemort will be defeated by a combination of 
> Harry's power, will, strengths and talents, the power, will, 
strengths 
> and talents of all the others who choose to stand against evil, and 
> Voldemort's own vanity.
> 
> Does it make any sense?
> kimberly

Yes, that is very true. I actually realised that after posting my 
last message (or was it before and I forgot when I was posting? Never 
mind). However, if Harry is your plain ordinary common-or-garden 
everyday bog-standard wizard, why did Voldemort want to kill him in 
the first place? I suppose the resistance-to-Avada-Kedavra-spell-in-
development theory kind of covers that. But if Harry is in fact 
perfectly normal and what saved him at age 1 was something his 
parents did, it means his fame and veneration has been entirely 
undeserved...something that could be very messy. Also, if they had a 
defence against AK, why didn't Lily and James use it on themselves as 
well as Harry? It seems unlikely that they would test out an 
experimental charm on their son before anyone else.

The Lily's-death-saved him theory avoids this problem, but it begs 
the question of why the same thing never happened before - people 
must surely have sacrificed themselves to save others in a similar 
way in the past - not to mention why they had to die (James and Harry 
that is, not Lily it seems from Voldemort's words...the male 
bloodline thing leads me to suspect some kind of hereditary thing).

Keith