Harry saved from AK by his mother

[finwitch]

No: HPFGUIDX 42086

Audrey wrote:
 
> I have always felt that there was more to Harry's survival than a 
> simple case of "mother's sacrifice".  If that was all it took to 
> protect a loved one then certainly Harry's case would not be as 
> unique as it apparently is.  In the well documented history of the 
> Wizarding World there would have to have been at least a few other 
> examples of people protected by the ultimate sacrifice of someone 
> else, be it parent, spouse, etc.  I'm not saying that Lily's 
> sacrifice didn't contribute to Harry's survival but I don't believe 
> it was the only factor.

Why not? In several fairy tales & fantasy stories love conquers all 
magic, that love is strongest magic there is.
And the kind when one's willing to give one's life without hesitation 
or question is the greatest love of all.

I'm sure the other parents loved their offspring but they're living 
in somewhat middle-age culture. All might not even value the idea of 
sacrifising themselves for their children. (I'm pretty sure Malfoys 
don't). It is a question of values.

> If we then think about what the other contributing factor(s) may 
be, 
> I see two possibilities:
> 
> 1) There is something about Harry that we don't have knowledge of 
yet 
> that gave him the personal power to protect himself.  Many threads 
> have discussed the theory that Harry may be the heir of 
Gryffindor.  
> The only thing we know for certain at this point is that there is 
> something about Harry that made Voldemort feel threatened, so 
> threatened that he felt he had to kill a one year old baby.  

Well there was something - but it might be just a prophecy of Harry 
overcoming him.
 
> Personally, while I believe that Harry is the lucky recipient of a 
> great set of genes, I agree with Dumbledore's comment that what we 
> become is more important than what we are born.  This leads to my 
> second possibility, which is the one I prefer to believe.

Except that magic does not relate to genes like that! Look at 
Hermione or Lily. Or Voldemort - a half-muggle. Slytherins believe 
in 'pureblood' and what not, but it obviously doesn't held true. I 
don't think blood-line will be of any importance.
 
> 2) There was someone else involved in protecting Harry that night.  
> Dumbledore may be the only wizard that Voldemort actively fears but 
> that doesn't mean there aren't others that are powerful enough to 
be 
> a problem to him, especially if they catch him unawares.  My choice 
> would be Snape.  He knew more curses at the age of 11 than most of 
> the 7th year students did.  How much of a stretch would it be to 
> think he had some exposure to the "ancient magic" also?

He might.
 
> We know that he was spying for Dumbledore and had a life-debt that 
he 
> owed to James.  We know that someone warned the Potters that their 
> lives were in danger.  We know that Snape did something that 
> convinced Dumbledore beyond a doubt of Snape's trustworthiness.  
What 
> if that something was saving Harry and almost destroying Voldemort 
in 
> the process?  

Snape might have destroyed Voldemort - finally. Only Harry got V 
first. That would explain Snape's treatment of Harry - this boy did 
in few seconds, before the age of two, something that made all his 
careful planning etc. to be in vain! He envies it, obviously. He 
wants the attention and glory as much as Harry doesn't want it...

> Now for my theory (Woo-Hoo, here it is everybody back now!)
> 
> Consider this scenario.  Snape is spying for Dumbledore and gets 
word 
> that the Potters are targets.  Snape reports this fact and the 
> Potters go into hiding.  Then Snape gets word that the secret is 
out 
> and Voldemort is on his way to Godric's Hollow.  Snape is in a 
> quandary.  He has the life-debt obligation to worry about but also 
> his cover as a spy.  Life-debt obligation wins out and he goes to 
> save the Potters but arrives too late to save James and Lily.  In 
> fact he arrives just in time to work some ancient magic that, in 
> combination with Lily's sacrifice, is enough to save Harry and 
> reflect the curse on Voldemort.  The house is destroyed but is 
> Voldemort? Nobody knows at that moment and Snape doesn't dare stick 
> around in case the Death-Eaters show up trying to find their 
master.  
> He returns to Dumbledore to find out that Hagrid has been sent to 
the 
> Potters and, miracle of miracles, has pulled baby Harry from the 
> wreckage alive.  

Snape destroyed the house, then? Or maybe Harry did - without knowing 
what he was doing, of course (which is why Dursleys don't leave him 
alone in the house...). Just one point - if Snape had been there, he 
would have known about Sirius Black NOT being the Secret-Keeper, 
which he obviously did not know - not until the end of GoF (or why 
all the fuss in the shack? Attack against Black? Just grudge against 
Black? It's a bit too much... If Snape knew, Shrieking Shack in PoA 
doesn't fit in!)
 
