James Potter/the Gleam/wizzard boxing

[grey_wolf_c]

No: HPFGUIDX 42075

On James potter
---------------

Tara wrote:
> I'm not the best at begining posts, so please, excuse that fact! I've
> been reading all your posts, the more recents ones about Harry
> defeating the AK, and Lily using ancient magic.  All of that makes
> sense, yet I'm wondering more why Voldemort was after James.  He was
> intending to kill James as well as Harry, right?  What do we know
> about James' family tree, his history.  I don't think we know
> anything, but maybe we could assume that he is an heir of some sort,
> something passed from father to son?  I'm just talking here, but I'm
> curious as to your input.  Everyone seems so focused on Lily.  
> Voldemort gave her the chance to live, so why do we assume she should
> have any special "powers"?   I do  believe that she must have had
> some other ancestory influence on her *wizarding skills*, however.  I
> just don't know how it all fits in together.  Very much looking
> forward to your thoughts.                       
> 
> Tara

There are two broad views in this matter, basically conflicting. Some 
people believe that Voldemort fears the Potter line, and thus he came 
looking for James and Harry (but not Lily), for some unfanthomable 
reason (this is where most of the theories of the "potter line" 
differ). For example, defenders of the "Gryffindor Heir" theory mantain 
that Voldemort believes that the Gryffindor heir will destroy the 
Slytherin heir, and thus tries to stop it by finishing off the 
Gryffindor line. There is a variety of shacky canon defending this one 
(such as the potters living in at "Godric's Hollow", a "clue" of that 
place being the traditional reasting place of Godric Griffindor).

On the other hand, the other view is that, since JKR has told us 
through Dumbledore that "what's important is not who your parents are 
but what you make of your life" (could someone answering this post 
include the directions to the original phrase? I'm translating from 
memory AND from a non-english edition). It would be strange that 
suddenly JKR contradicted herself and Harry's powers were just the 
result of his blood line (and remeber that the fact that one is a good 
magician does not depend on your bloodline is a theme that crops up 
frecuently on the books).

You also mention Lily as having "some other ancestory influence on her 
*wizarding skills*". This I find most improbable (even if fellow 
listees develop strange and dark theories aout Lily being adopted, the 
putative child of Voldemort, brother to Snape, etc.), since one of the 
particularities of the Gryffindor trinity (Harry, Ron and Hermione) is 
that they are a mudblood, a halfblood and a pureblood (sorry for the 
foul language), and having Lily become a pureblood herself would 
destroy this, which I find very significant.

So, to answer your original question, why James and Harry but not Lily?
The fact is, we don't know. Eruke mentions that V only says that he'll 
spare Lily it out cruelty, but I don't buy it. Someone as cruel as that 
would not have that much patience with a gibbering, hysterical-looking 
woman. My own answer in the Lily theory was that James's studies had 
taken him to experimenting with his son, and that Voldemort feared such 
experiments, but it's also very weak. Hopefully, book five will give a 
few more pieces of the puzzle (if it ever comes out; also, don't expect 
it to give ALL the pieces of the puzzle. it's far too central to give 
the solution so soon. I expect that Voldemort will reveal it, Evil 
overlord-like, in the "final showdown" in book seven).



On the Gleam
------------

Audrey, posting for the first time, said:
> What if Dumbledore's gleam is not because of Voldemort's actions that 
> Harry is relating but because of Voldemort's words?  What if the 
> important thing is that Voldemort still believe's Lily's sacrifice 
> was THE reason Harry survived?  I would have a gleam of triumph too 
> if I had kept my world's greatest enemy obsessing over a red herring 
> (or in this case a red Harry?) <g> for thirteen years.  It would also 
> mean that Snape's cover might hold up.  It might not be easy for him 
> to get back in the good graces but at least it COULD be possible.
> 
> What do you folks think?
> 
> Audrey (who has donned her blindfold and is nervously 
> awaiting, "Ready, Aim, Fire"!)

Very good first post, Audrey! Even if I don't buy it, it's a good 
theory. You just need to search for a bit of canon that will give the 
theory some sort of foundation.

At any rate, I find unlikely that Snape is involved in yet another plot 
point, and I'd imagine that we would've heard something from him or 
from someone else by now. The fact that we haven't takes a great deal 
of punch from the theory. I do like it, though, because it fits with 
some of the basic precepts of one of my pet theories, MAGIC DISHWASHER 
(see below)

Monica said: 
> I was wondering if anyone else has wondered 
> about how Pettigrew will pay Harry back for Harry not letting 
> Sirius and Lupin kill him.

