Snape and Quirrellmort/MAGIC DISHWASHER

[Grey Wolf]

No: HPFGUIDX 45165

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Rita" <potter76 at l...> wrote:
> And now something probably more to the point and that could fit in
> the MAGIC DISHWASHER discussion. 
> As a former DE and one with the Dark Mark burned into himself, which
> is a connection to LV, Snape shouldn't have felt LV presence at 
> Hogwarts,especially when dealing with Quirrell? What's more, during
> that year LV was getting stronger, even if not much, by drinking
> unicorn blood, shouldn't the Dark Mark have shown this as it does
> later in GoF ( I can't recall if it was Snape or Karkaroff who said
> that the Mark had been getting clearer every day)? AFAIR, there's 
> nothing in canon to support this, but it adds to the conspiracy
> theory', Snape knew but did nothing about it because he was working 
> on a far more ambitious plan.

I hadn't actually considered that fact before, but it helps explain 
something that has been in my mind for a few days now. MAGIC DISHWASHER 
is based on an information war, which in turn requires spies. Now, in 
PS, Voldemort was going solo most of the time, and if he did contact 
Lucius to put in motion the Diary idea, I think it would have been 
later on, from Hogwarts (after testing the defenses of the stone). 
There is really no room for a spy that could've tipped off Dumbledore 
about Voldemort's return and plans. So, how did Dumbledore know that 
Voldemort was trying to make a come-back, and thus that he needed to 
get the stone to the safest place possible? The answer, of course, is 
that the mark in Snape's arm had been giving them signals all along. 
Voldemort was getting closer, and was getting stronger too thanks to 
the nurture of Quirrell. As soon as they realised that Voldemort was 
coming back to the country (it's not as if you could pin-point the 
location of Voldemort by a very faint mark in someone's arm), they 
decided to move the stone to Hogwarts, just in case.

Now, remember that during PS Voldemort is extremelly weak. Which means 
that the mark wouldn't be all that obvious, even if Voldemort was in 
the school. Quirrell doubted that Voldemort could face an 11 year-old. 
And he didn't even have a body. That's *very* weak, which means that 
the mark would've been almost invisible. And that would give Dumbledore 
very little information, apart from a few faint ideas.
 
> One final though, I like very much MAGIC DISHWASHER but I feel it's
> way too complex for children and , even though the books are not
> exclusively aimed at them still, JKR knows that a big part of her 
> readers are quite young (not for long, anyway, if she waits a little
> more to publish  book 5 - may it be part of her plan? To wait till
> everyone is old enough to appreciate the MAGIC DISHWASHER?). 

First things first: that argument you've used there is metathinking. 
Which I hate, especially when used for or against MAGIC DISHWASHER, as 
I think I've made abundantly clear by now. I do not bother myself with 
higher planes of existance (i.e. who the books are aimed at) when 
discussing the theories merits, but there is one thing I want to say: 
the books are *not* written for children. JKR wrote them aiming at 
herself, at something that would please *her*. The fact that 100 
million people seem to have the same tastes, and that most of them are 
children, means nothing. And if you think MAGIC DISHWASHER is 
inapropiate for children, you should read again the Graveyard Gathering 
scene and the death of Cedric "Spare" Diggory. *That's* scary.

Also, staying far from the theory itself, I have to point out that 
books can be read in several different levels by different people. You 
don't have to understand all the levels to like or understand the book 
(or at least that's what my literature teacher used to say to me). So, 
children can read the adventures of Harry Potter while the adults read 
the subtle interactions between the adult characters (read the "deep" 
discussions on this list for a taste of that). If MAGIC DISHWASHER 
proves to be true (objective number 2, as Pip said), it won't be 
spelled out as such: it will have been working in the background, and 
giving the books realism. But in the end, Harry will have beaten 
Voldemort and you won't really have to understand how he got there to 
enjoy it.

> And wouldn't it be horrible to discover that our hero has been 'used'
> and raised with almost the sole purpose of giving his blood to the 
> 'right cause'? If i were Harry I would feel cheated, and after 10
> years deprived of love to find finally people who cares for me and
> then discover that they did because they 'needed' me would be 
> devastating. Everything I had come to believe in and everyone I
> trusted and loved would seem false and hollow, just empty lies. Isn't
> it something terrible to give children?
> 
> R.

Now, this is something I can relate to: it discusses Harry's feelings 
and his role in the events to come. Now, I first want to make clear 
that MAGIC DISHWASHER (or at least my version) makes no pretence of 
unraveling the future, just tries to wring sense out of the past. 
However, your question is valid. And can be answered logically from 
past events. I don't think that Harry's role in MAGIC DISHWASHER is 
over after giving his blood for the potion. The main reason for this is 
the events that go on in PS: the different defenses of the stone were 
almost engineered to prepare Harry for tasks ahead. After all, defenses 
that an 11-year-old could surpass are not that good idea against 
someone capable of breaking, entering and leaving Gringotts, ar they? 
And the last defence is especially revealing: a defense *only* an 
11-year-old could break. Then, there are those comments about 
Dumbledore *allowing* Harry to prepare, and other such events. It 
definetely looks like Dumbledore is preparing Harry for something, and 
that that something has to be more than being a doll-like prisoner that 
allows his blood to be taken (which really doesn't need that much 
preparation; in fact, the less preparation the better).

Besides, I, like Pip, don't understand what's so wrong with being the 
"pawn". It's the pawn that, in the end, becomes the hero, *even in 
chess*. The pawn is one of the most important pieces, because it is 
useful both at the very begining and at the very end of a chess match: 
if a pawn reaches the other side, he bacomes a queen, the most powerful 
piece in the game. And I think (outside any theories, and indulging in 
meta-thinking) that the same thing will happen to Harry: in the end, he 
will be the "queen" of Dumbledore's side, and it will be thanks to 
*his* powers that they will win. I don't see what's wrong with that.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf