[HPforGrownups] Re: Spying game/ Vodemort's resurrection/ Animagi

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 39790

Yikes! So many great posts flying around and so little time to comment!

I wrote most of this yesterday, but didn't have time to complete it. Since 
then, loads more posts have appeared. I already feel like Alice when she 
meets the Red Queen, having to run faster and faster merely to stay in the 
same place and if I take the time to read the rest before posting this, it's 
only going to get worse! ;-)

The long and the short of which is....Sorry if I'm repeating stuff which 
other people have already said or which is really stupid in the light of more 
recent posts.

.......................
Let's start with this from Marina on the vexed question of animagi and their 
ability to retain (or not) their mental faculties:

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" <Zarleycat at a...> wrote:
> > > Yeah, but we know that's not true.  Reeta Skeeter turns into a 
> > > beetle and flies around all over the place while retaining 
> enough 
> > > human intelligence to eavesdrop on conversations and remember 
> them 
> > > well enough to write them down later. She certainly has no 
> problems 
> > > remembering where she wants to go as a beetle. My theory is that 
> > the 
> > > guy who wrote QTA may have known a lot about Quidditch, but he 
> > > didn't know squat about Animagus transformation. :-)
> > > 
> > > Marina
> > 
> > Maybe it's time for me to reread the books, but I was under the 
> > impression that Rita was also an unregistered Animagus.  IIRC, in 
> > discussions about what-we-don't-want-to-see-more-of in the 
> remaining 
> > books in the series, a number of people had said that we have 
> quite 
> > enough unregistered Animagi, thank you very much. If that's the 
> case, 
> > then of course she retains her human intelligence the same as 
> > Wormtail, Padfoot or Prongs.  
> 
> Huh?  What does being registered on unregistered have to do with 
> retaining one's human intelligence while in Animagus form?  
> Registered just means you go down to the Ministry and fill out a 
> little form saying "I'm an Animagus, this is what I turn into."  
> It's a bureaucratic procedure, not an aspect of the transformation.
> 
Eloise:

IIRC from the last time this was discussed, the facts that we *know* that 
Animagi retain their mental faculties and that the writer of QTA talks about 
the unfortunate bat transfiguree can be reconciled if we *don't* interpret 
the bat as being an Animagus - they 'find themselves transfigured' into a 
bat, possibly by someone else. One of the difficulties of the Animagus 
transformation must be just that, learning to transfigure one's bodily form 
but *not* one's mental faculties.

...................
Next up, Pippin takes me to task for suggesting that Prongs could negotiate 
the tunnel and I was just about to reply and say, 'Yes, how silly of me', 
when Catlady flew to the rescue on her broomstick:

>Yes, I too envision James rushing to the rescue in human form. But I 
>think he had to turn into a stag to hold the werewolf off while Snape 
>made his getaway (or at least to save himself from the werewolf). I 
>don't see HOW Snape could have looked back to see the werewolf (and 
>then run even faster away) without also seeing the stag... 

I now envision a *possible* scenario where Snape *did* find out about the 
Marauders' animagic abilities. When he rushes to Dumbledore to complain about 
the Prank, he tries to tell him, but is silenced by the headmaster who 
doesn't want to know all the details and thinks that Snape's discovery is 
merely that of Lupin's secret.

Alternatively, he is sworn to secrecy about this, too, although Dumbledore 
doesn't tell the Marauders themselves that their secret is out (that would 
mean admitting that *he* knows and therefore condoning it).

But I don't think he can ever have seen Sirius transformed, or why was he so 
surprised that the large black dog in the Hospital Wing turned out to be he?

.............
Debbie:

>But I do have a lot of trouble with  the notion that Snape and/or Dumbledore 
>would engineer a plan for Harry to create a life-debt for Peter Pettigrew 
for 
>him to take to Voldemort.  As Dumbledore says later, in respect of that same 
>life-debt: "The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so 
>diverse, that predicting the future is a very difficult business indeed."  
>Suggesting to Harry that he might be glad that he saved Pettigrew's life is 
>very different from attempting to engineer that result. 

Eloise:
This is very true. It is true also of the very reasonable objections raised 
to my suggestion that the resurrection potion was engineered by Dumbledore 
and Snape.
But what if the first prediction indicated the way in which Voldemort would 
rise again? Dumbledore is very ready to accept the genuine nature of 
Trelawney's second prediction. Is this because it meshed in so well with the 
first?

