[HPforGrownups] Powerful Harry/ Gryffindor heir/ Fred and George/ Parents' attitude/

[Richelle Votaw]

No: HPFGUIDX 43086

Okay, lots of "stuff" buried down in here, just keep going, everything in
the subject line is in here somewhere. :)

Phyllis writes:

> So I think if Voldemort truly thought that Harry was more powerful
> without a wand, he would have killed him immediately upon his arrival
> in the graveyard (probably by slitting his throat so he could get
> Harry's blood for the regeneration potion by force - oh, perish the
> thought!).

I write:

Well, besides the fact that it is technically a children's book, and the
middle book in a seven book series, there are a couple of things keeping
Voldemort from slitting Harry's throat.  One being Voldemort *wants* to kill
Harry with the same spell he tried the first time--Avada Kedavra.  It's the
only way he will truly prove to himself as much as to his followers that he
*can* defeat Harry Potter.  Second, for Voldemort to resort to a Muggle
murder weapon would be shaming himself as a wizard.

A couple of other comments about Harry's magical abilities without a wand.
I don't think he's ever thought about it.  It's possible these skills
(probably doing magic with his eyes) can be refined, but right now that
doesn't seem to be an issue.  Ah, that's where McGonagall will come
in--she'll teach Harry to use his eyes to defeat Voldemort.  Okay, so that's
totally off the wall, but as I keep saying, I want her to do something
really good. :)  Second, Voldemort probably doesn't know for certain that
Harry would be more powerful without his wand, but he knows he can't have
much duel training, so it's safer to limit his possibilities.

Phyllis again:

>   I *don't* think Dumbledore is a descendant of
> Gryffindor, however, because I believe Harry is a descendant of
> Gryffindor (as I elaborated in a previous post which explored
> parallels between St. Godric and Harry) and I don't think Dumbledore
> would have left him with those horrible Dursleys if Harry was a
> relative (plus Dumbledore says in SS/PS that the Dursleys are the
> only family Harry has left).

Technically speaking couldn't both Harry and Dumbledore be descended from
Gryffindor yet so far apart that they are not a close enough relation to
count as "family?"  It all depends on the connotation of the word "family."
After all, Dumbledore is a good 135+ years older than Harry.  Say Gryffindor
had two kids.  A and B for convenience sake.  If Dumbledore traced his roots
back to A and Harry to B wouldn't they both be descendents of Gryffindor,
yet not closely related?


> Jenny:
>
> > I don't dislike the twins as much as Elkins does (I'm not betraying
> > you, Elkins!), but they have done things that we wouldn't excuse
> from  someone else.

Me again:

Well, my opinion on Fred and George may not amount to much, but I just find
them down right likeable.  They're rude to people, sure.  But they usually
deserve it!  They're mean sometimes.  Often even.  But 9 times out of 10
they're mischeviousness is aimed at something we'd really like to see happen
anyway.  I can't stand Dudley, so I loved the ton tongue toffee thing.
Draco deserves anything he gets, especially after the GoF comments (End of
year banquet, train).  One thing about the twins is they really do stick up
for Harry.  They seem to know Harry won't go as far as they will with some
stunts, or can't in the case of Dudley, so they do it for him.  It's just
that comment in CoS that really gets me every time:

"They were starving him, Mum!" said George.

They really were looking out for Harry, even without permission (but when do
they wait for permission to do anything?).

However, I am a strong believer that their mischeviousness will at some
point go too far and get one of them killed.  I think not both, though, just
one.

> Alina wrote-
>
> > That reminds me of something my mom said. She hasn't read the
> books, but watched the movie with the rest of the family when I got
> my DVD and here was her reaction to it: "It might be very exciting
> for kids, but a parent can'twatch this calmly."

Me yet again:

That reminds me of something my mother said.  She's seen the movie, but not
read the books (though she's heard a bit more than she cares to from my
ramblings).  Therefore her canon *is* the movie.  Anyway, I was theorizing
aloud about the meanings of a "delicate" Harry, and she jumped in.  She
thought it was quite apparent that he *was* delicate, he was pale after all,
and the Dursleys were so mean to him and didn't feed him right and kept him
locked up and on and on.  <sigh>  Very well, though couldn't that mean
Daniel Radcliffe was pale and not Harry Potter? :)  Anyhow, I think this is
the general reaction fromparents, they tend to worry about Harry rather than
get into the plot.

Richelle