> Now what to do?  (This is where my thoughts turn to Dumbledore as a 
> quasi-manipulator)  Dumbledore doesn't know for certain where 
> Voldemort is or what his condition is.  This would be the first 
piece 
> of information that needs to be ascertained.  The people most 
likely 
> to know are the Death-Eaters so off goes Snape gathering 
information 
> again.  Of course no one can know of Snape's participation in the 
> events at Godric's Hollow so baby Harry, the innocent bystander, 
> becomes UrbanLegend Harry, the Boy Who Lived.  

Lots of people knew within 24 hours. Hagrid knew - that's why he 
arrived to Godric's Hollow. Owls flying around, possibly fire-place 
talk, too. EVERY DE knew. (Including former DEs like Snape, due to 
that mark!) Would they not tell? Would they not go immediately to 
authorities to save their skins? They acted first because they *knew* 
first! Others only heard rumors and had to think twice... until too 
many knew. I think some House-elf might have been there - like Dobby -
who lost not only most of the family, but also the house... 

> Dumbledore turns Harry over to the Dursley's to protect him 
> emotionally from the trauma of growing up famous and physically 
from 
> any revenge by Voldemort or the Death-Eaters.  This distancing from 
> the Wizarding World only reinforces the legend as time goes by.  
> By the time Dumbledore has a grip on Voldemorts whereabouts and the 
> rest of the Death-Eaters have been arrested or run back to the side 
> of the good screaming "Imperious" no one would believe Snape if the 
> truth were told.  Urban legends are like that.  Dumbledore isn't 
> going to let the kneazle out of the bag because he knows Voldemort 
> isn't completely gone and it always pays to have a Snape up your 
> sleeve.
> 
> So what do we have by the time Harry enters Hogwarts?  We have 
> BitterSnape who was and still is an ambitious man with dreams of 
the 
> Order of Merlin dancing in his head, who is responsible for 
defeating 
> the greatest dark wizard of the century, and can't even take credit 
> for it.    

Nice-- but I don't buy it.
 
> We have Dumbledore who trusts Snape implicitly because, when it 
> really mattered, Snape chose the side of good and, even though 
> recognition has been what he has always wanted, has lived without 
the 
> recognition he deserves for all these years.  Maybe not happily, 
all 
> the references to the "famous Harry Potter" show that, but he has 
> lived with it.

Could be-- but Harry does remember that night - and he did not see 
Snape there!
 
> Perhaps most importantly, we have a villain who has spent 10 years 
> obsessing about the boy who beat him.  We see this in SS/PS, why 
> would Quirrelmort take the risk of exposing himself by trying to 
kill 
> Harry at the Quidditch game?  Why, at the end when Harry had the 
> stone in his pocket, did Quirrelmort attack him physically and not 
> just "Accio" the stone from him?  The reason is one of the oldest 
> motivating forces in literature, simple revenge.

Because it couldn't be accioed. I'm sure there are some limits to it! 
Like that you must have touched the thing (or something akin to it) 
before. The Philosopher's stone was unicue and none but it's 
creators - Flamel and Dumbledore - and Harry had ever touched it.
 
> We see the same thing in GoF.  Voldemort could use any enemies' 
blood 
> but, no, it has to be Harry's.  Granted Voldemort has a couple of 
> other thoughts, namely he believes he will get extra protection 
from 
> Harry's blood and that he will prove to the Death-Eaters that Harry 
> is beatable but it probably would have been better strategically to 
> regain his body quietly and get his forces in order.  Voldemort 
can't 
> see the forest for the trees anymore and I am sure Dumbledore is 
> counting on this.
> 
> A lot of mention has been made of the triumphant gleam in 
> Dumbledore's eyes that is mentioned near the end of GoF
> 
>   ""He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used 
> someone else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said the protection my -
 
> 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." (GoF, US paperback edition page 
> 696)
> 
> 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.

He can't get back. He's the 'one who has left me for ever. We will 
kill him, of course.' That gleam -- yes, it means that Voldemort was 
misktaken *somehow* about the protection - like that it's in soul and 
not in blood... or that Harry had worn it out when fighting Quirrell? 
The fact that Voldemort is now *mortal* is also a victory worth a 
short gleam by itself. That it had to be Harry's blood told 
Dumbledore something about Harry - and Voldemort. He has bone of his 
father (whom he hated and who hated him), flesh of his servant(who is 
in life-debt to Harry) and Blood of his enemy, forcibly taken. 
(Interesting: which part is loving Voldemort?)

*Harry Potter* is Voldemort's enemy - and one Voldemort considers his 
*worthiest* enemy. That is no small matter.
Harry had escaped *without* his mother's extra protection and knowing 
he didn't have it. Point two for Harry - courage and defiance against 
a powerful wizard.
Three: Harry nearly did it again and alone at that! What can he do 
when he has his friends and supporters nearby?

All this not worth a gleam?

Finwitch