 <snip>
Debbie:
>It seems to me that 80 percent of Snape's actions, in the Shrieking Shack 
and 
>in the hospital wing, are explainable by the simple fact that he despised 
>Sirius and was intent, at all costs, on capturing Sirius himself. 

Eloise:
Oh yes, this is terribly personal for Severus. But that doesn't exclude the 
possibility that it was happening against the background of a greater plan.
After all, even if they *were* planning to send Pettigrew back, Dumbledore 
and Snape both apparently believed at this point that Sirius was guilty.

<snip>
Debbie:
<explanation of why Snape doesn't effectively defend himself against the trio>

> He insults James.  But, IMO, he never takes 
>his eyes or his wand off Sirius.  He's probably only half looking at Harry, 
>and he's not looking at Hermione or Ron at all.  That's how he can be 
>blindsided by the Trio.

E:
I like that. He wasn't even truly incompetent there! ;-)

<snip>
Debbie:
>Snape doesn't care about the rat.  He doesn't want exculpatory evidence.  He 
>wants to bring Sirius up to the castle as his prisoner, and Lupin, too, as 
an 
>extra bonus, to prove to Dumbledore that Snape was right about him all along.

Eloise:
I'm sure you're right here. He's comfortable with Sirius' guilt and doesn't 
want his boat rocked.
But as Porphyria pointed out, he can believe in the guilt of both Sirius and 
Pettigrew. He can also believe that Pettigrew is still alive. It *is* 
possible that he has both a personal and a strategic reason for not wanting 
to discuss the Rat.

<snip>

Debbie:
>>The point is that neither Severus Snape or Albus Dumbledore would 
>>have any reason to shift the conversation so deliberately away from 
>>the word 'rat' unless they *both* knew that  'Peter-Pettigrew-is-
>>alive-and-he's-Scabbers'. 

>Dumbledore cuts everyone off  because there's no time for explanations, if 
>Harry and Hermione are going to free Sirius.  They have to use the 
>Time-Turner before the Dementor arrives to perform the kiss on Sirius, 

Eloise:
There is obviously a time-restraint here and I think Debbie's explanation is 
eminently reasonable. However....

>because (and I realize here that there are those who believe differently, 
but 
>I think this is what JKR intended) the Time-Turner can't be used to *change* 
>history; it creates simultaneous histories for the users of the Time-Turner. 
 
>So Dumbledore shuts everyone up so H&H can get on with it ASAP.

Eloise:
You lose me here. I thought that you could (according to the story) and that 
this was what Hermione meant when she said, 
'We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed 
to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen - ' (POA, UK 
paperback, 291-2)

Now if the Time-Turner merely creates simultaneous histories for the user, 
doesn't this mean that as far as Dumbledore, Hagrid, Fudge etc, who haven't 
used the Tim-Turner, Sirius is indeed worse than dead?

The only way I can get my head round that  at all is by slipping back into 
multiple world theories  - helpfully also known as alternative histories - 
(is this a case of Schrodinger's Dog, rather than Cat?) But again, I have the 
problem that the Dumbledore who sent them on their mission belongs to the 
world where Buckbeak *was* executed. If they are creating a simultaneous 
history, then that implies that there is a history where Sirius *is* 
kissed..... Doesn't it? ....genuine question, because I start to get confused 
when I think about this too long. ;-)

Incidentally, the whole Time-Turner incident does show that Dumbldore is 
already, in POA, prepared to act (or encourage acts) outside the law if he 
sees fit.

<snip>

Debbie:
>I can't see how exonerating Sirius would by itself put Harry in danger.  If, 
>as is probably the case, Harry is only safe with the Dursleys or at 
Hogwarts, 
>surely Sirius wouldn't insist on keeping him.  Unless he was evil, in which 
>case his insistence would be a dead giveaway.

Eloise:
And of course, we have a precedent for his giving way already, immediately 
after Lily and James' deaths, when he originally wanted to take care of Harry 
himself.
(Of course, if he had, he's have been far too busy looking after him to go 
off after Pettigrew, which would have changed the course of events 
completely!)

