Is Harry More Powerful Without a Wand? (WAS: Duel Harry)

[erisedstraeh2002]

No: HPFGUIDX 43015

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:

> The DEs do not need demonstrated that Voldemort can beat Harry in 
> any sort of fair ground. They know that he should be able to do so, 
> they want to know whether the boy is *killable*, not if he's a bad 
> duelist (which is obvious, since he's 14, after all). <snip> There 
> would've been no "lingering doubts" if he had killed Harry 
> immediately while still tied to the gravestone. <snip> If he 
> [Voldemort] wins, he demonstrates nothing: the DEs 
> already know that he can beat everyone but Dumbledore. <snip> Thus, 
> Voldemort wasn't trying to demonstrate that he's still the best 
> duelist in the WW.

Now me:

I didn't intend to suggest that Voldemort was trying to prove that 
he's the best duelist in the wizarding world.  What I'm trying to 
argue is that Voldemort had a need to prove, in front of his Death 
Eaters, that he could kill Harry Potter fair and square, so there 
would be no "lingering doubt" among his DEs as to "which of us is the 
stronger" (GoF p. 658).  I think this is a combination of Voldemort's 
overinflated ego as well as a need to redeem himself in front of his 
followers.  Most of his followers, after all, claimed they'd been 
Imperio'd after Voldemort's fall from power. 

I don't agree that the DEs already know he can beat everyone but 
Dumbledore.  Everyone refers to Harry Potter as 
Voldemort's "downfall," including Voldemort himself "You know, of 
course, that they have called this boy my downfall" (GoF p. 652).  I 
think Voldemort now needs to prove that he is stronger than Harry by 
killing Harry on a level playing field to restore his DE power base.  
This also explains why he consistently doesn't allow the DEs to kill 
Harry: "Stand aside!  I will kill him!  He is mine!" (GoF p. 669), 
even when the DEs are in a better position to kill Harry.

This isn't the only way Voldemort is trying to restore his power 
base.  He's also using fear, control, intimidation, guilt and pain.  
Examples:  he lets Wormtail writhe in pain for awhile before he 
restores his hand.  He hits Avery with the Crucatius curse.  He 
guilts the DEs about running from the Dark Mark at the Quidditch 
World Cup.  He tells the DEs:  "I do not forgive, I do not forget.  
Thirteen long years...I want thirteen years' repayment before I 
forgive you" (GoF p. 649).

Grey Wolf again:

> <snip> and yet Voldemort played with Harry. You could say it was 
> out of cruelty, but then why did he stop where he did? Harry was 
> still standing and the game was still fun.  

Now me:

Every time Voldemort hits Harry with a successful curse/spell 
(Crucatius, the spine-bender), the text indicates that the DEs 
laugh.  This is what Voldemort wants - this is all part of his 
redemption in front of his DEs, his proving of his power, his way of 
ensuring that the DEs will be loyal followers this time.  Note that 
when Harry resists the Imperius curse, the DE's do *not* laugh.  I 
truly do not believe Voldemort planned this or was expecting Harry to 
resist it.  Granted, he doesn't show surprise, but to show surprise 
would be admitting defeat, and his aim is to impress the DEs with his 
power.  Then Voldemort tries another Crucatius and Harry ducks it 
behind a gravestone.  This also makes Voldemort look bad.  Voldemort 
then concludes that, since this game is no longer going the way he 
wants it to go, he'll get right down to the business at hand and 
throw the AK.

Grey Wolf:

> so the first thing he does is anulate all his innate, unfocused 
> magic by putting a wand in his hand, thus making him think in 
> spells instead of having him use that magics that have saved him 
> several times so far. 

Me again:

I went back and read the Comic Relief interview again, and as 
Porphyria points out, JKR mentions Harry specifically by referencing 
the Aunt Marge inflation incident as an example of unfocused, 
uncontrolled magic.  So perhaps she was just thinking of Harry when 
she made the comment, since we know there are other instances of 
wandless magic performed by others.  And the examples I can think of 
for when Harry does such wandless magic - the vanishing glass in the 
zoo, Aunt Marge's inflation and exploding glass - are when he is 
angry.  He's not angry in the graveyard, he's scared for his life.  
Moreover, even Harry admits that, when Aunt Marge's glass explodes in 
PoA, he "hasn't lost control like that in awhile."  IMO, out-of-
control magic is not as powerful as controlled magic.

Grey Wolf:

> This is not the work of an evil overlord, it's the work of an 
> extremelly careful planner, one that has examined step by step his 
> movements that night and which has planned almost every possible 
> problem. 

Me again:

Why do the two need to be mutually exclusive?  I agree that Voldemort 
is an extremely careful planner.  But I don't think that everything 
always goes according to his plans (such as when Harry resists the 
Imperius and dodges the Cruciatus).
 
~Phyllis