Voldemorts Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack

[marinafrants]

No: HPFGUIDX 39738

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> Marina wrote:
> > That doesn't make sense to me.  If Dumbledore could engineer it so
> > that Voldemort had only one resurrection option left, then why not
> > take that final step and remove the last option, too?  That would
> > leave Voldemort with no resurrection options at all and solve
> > everybody's problems.  (Well, except Voldemort's, obviously.)
> 
> See your own #1 condition: Dumbledore couldn't risk having Voldemort 
> use another resurrection option. We know from PS that there are many 
> avilable. They must difere in quality, easiness, speed, amount of
power 
> restored and a few other variables, but they could all restore a
dying 
> man's body. 

That's my point.  The theory you and Pip are backing has a major
internal contradiction in it. Either Dumbledore can arrange matters to
leave Voldemort with only one resurrection option, or he can't.  If he
can, then there's nothing stopping him from removing that last option
and leaving Voldemort unresurrected.  If he can't, then his whole plan
depends on random chance, since he has no way of controlling which
option Voldemort chooses.  You can't have it both ways.

The idea that Snape must've provided the resurrection spell because
it's a potion is specious.  Snape is neither the only nor the first
potions expert in the WW.  Voldemort is half a century older than
Snape, was the most brilliant student at Hogwarts in his day, and has
devoted his life to the study of immortality and resurrection.  He
doesn't need some 35-year-old pipsqueak to teach him potions, no
matter how competent that pipsqueak might be.  And for Snape to
provide the spell we would have to assume that sometime during PoA
Wormtail resumed his human form, approached Snape and got the spell
from him -- a huge assumption with not a shred of canonical backing to
support it.

> Dumbledore is forcefully seeking this one: he leaves a big, great
exit 
> door with neon-pink flashing lights on top saying "Follow me", 

He does?  Where?  We don't see Dumbledore do a single thing at any
point that would serve to point Voldemort toward using blood of the
enemy to resurrect himself.


> This four conditions get down to "Harry will survive", which (in my 
> theory, derived from Pip's) gets a neat True/False answer: Harry
isn't 
> needed for Dumbledore's plan to defeat Voldemort. If he's killed, 
> more's the pity, but it's a sacrifice to be done to defeat
Voldemort. 

Oh, so all that "Boy Who Lived" crap we've been getting for four books
is just a smokescreen?  Harry is really no more important to the great
scheme of things than Dennis Creevey?  In that case, what was the deal
with the ending of PS/SS?  Harry (and we) have been led to believe
that Dumbledore allowed events to happen as they did in order to
prepare Harry to fight against Voldemort.  But under your version, the
whole thing becomes just a pointless exercise in sadism on
Dumbledore's part, since there's no need for Harry to fight Voldemort
at all -- Dumbledore already has a method of defeating Voldemort, a
method to which Harry is utterly irrelevant.  In fact, there's no need
to bother with Harry at all -- no need to guide his choices, to
protect him, to train him, to spend any time on him at all.  Harry's
just another spare, no different from Cedric, and no one wasted any
time teaching Cedric how to stand up to Voldemort, did they?


> This definetely agrees with Dumbledore the Grey figure.

Still looks like Dumbledore the Lime Green to me.  (I have arbitrarily
decided that lime green is the color of stupidity.)


> If you look at it the way I have exposed it, you'll see that, in
fact, 
> there is only one variable: 

Yeah, if I look at it in a way that ignores four books' worth of
canon, it makes perfect sense. :-)

> Voldemort deciding to use another formula, 
> and even that has been controlled by Dumbledore since the very first 
> book. 

No, it hasn't.  Dumbledore destroyed the Stone, yes.  But unless the
stone was the *only* other resurrection method besides the potion,
Dumbledore is still in the same fix.  And if the Stone *was* the only
other way, then we're back to my original objection -- why not prevent
Voldemort from using the potion and leave him disembodied?

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com