[HPforGrownups] Re: Immortal vapour? MAGIC DISHWASHER

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 40060

Grey Wolf:

> Eloise wrote:
> > How did I know that the magical kitchen appliance was going to be 
> > rolled out? That's very much what I was saying in the part you  
> > snipped, except that I was suggesting he could be controlled by the 
> > Light side.

Grey Wolf:
Of course MAGIC DISHWASHER was coming out. It's the definitive theory. 
> The one that explains it all. Convert or thu shalt taste the bitterness 
> of defeat!!! j/k. ;-)

Eloise:
That's *exactly* how to ensure that I don't! I don't like doing things just 
because I'm told to! ;-)

Grey Wolf:
> 
> Appart from the ethical/moral problems (for the light side) of 
> controlling a debilitated being, you may see that I covered my back 
> against that by suggesting that you need *dark* magic to control him. 
> It stands to reason, anyway: it would probably be a version of the 
> Imperious, if not the Imperious itself. In his debilitated state, 
> Voldemort would take forever to fight it off, and he doesn't want to 
> wait that long.

Eloise:
I don't really see that this is something we need to argue over. :-) But 
since you mention it..........

Ethical/moral problems?
This is the WW we're talking about here, the WW that uses soul-sucking 
Dementors as the ultimate deterrent, that imprisons without trial, that lets 
DEs walk free if they are useful as spies, that even lets people off 
punishment if they happen to have been successful Beaters! Come, on, the WW 
isn't going to have any qualms about putting away the most evil wizard the 
world has ever known, even if he *is* debilitated.

And even in the real world, I don't see the problem. Plenty of elderly, 
debilitated folks have found themselves on trial for war crimes. Plenty of 
(now) totally harmless people have been imprisoned because of the crimes they 
have commited in the past. Most societies accept the concept of punishment. 
Doesn't Voldemort deserve punishment? Even in my most liberal moments I would 
have problems arguing that he didn't; with the best will in the world, I 
can't really see him being rehabilitated. Doesn't society have a *duty* to 
protect other citizens from one, who if he was allowed to regain strength, 
would inevitably carry on wreaking havoc and seeking ultimate power.

And what's the problem with Imperius? The Aurors were permitted to use the 
Unforgivables in pursuit of his supporters; why shouldn't they use it to 
control *him*?

> 
> > I don't think canon actually *says* that is the reason for the 
> > unicorn blood. And anyway, why did he *need* to be in Quirrell's 
> > head? Would becoming vapour be so catastrophic at this point? Was 
> > Voldemort *always* under Quirrell's turban? Was it Quirrell that 
> > crawled across the floor of the Forbidden Forest? Or was it a cloaked 
> > vapour as implied in the CTMNBN? Was he drinking unicorn blood in 
> > Albania too? I think he must have been.

> 
> I suggested in my previous post (#40038) that Voldemort gravitates 
> naturally while in Vapour form to Albania. If not, I don't really know 
> why he didn't come looking for servants to England, and hide in some 
> forest closer to home. This would explain why he's in Quirrell's head: 
> he needs a body to move out of albania, and stop going back (this 
> adendum is still in development. Expect refinements coming along if you 
> fight against it).
> 
Eloise:
<tentatively waves yellow flag, hoping this doesn't have the same effect on 
wolves, as red rags are supposed to on bulls>

Look, I'm not sure about this, but Albania having some kind of magical 
gravity effect sounds awfully like a yellow flag violation to me.
I admit that you've been terribly clever in pre-empting me in pointing out 
that it's terribly odd that he needs a body to return from Albania, but seems 
to get back there no problem.
But.....We don't actually know *how* Quirrell brought him back. I don't think 
it was *in* his body, or if it was, then he must have moved out whilst Harry 
met him at the Leaky Cauldron: Harry's scar didn't hurt and Quirrell was able 
to touch him.

Grey Wolf:
> 
> Canon does tell us what the Unicorn blood is for: "Unicorn blood has 
> strengthened me, these past weeks" (PS, US ed., ch. 17). 
> 
> 
Eloise:
That tells us an effect, but Firenze says its purpose is to keep you alive 
(PS, UK ed, p188). Stronger reason to accept a cursed, half life.

Grey Wolf:

> did drink a combination of Unicorn's blood with Nagini's poison 
> when in Fugly baby form.

Eloise:
Sorry, what's Fugly? I thought it was a typo in you last reply.

Grey Wolf:
 We know he lived off animals in Albania, by possesing 
> them (especially snakes), so I don't think he was able to kill unicorns 
> in that state (as a general rule, unicorns tend to be heavy fighters, 
> and a simple snake wouldn't be a match). He just used the animal's life 
> force to keep on going and have a small amount of power left.

Eloise:
Quite. It just seems odd to me that Firenze makes a big deal of the unicorn 
blood drinking and that you can just stop. If you need something to 'keep you 
alive', the implication is that when you stop taking it, you will die.

Grey Wolf:
> anon, unlike CTMNBN, explicitly states that it was Quirrell who drank 
> the unicorn's blood for Voldemort: "you saw faithful Quirrell drinking 
> it for me in the forest" (PS, US ed., ch. 17).

Eloise:
Thank you for finding that ref. Interesting change. I'm beginning to wonder 
exactly how much editorial control JKR had of the film. That seems to be a 
significant difference.

> 
> > But that seems to be precisely the point made by Firenze: only one as 
> > desperate as Voldemort would take on the consequences of drinking 
> > unicorn blood. Oh, I've just realised that Firenze actually implies
> > that the Philosopher's Stone would counteract the curse. But of 
> > course, he never got hold of it. 

Grey Wolf:
> 
> He drinks more unicorn blood afterwards anyay, so it seems that 
> Voldemort *is* carrying the half-life curse on him. Maybe he just 
> doesn't care, living a half life. He's *evil*, after all (on a side 
> not, I see lots of listees jumping to the opportunity of declaring 
> popular characters evil. Has anyone tried to expain that Voldemort is 
> really a good person at heart?).
> 
> 
Eloise:
I don't think so, but I admit that it had crossed my mind that a sort of 
opposite of the OFH could be fun.

> 
> > I guess that's where conspiracy theory comes in and 
> > those of us who don't buy it just have to settle for uncertainty.
> > 
> > Eloise

Grey Wolf:
> 
> If you converted, you wouldn't have these dilemas, since you'd see the 
> light ;-) Then again, If everyone converted, I wouldn't have anearly as 
> much fun as I have defending the theory. :-)
> 
> 
Eloise:
Who said anything about dilemmas? ;-)
Life demands that we live with many uncertainties. In fact, in the 
Potterverse (as sometimes in RL), we can argue that it is people who see 
everything in terms of certainty who cause the problems. You like the good 
side being grey, don't you?

As I have said before, I can happily live with multiple interpretations of 
the Potterverse - as long as they *work* (and I think MAGIC DISHWASHER does, 
pretty well; that is, it's tightly worked out and IMO it's difficult to 
disprove it on grounds of impossibility or inconsistency) . What I won't do 
is attempt to *believe* 'six impossible things before breakfast.'

My chief objection to MAGIC DISHWASHER is that it requires such a radical 
rejig of our understanding of what is going on. It's a lot more than a plot 
twist and I just can't see getting into the fifth book, or beyond and then 
being told that we have to reinterpret so much of what has gone on before.

Eloise
Signing off with a relevant quote from Keats:

"Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, 
Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason."    

(which I forget in my LOON moments.)



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