Debbie:

>>Eloise, commenting on the Resurrected Voldemort addenda:

>>I do find it interesting that he's resurrected via a *potion*. And I 
>>do wonder if Voldemort, believing Snape still loyal to himself, sent 
Wormtail 
>>to him for advice. And naturally Snape, now being on the side of right, 
>>engineered, along with  Dumbledore for there to be a fatal flaw (hence the 
>>gleam of triumph, when Dumbledore realised the plot had succeeded). If 
>>Wormtail had to believe Snape's continuing loyalty to Voldemort, that in 
>>itself would be a reason for Snape to ignore Sirius' pleas to 'look at the 
>>rat'.
>
>This idea of Snape sending Pettigrew off with the fatal resurrection potion 
>really intrigued me when I read it, though the *plan* assumes too much -  to 
>use David's points -- starting with the idea that Voldemort would use Harry 
>in the first place and ending with the idea that Voldemort would not kill 
>him.  Unless, of course (thinking out loud here), Snape and Dumbledore knew 
>Harry would survive because, say, Trelawney's first prediction was that the 
>last Potter would kill Voldemort.   This would also accord with my personal 
>view that (a) Voldemort as a noxious gas was immortal and could not be 
>killed, (b) there were other ways besides the potion to resurrect him, and 
>(c) the potion effectively anit-baptized Voldemort so that he lost his 
>immortality, necessary so that Voldemort could be killed - and that Harry's 
>blood was not necessary to accomplish this.  So perhaps they arranged for 
>Pettigrew to take back the potion intending that Harry would continue to be 
>protected, either at the Dursleys or at Hogwarts.  But how?  I can't figure 
>this part out.  Or why Voldemort would still believe Snape is loyal to him 
>after all the work Snape did in PS/SS to thwart Quirrell with Voldemort 
>hiding in his turban.


Eloise:
I covered part of that above and quite accept that there are strong 
objections to the idea (which was never more than a speculation, if one I 
like). Your point, (a), I think, is virtually canon fact, certainly strong 
canon speculation and (c) its logical conclusion.

That old Snape/ Quidemort conundrum again, eh?
The information we have is very ambiguous, IMO.

I'm starting from the premise that Snape has managed to keep up at the very 
least some doubt in Voldemort's mind as to where his loyalties lie (my actual 
position is that Voldemort believed he was a double agent in *his* service).

If Snape knew/suspected Quirrell was in Voldemort's service, as apparently he 
did, right from the beginning, he *must* have been very circumspect in what 
he let slip. In fact, whilst attempting to thwart Quirrell, I believe it was 
imperative that he didn't appear to be truly on Dumbledore's side.

Quirrell never actually *says*anything about Snape in this context other than 
how useful he was to distract attention from himself. The overheard 
conversation in the Forbidden Forest is terribly ambiguous and could (as JKR 
obviously wants us to do, initially) be interpreted as Snape trying to make 
sure that Quirrell is on-board as a Voldemort supporter. Perhaps this is 
indeed the game that he is playing, making out that he wants the Stone for 
Voldemort and that he suspects Quirrell is playing Voldemort false, either 
wanting the Stone for himself, or lacking the courage to go through with his 
mission. This would be another very good reason for Snape's apparent failure 
to involve Dumbledore in his suspicions, as that would be a dead give-away.

<snip>
Debbie:
>Basically, I think that rather than setting Harry up, Dumbledore figured out 
>what kind of choices Harry was making and then gave him the tools he would 
>need to have a chance to succeed.  Harry really stepped up to the plate 
>himself in PS/SS; he didn't have to, although obviously the earlier Harry 
>learned what he'll need to survive as a Voldemort target the better off he'd 
>be.  In the event he did not, there were a lot of protective eyes watching 
>and guarding Harry (Snape for example at the Quidditch match) until he's 
>ready (or in the event he refuses) to go to bat for himself.  Harry may have 
>a *destiny* but it's his to accept or reject.

This, I think, rings very true. I certainly don't like the idea of a 
manipulative Dumbledore 'setting up' Harry and it's not what Harry himself 
suggests, only that Dumbledore suspected he was going to try, wanted to give 
him a chance and gave them enough help to succeed (PS, UK, 219). In a way it 
was a kind of test, (in the heroic tradition) but one that Harry *chose* to 
undertake.

Eloise
Off to read her backlog of mail and see how silly she sounds! ;-)


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