Average Harry -- Harry & Hermione Potential Conflict

[Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 18923

Hi --

Attempting to read & reply to emails whilst holding colicky baby in
front carrier ....<g>

Have to come to Ebony's aid since we are in the distinct minority ...

Amy Z wrote:

> For my part, I don't for a moment think that Harry can't be hurt by
> Voldemort.  I think if V had skipped the duelling drama and just cut
> Harry's throat while he had him bound to the tombstone, that would
> have been the end of the story.  To some extent, Voldemort is
> right-Harry has escaped him through luck.  But not only luck:  also
> through Lily's sacrifice and, in later encounters, Harry's own
> strength of character (cf our discussion on why Harry's wand forced
> Voldemort's to regurgitate its spells and not the other way around).
> It's =possible= that from his birth there has been something about
> Harry that makes it inherently impossible for Voldemort to kill him,
> but I doubt it.
>
I don't think Harry is immortal.  In SS/PS, CoS & GoF, he escaped
Voldemort for a combination of reasons (luck, strength of character,
deux ex machina (Fawkes), timing (poor on Voldy's part), etc.).  But,
what about when he was an infant -- the "Boy Who Lived"?  Luck?
Strength of character?  Lily's sacrifice?  In my mind, there has to be
more to this than luck or Lily's sacrifice.

First, it defies logic that she is the *only* mother in Voldy War I to
have died trying to protect her child.  That just doesn't make sense to
me.  We know that Arthur Weasley says that a witch or wizard dreaded
coming home to find the Dark Mark hovering over his house ... strong
implication that many families (families with *children*) were killed in
that first War.

Second, we know from Dumbledore that Voldemort (Quirrell) couldn't touch
Harry in PS/SS because of the layer of protection given to him by his
mother's sacrifice.  But, the layer of protection is not necessarily an
explanation for why Voldemort's AK spell *rebounded* on Voldemort,
zapping him of his powers.  To me, it makes sense that her sacrifice
could have prevented Voldemort from harming her infant son -- that's the
protection.  But, Harry didn't just survive.  He dispatched Voldemort
too.  I know Hagrid isn't a very reliable source, but I still think back
to his observation that there was something about Harry that Voldy
hadn't counted on.  "There's something about Harry" ....

I think there was something about infant Harry that was special.  I
think child/adolescent Harry remains special.  We the readers are shown
in GoF that not only is Ron unusually susceptible to the Imperius Curse,
but we are also shown that Harry is unusually adept at shaking it off.
Yes, he has faults, weaknesses and is unmistakeably human (and not
immortal).  But, he does seem to have some rare or unusual talents.  I
don't necessarily mean he's special as in Superhuman (or un-human) in
the vein of Superman (or the Magid/Mage powers that Lori & Cassie have
bestowed him with in fanfic).  But, I do think Harry has stronger than
average innate magical abilities, and I don't have a problem imagining
that he has a destiny.

> If Harry is triumphant it will be not because he was destined to be
> so ("the stars have been read wrongly before now," after all) but
> because of what he chose to make of his considerable talents.
>
I don't think he is destined to be triumphant.  I think he could be
destined to be a threat, and it will be his choices (combined with using
his strengths and overcoming his weaknesses) that will determine the
final outcome.  I don't discount the argument that a strong theme within
the books has to do with the choices and the ability of a person to
shape his/her own moral development & character through good or bad
choices.  But, as Ebony noted, one can have a destiny & still have
choices.

> Ebony said:
> In each book, Harry finds out something new about himself... much of which
> is setting him apart from his peers.  That, coupled with his experiences,
> just may make for increased alienation in future books... the quiet
> denouement of GoF comes to mind.
>
I think we will see more & more of Harry distancing himself from others
-- yes, even Ron & Hermione.  He's bound to realize that his friendship
with them (and his relationships with others such as Hagrid, Sirius,
Lupin) put them at risk.  Which brings me to ...

Amber wrote:

> I'd be interested to see what Harry and Hermione would come to blows
> over, though...
>
Hermione isn't going to like Harry distancing himself from them (neither
will Ron ... but I can forsee Hermione being more vocal & stubborn about
it than Ron).  I see this as a potential source of conflict in that
relationship.  OR, if you don't like that one --

There's always my favorite: FITD (it's in the VFAQs document in the
Files area for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about).
Yes, FITD.  That could well drive a wedge between Harry & Hermione (not
a permanent wedge mind you ...).

Of course, it goes without saying that *I* don't see the potential for
any long-term conflict between Harry & Hermione.  They're just too darn
compatible.  <g>

Catherine just wrote:

> They already have!  Harry was furious with Hermione because she tells
> Professor McGonagall about her suspicions re: the Firebolt.  He and
> Ron treat her badly over the rest of the Christmas holidays, and we
> don't see Harry actually talking to her again until the Firebolt is
> returned.
>
Well, but my impression is that Ron is more furious with Hermione over
this than Harry, even though Harry is the aggrieved party.  IIRC, this
incident sort of overlaps with the Crookshanks/Scabbers episode too.  I
think Harry realizes fairly early on that she was only looking out for
his best interests, but he *is* very passive about making amends with
her until he actually has the Firebolt back in hand.

Penny



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