Dembeldei took up the glove and answered:
> I've always surmised that it might be key that Voldemort was 
> resurrected from the combination of Harry's blood and Peter's 
> flesh, not realizing that Peter was in debt to Harry! 
> I am interested in seeing how this plays out (will V. or his magic 
> self combust when it hits this paradox, etc.?)
>Dembeldei

Katzefan explained:
> There was some discussion, quite some time ago, about the 
> paragraph in GoF in which Harry tells Dumbledore about 
> Voldemort's using his blood in the resurrection ceremony.
> Harry says, 'He said the protection my - mother left in me - he'd 
> have it, too. And he was right - he could touch me without hurting 
> himself, he touched my face.' For a fleeting instant, Harry thought 
> he saw a gleam of  something like triumph in Dumbledore's 
> eyes."
> 
> That 'gleam' was interpreted by some as triumph, all right, 
> because Dumbeldore realizes Voldemort has made himself  
> *more* vulnerable because of his use of Harry's blood (I don't 
> recall the explanation as to why this would be).
> 
> But I like Dembeldei's theory that it may be the combination of 
> Harry's blood *and* Peter's flesh that does the trick, although it 
> doesn't really sound like 'payback' on Peter's part unless he's 
> aware that this could cause trouble for Voldie down the road and 
> opts not to say anything (Not that Voldemort sounds like the type 
> to entertain discussion and debate anyway. And I really wouldn't 
> mind seeing him self-combust....)
> 
> Katzefan

In fact, Katze, the discussion about the Gleam has come up several 
times, with plausible reasons every time. I can't even start to 
remember all of them, so I'll just go ahead and rescue my favourite 
from the history of the list (I know some of you will want to kill me 
for bringing up this theory again, but I just like it too much to let 
it fall into the anals of the list).

This theory, named by it's creator, Pipsqueak ("Pip"), "the spygame" 
and acronymed by one of it's detractors "MAGIC DISHWASHER" mantains 
that the gleam in Dumbledore's eyes is of triuph, because Voldemort has 
falled to one of his master plans to bring about his destruction, 
namely the use of a flawed potion consisting of flesh of a *blood-debt- 
bound* servant, a *love-shielded* enemy's blood and a muggle's bone. 
For a detailed explanation of the theory, check messages #39854 (the 
re-cap), #39662 (first half of the theory), #40044 (second half of the 
theory) and #39908 (the flawed potion; search for "smallprint" to find 
it - without the quotes). Oh, just a word of caution if you've never 
heard of this discussion before: it's the longest I've ever seen in the 
lists, so if you want to read all about it, you're going to find it a 
daunting task.


On Wizard Boxing
----------------

Marc revised:
> I agree with you mostly, but I had thought, from the "dueling club" 
> in CoS, that there was a way for 2 people to spar/fight, without the
> use of AK. I'd like to call it "wizard boxing". Here, 2 wizards/
> witches can match skills against one another without the possibility
> of using any dangerous/illegal spells/curses. From what i can gather,
> the only curse that cannot be *learned* to block is AK. 

It's not as easy. As I see it, the three unforgivables are unblockable. 
You can survive the Cruciatus and you can throw off the Imperius, but 
you cannot block any of them. Anyway, see bellow
 
> So, I guess my revised question is, in this "wizard boxing", can
> Harry match skills against the best wizards execpt for Dumbledore/
> Voldemort by book 7? 
> 
> Marc

I think that the final showdown of the books is in fact going to be 
Harry vs. Voldemort, alone, even if he will have gotten there by a 
clever strategy built by Ron on the knowledge of Hermione. At that 
point, Voldemort would be debilitated but not so much that he's not 
more than a match for Harry. To answer your question, though, I do 
believe that Harry will be pretty powerful by them, certainly enough to 
take on Malfoy (Sr or Jr), Pettigrew, etc.

However, I've still got troubles with the boxing idea, since in my 
experience in fantasy books involving magic is that magic duels 
(especially when killer magics are discarded) depend more on luck than 
in anything else. As described by M. Weiss and T. Hickman in "The Death 
Gate Cycle", a duel of of magics depends more on who thinks fastest of 
an attack the other does not think quickly how to stop. Like in a 
football match, luck makes everything uncertain. the best team will not 
always win, although in 100 matches they will win more than they will 
loose. Magic is only more so, since most attcks are just an 
unpredictable game of paper-stone-scissors.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who hopes he's not stoned for bringing MAGIC DISHWASHER back 
once again