[HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's abilities/Hagrid as Reliable Source

[Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 10609

Hi --

John Walton wrote:

> I have to disagree here, Penny. Canonically speaking, I can't see that
> Hagrid's statement makes much difference, one way or the other. Essentially,
> as much as we love him, poor old Hagrid has been kept out of the loop on
> things -- we see this most particularly in PoA and GoF. My guess would be that
> Hagrid (and most of the wizarding community) didn't know about the old
> magic that Dumbledore knows about, and so assumed that it's something about
> Harry.

I wasn't necessarily touting Hagrid as a reliable source per se -- he's not
always reliable as we've seen.  But, my point is that the general perception
amongst the wizarding community is that Harry is special.  Voldemort couldn't
kill him because of his mother's sacrifice.  But, there's a reason that the
curse rebounded on Voldemort, and I still think it has something to do with
Harry specifically.  And, he's showing more & more uniqueness and innate powers
as the series progresses (resisting the Imperius Curse for example).

And, I still just don't buy the notion that Harry was the first innocent
defenseless victim that Voldemort killed.  What about all those muggles that he
supposedly killed?  They are surely just as or more defenseless in the face of a
magical attack.  Harry also can't have been the only infant targeted by
Voldemort.  If you say that, you definitely discount the slaughter of many
amongst that generation of babies (King Herod arguments tossed around last week
or so).  So, you'd be back to the Student Numbers problem.

As for the old magic that Dumbledore knows about -- that's just protecting Harry
while he's at or under the care of the Dursleys though.  It had nothing whatever
to do with what saved him or what caused the curse to rebound on Voldemort.
Right?  At least as far as we know, it doesn't ....

Penny (who thinks she must be missing something fundamental about this debate
....)