[HPforGrownups] Voldemort and AK (was:Re: Why is AK unforgiveable)

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 45269

Richard (quoting Rita):

> >Is this part of MAGIC DISHWASHER or there is some sort of evidence that 
> he's
> >mortal again? To have a body is not the same as being mortal, as I see it.
> >He had a body when the AK rebounded and even though this was destroyed he
> >didn't die. I completely share in Eloise's doubts.
> 

Richard:

> From the speech to the DEs, it would seem that Voldemort is mortal again:
> 
> "But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing 
> immortality.  I set my sights lower ... I would settle for my old body back 
> 
> again, and my old strength. I knew that to achieve this - it is an old 
> piece of Dark Magic, the potion that revived me tonight - I would need 
> three powerful ingredients.  (etc)"
> 

Perhaps I should expand on this a little.
It seems to be commonly held that Voldmort in his old incarnation wasn't 
human enough to die. His body died, but he carried on living as a noxious 
vapour. In one sense he had immortality. But it was an irksome immortality in 
that he did not have a functioning body of his own.

He now has a body again. Apparently the same body that he had after 
undergoing the transformations that made him unrecognisable compared with the 
young Tom Riddle. So I presume it should be in the same state regarding 
mortality/immortality.

My impression is that Voldemort's *body* although transformed, hadn't reached 
a state of immortality before his encounter with infant Harry. He wasn't 
human enough for an AK to kill him completely, but it could kill his body (or 
at least, it could when rebounding from Harry - I am increasingly feeling 
that it was something about *Harry* that killed Voldemort's body, rather than 
the AK itself). But to be effective, to carry on his search for  bodily 
immortality he needs a body, a body which can potentially be destroyed. I am 
not sure that he is not using the phrase, "to embrace mortal life" to mean 
just this, the possession of a vulnerable *body* as opposed to waiting until 
he could create an invulnerable one.

You see, my big problem is that if Voldemort is now truly, completely mortal, 
as mortal as any other ordinary human, *why* is Harry's involvement so 
necessary?
If it is just a case that Harry's blood is the crucial ingredient that has 
made him vulnerable and he *is* AKable, then all Dumbledore needs to do is 
assemble the 'old crowd' and the others who are loyal to him, organise an 
ambush (Snape via the Dark Mark will have access to his location, whether or 
not he is still in place as a spy and in contact with the DEs) and get rid of 
him (I don't think even Dumbledore would have qualms about AKing Voldemort, 
if it were possible). OK, I know it's not quite as simple as that in 
practice, but in principle, yes? It would be an annoying weakness in the plot 
if he *could* be disposed of, but just happened not to be. But we need 
another three books to get rid of him apparently. Unless he *is* disposed of 
in OoP and another monster rises to take his place, which I doubt: the 
Harry/Voldemort parallels/opposition seem too central to the series.

There is something in the way in which Dumbledore speaks about Voldemort (I 
think and hope it's at the end of GoF, to which I don't have immediate 
access, or this doesn't make sense) which suggests that he will keep coming 
back, that he isn't immediately killable. It seems to me that his final death 
*has* to be something essentially to do with Harry and that consequently he 
is not, in everyday terms, truly mortal, as he can only be killed through the 
agency of one individual.

Eloise
Rambling a bit! :-)


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