[HPforGrownups] Re: Life-debts/ Fidelius charm?/ Snape and Quirrell

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 42342

Inge:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote:
> > No, the life-debt thing is mentioned by Dumbledore more directly in 
> PoA after 
> > Harry regrets sparing Pettigrew's life:
> > 
> > "Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy 
> who is in 
> > your debt. When one wizard saves another wizard's life it creates a 
> certain 
> > bond between them... and I'm much mistaken if Voldemort wants his 
> servant in 
> > the debt of Harry Potter."
> > 
> > (PoA, p310, UK paperback)
> > 
> > I think it is in the light of this that many of us read back 
> Dumbledore's 
> > words about Snape to imply that he owes a life-debt to James.
> > 
> > Eloise
> 
> 
> There is a difference between *saving someone's life* and *sparing 
> someone's life (when you had reason to kill this person but chose not 
> to)*
> Maybe the life debt has to do only with the latter?

Eloise:
Could be.
But in neither case was the person to whom the debt is supposed to be owed 
actually going to harm the other person *themselves*.
James prevented Snape from falling into Sirius' trap and Harry prevented 
Sirius and Lupin from killing Pettigrew, so I would say the situations were 
pretty similar.

I think it is useful to question this concept, though. As long as I've been a 
member of this group, it has just been accepted that life-debts exist and 
Corinth has pointed out the paucity of  canonical basis for this belief. 
Perhaps we have read too much into it. But with honour being seemingly a big 
wizard thing and things like the binding magical contract that Harry finds 
himself under by dint of his name coming out of the Goblet of Fire, it 
wouldn't seem at all surprising if having one's life saved *did* put one 
under a magical obligation to one's saviour.

.............................
Christy:
>   I personally agree with Aloha.  I believe that the Fidelius charm would 
>hide the Potters only from people with evil intent.  In PoA Flitwick tells 
>Madam Rosmerta, "As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know->
Who could search the village  where Lily and James were staying for years and 

>never find them."  Now why did he specifically mention Voldemort?    For 
>example, why not say "anyone could search the village..."   

Eloise:
Because it's in the context of a conversation about Voldemort murdering the 
Potters. Also because, as mentioned in that conversation, Dumbledore had 
information that Voldemort was after them.

Christy:
As for the part of keeping those who do know from revealing the location, 
Flitwick says that the _secret keeper_ has to keep quiet, which leads me to 
the assumption that ONLY the secret keeper can show the way to the house.  
Even if Voldemort saw 
Black or someone else going to the village, he would STILL  not be able to 
see the Potters.  

Eloise:
Unquestionably.

Christy:
What I don't understand is if Black was so worried about 
Voldemort finding the Potters that he convinced them to switch, why choose 
Peter, why not go back to the original plan and choose Dumbledore?

Eloise:
Nor do I, really, beyond the fact that Pettigrew would obviously be the last 
one to be suspected, so there would be some added safety in choosing the last 
one likely to be murdered/tortured to break the charm. I can't think that it 
was to protect Dumbledore in the event of the unknown mole divulging that 
*he* was the secret-keeper, as Dumbledore must have been a prime target, 
anyway.

.................
BTW, I have noticed a number of posts recently regarding Snape and Quirrell 
and questioning whether Snape is able to go back to his role as spy.
Very recently, Porphyria wrote a comprehensive review of all the evidence 
regarding this question (post #41072). I do recommend people to read it.

Eloise
Wishing she'd stayed on holiday.

> 
> 



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