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

[Keith Fraser]

No: HPFGUIDX 10518

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, "Kimberly " <moongirlk at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, "Dai Evans" <dwe199 at s...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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

OK, me again. I read the bit on the themes, and you're quite right. 
Lord of the Rings is like this - the little hobbits overcome the 
seemingly invincible Dark Lord. However, the questions like 'then how 
did he survive?' and 'why did he have to die?' still stand. Also 
heroic hopeless last stands are all very well, but there needs to be 
some way to beat the bad guy (eg the possession of the Ring to chuck 
into Mount Doom in Lord of the Rings). Having him fall down a pit by 
pure dumb luck just doesn't work.

Actually I just thought of something curious - why hasn't Harry, son 
of two of the best students at Hogwarts in recent years, shown signs 
of being a brilliant student like them? Academically he seems a 
fairly ordinary Joe, even if he is superb at Quidditch. I certainly 
don't see him being able to become an Animagus at age 15. I think 
I'll put up a new post about this...

Keith