Harry's Putative Death

[bboy_mn]

No: HPFGUIDX 42124

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" <bard7696 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" <rvotaw at i...> wrote:
> Richelle wrote in responce to bboy_mn: 
> 
> 
> Anyway, Dumbledore says of Nicolas and his wife "They have enough
> Elixir stored to set their affairs in order."  Which means that the 
> Elixir can still exist after the stone was destroyed, only cannot 
> be further produced.  Could this in fact mean that Dumbledore also 
> has some Elixir stored?  Possibly to experiment with or perhaps for 
> a "just in case" time should one ever arise.  So I believe it is 
> conceivable that Dumbledore could have a little Elixir hidden in that 
> wondrous place of his.
> 

Darrin in reponce to Richelle:
> 
> Does the Elixir actually resurrect? We know it extends life. We know 
> it can heal someone on the edge of death or else Voldemort wouldn't 
> have wanted it.
> 
> But does it actually resurrect someone who is dead? If it does, 
> great, but if it doesn't, then the theory doesn't work.
> 
> Now, on to the theory itself.
> 
> I realize that the popular sentiment will be to have Harry live, but 
> I really don't want to see some grand sacrifice undone by a few drops 
> of liquid. Either it's a sacrifice or it isn't.
> 
> This is the same reason I don't like the theory about Snape or D-Dore 
> or anyone else being behind the spell that saved Harry when he was a 
> baby. It undercuts Lily's sacrifice. 
> 
> Considering the debate about the lack of strong female characters we 
> had a while back, I would think critics of the female characters 
> would not want to see one of the most powerful acts by a female 
> character turn out to be the work of a man.
> 
> Darrin
> -- The Hidden Elixir would be a great name for a band.

bboy_mn comments:

This gets back to the statement that 'there is dying, then again there
is dying. The two not necessarily being the same'.

How dead is dead? How dead does Harry have to be for Voldemort to die?
Or, how dead does Harry have to be for Voldemort to be vulnerable? 

People die all the time and are brought back to life. Again, that
statement depends on how you define death. So it is possible for Harry
to die by some definition, in a way that allows Voldemort to be
destroyed. That is, as an unrealistic example, Dumbledore could
paralyse Harry, paralysis = no heart/no lunds = dead. During this
time, Voldemort might be extremely vulnerable. He get's killed, they
wake Harry up, and all have a laugh over tea about how they played
Voldemort for a fool.

More realistic, we know Harry has some protection; special protection.
My take on it is that is ability to survive a death curse lasted for
about 30 seconds after his mother made the sacrific. Certainly, he
carries some residual protection as we saw in the PS/SS. But let's
remember that Harry came close to dying in the chamber with the Mirror
of Erised. Dumbledore says he was afraid he might have been too late.
Of course, he wasn't actually being hit with a death curse. The
illustration is that he has residual protection, but is not immortal.
I seriously doubt that Harry can go around letting people hit him with
death curses at parties, just so he can entertain people by surviving.
If he's hit with a death curse now, he's dead.

So to my point, he still has some residual protection, and NOW we know
the death curse can be protected against; it is survivable. So if
Dumbledore, plans additional protection in advance, he may be able to
prepare Harry to die (by some definition) from Voldemort's death
curse, but have these advanced protections prevent him from dying
irrevocably.

For example, the Exlier of Life makes you immortal for as long as you
take it. What if you take it before you step in front of a death
curse? You are immortal and hit with a death curse. Which one wins;
death or immortality? Perhaps they both win. Have you ever seen the
'Highlander', about a Scottish immortal Duncan McLoud? He dies all the
time, and a few minutes later, his immortality kicks in and he wakes
up. During the time he is dead, he is really dead, but he still comes
back to life. 

So, I can foresee a circumstrance where through a calculated effort,
Harry is allowed to die, in order to make Voldemort vulnerable to
death, and then Harry is revived not by a miracle, but by calculated
intent.

Now they may not put all the pieces together until the seventh book,
and I can concieve that it may be a deep secret. Harry may not even
know about it. He may have tea with Dumbledore just before he faces
Voldemort for that last time. The tea, unknown to Harry, containing
the elixer of life. If it's a secret, that leaves room for other
characters to sacrifice themselves for Harry, not knowing he is
protected, although, by sacrificing themselves for love, they increase
his protection.

So I can come up with a lot of scenarios in which death and
resurection can occur. 

Now that it has been pointed out, it does seem odd that something as
important as the Elixer of Life and the Stone, dominated the first
story and were never heard from again. On another related note, Flamel
is 'getting his affairs in order'. To a 700 year old man, how long
does it take. To Flamel, a decade is nothing in time. Ten years to
Flamel is  1.5% of his lifetime; it's 12.5% of our lifetime. Flamel is
still alive as far as I'm concerned and that means there is still
Elixer of Life available. 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

bboy_mn