Wormtail/Privet Drive & Put-Outer
elfundeb at aol.com
elfundeb at aol.com
Wed Mar 27 12:24:54 UTC 2002
No: HPFGUIDX 37027
Re-send (ever so slightly revised) of a post sent Monday that appears to have
been lost in cyberspace:
DG wrote:
Consider this: the direct result of Harry's choice to spare Wormtail
was the death of the Ripple house caretaker, Bertha Jorkins, Crouch
Sr, and Cedric Diggory - at least, so far. Is there any doubt that
there will be more deaths?
Killing Wormtail in the shack would not have been murder. It would
have been self-defense and a healthy dose of justice.
True, but Harry was a 13-year-old wizard under stress without an appetite for
murder. It would have been astonishing for him to recognize the justice of
killing Pettigrew under the circumstances, and it would not have been in
Harry's character to kill him for revenge. Besides, Sirius and Lupin agreed
to support Harry's decision, giving him "permission" to let him go.
Cindy regarding the function of the Put-Outer on the 12 street lamps :
If you think about it, there really isn't much of a compelling reason
for Dumbledore to extinguish the lights in the first place, IMO. The
street is deserted, and it is the middle of the night. When
Dumbledore extinguishes the lights, he doesn't yet know that Hagrid
will show up in a fashion (on a flying motorcycle) that might
generate curiosity among the muggles. Also, if Dumbledore wishes for
darkness, he really doesn't have to extinguish 12 street lamps, does
he? Two or four, perhaps, but extinguishing 12 lamps seems like far
more than necessary to darken the Dursleys' home.
Had a neighbor woken up in the middle of the night and looked outside his
bedroom window, he might have seen two wizards in full regalia and a
half-giant with a baby (who will soon be known to all the neighbors to have
taken up residence at the Dursleys'). I think that's reason enough to
extinguish the lamps. Extinguishing 12 lights makes it look like there's a
momentary problem with the street lights on Privet Drive rather than a
mysterious blackness around the Dursley home.
A surveillance device that lets the good wizards know everything
that is happening on Privet Drive. This works a lot better, I
think. We certainly know that MoM instantly knows about all magic
that happens on Privet Drive, based on their response to Dobby's
magic and Aunt Marge (and we know they don't react instantly to magic
other underage wizards perform). We know that Hagrid or Dumbledore
knows that Harry isn't receiving his letters, that he is moved from
the cupboard to the bedroom, and that the Dursleys flee. Maybe each
of the 12 street lamp is a separate surveillance device, perhaps
sending different types of information (magic usage, communication
monitoring, visual image) to different recipients (one for MoM, one
for Dumbledore, one for Mrs. Figg, etc.)
Hmm . . . I think the surveillance idea is interesting but I can't reconcile
it with the fact that Dobby's magic caused a Ministry employee to send the
most ill-timed letter to Harry at the Dursleys, while the Muggle Masons were
still in attendance.
Surely if they had all this surveillance they would have noticed the Masons'
presence? And if the Improper Use of Magic Office needed a special
surveillance device to notice the magic at Privet Drive, that would mean the
restriction on magic outside of school is basically completely unenforceable
except against select targets in select places.
So I doubt that the street lamps were necessary to detect magic at Privet
Drive. And if they weren't necessary to detect magic, I'm not convinced why
they were necessary to detect visual images, etc. I'm afraid the theory
sounds to me to be too much like a bugging device out of a Muggle spy movie.
Maybe the answer is that Harry is safe when he is in
the presence of his relations, which several people have already
proposed as part of Harry's protection.
I tend to think that the entirety of Harry's protection resides in the
Dursleys themselves, and that the letter from Dumbledore told them in no
uncertain terms, and on pain of consequences that the Dursleys would have
thought horrific, that they were not to leave Harry under any circumstances
except with Mrs. Figg (and I bet her house is Unplottable). I can't imagine
any other reason on earth the Dursleys would have been willing to take an
eleven-year-old Harry to Dudley's party rather than just leave him at home.
But this means I haven't found any purpose for those twelve balls of fire
Dumbledore sends with the Put-Outer, unless he was using the Put-Outer to
cast the protective spell. After all, he never takes out a wand while he's
there and there's no evidence he was there earlier to do it (McGonagall has
been watching the house all day). And he can't possibly have left Harry
there without the protection in place. Is it possible that Dumbledore's wand
was concealed in the Put-Outer, or that the wand was transfigured into a
cigarette lighter, just in case something went wrong?
Had Dudley gone to Smeltings and Harry gone to
a different muggle school, that protection might not have existed.
It might be a good thing that the wizarding world spirited Harry away
to Hogwarts when they did.
The protection would indeed have been gone, and no doubt Dumbledore & Co.
knew it, and would have taken any means necessary to get Harry to Hogwarts.
Come to think of it, though, Harry had a few perilous moments at King's
Cross station after Vernon left him there, till the Weasleys turned up. By
forgetting to tell Harry how to cross the barrier at King's Cross (I'm
assuming it was Hagrid's job), Hagrid could have caused Harry's downfall had
the baddies been alert. Lucius could have snatched him up, if he was there
seeing Draco off.
Debbie, not willing to label Hagrid a coward, being content with "reckless"
and "incompetent"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive