[HPforGrownups] Percy as Traitor?/ Harry's power

[Richelle Votaw]

No: HPFGUIDX 43004



> > Gina writes:
> >
> > > "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," said
> > > Hermione severely.
> > >
> > > "I don't know," said Ron.  "If he thought we were standing in the
> > way
> > > of his career... Percy's really ambitious, you know..."

Oh, if this turns out to be true it could also point to the "Ron is a Seer"
theory.

Jackie writes:

> Personally, I don't think that Percy will be *Ever-so-Evil*, but he may
> inadvertently help out Voldemort by siding with Fudge and not taking
> any action. Or, an even more interesting scenario: If Fudge turns out
> to be *Ever-so-Evil* but masks this with the "all-for-the-best" guise,
> Percy may side with him without thinking/realising that he is really
> siding with Voldemort. Of course, Percy could turn out to be sadistic
> and cruel, but I don't think we've seen evidence for that side of him -
> just that he's power hungry.

To elaborate a little more on my thoughts of Percy's future, I think that he
will side with Fudge and perhaps inadvertantly betray his family, or perhaps
intentionally.  As for Azkaban, I doubt there will be an Azkaban by the end
of book 5.  At least not in the current state with dementors and all.
Anyway, back to Percy, if Fudge does turn out evil and Percy has
"accidentally" sided with Voldemort, he could snap out of it at the last
possible moment with an "Oh, no, what have I done!" kind of realization.
Which makes a case for Percy dying.  I'm really not trying to kill all the
Weasleys off (though I seem to have made a case for pretty much everyone),
but there's just so many of them!  With JKR's comments "I know all of them
who are going to die."  and  "I'm definitely killing people I love, yeah.
It's horrible isn't it?  It is actually."  and "There's worse coming [after
Book 4 and Cedric's death]."  and "There are reasons for the deaths in each
case, in terms of the story.  So that's why I'm doing it." those definitely
make me think the odds are against all the Weasleys surviving, what with
nine of them.  Oh, say, that's it!  A Weasley falls, the "fellowship" is
broken and everything falls apart.  Just kidding, couldn't help throw out
the Tolkien connection.

Now, on to other things.  In regards to Harry's powers:

 Phyllis writes:

> This concurs with yet another interview in which JKR said that
> Harry "*without anyone really noticing it* is becoming exceptionally
> good at Defense Against the Dark Arts.  So that's the one area in
> which, almost instinctively, he is particularly talented.  Apart from
> Quidditch."

And I would think it is without even Harry noticing that he is becoming good
at DADA.  He has had a little extra tutoring.  Lupin and the Patronus for
example.  Plus Moody/Crouch and the Imperius.  Which still blows my mind why
Voldemort's most faithful servant would want to teach Harry to resist an
Imperius curse.  Why on earth?  Of course he didn't know Harry would
instinctively resist it, but once he found out he didn't stop until Harry
could resist it completely.  Perhaps he was just toying with Harry, trying
to see what he was made of?

Anyway, I think it all boils down to Harry's instincts.  The imperius curse
is one example, his mastering the Patronus another.  Of course, few wizards
had such a close encounter with the very darkest of dark arts at the tender
age of 15 months.

Phyllis again:

> Which leads me to ask:  How would Voldemort *know* that Harry would
> be more powerful without a wand?

Ah, well, that all depends on how much of his unfocused magic Harry told Ron
about.  We know for certain he knows about the Aunt Marge incident.  And
what Harry tells Ron more often than not Scabbers overheard.  And what
Scabbers heard, Voldemort now knows. I'm sure Harry and Ron talk a lot more
than just what we read about, so there's plenty of opportunity for Scabbers
to overhear things.  I'm sure he stored up everything he heard about Harry
Potter--just in case.

Richelle