[HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort & Lily (was: Whose prophecy?)

[Troels Forchhammer]

No: HPFGUIDX 54685

At 10:03 02-04-03 +0000, Steve wrote:
> > Troels continues:
> >
> > How many children would have been equally protected throughout
> > Voldemort's eleven year reign of terror? ...
> >
>
>bboy_mn:
>Not many I'm thinking. I really don't see that many possible cases
>where Voldemort came to a wizard's house with the single minded
>purpose of killing one of the kids. Any kids killed would probably
>fall into what is referred to as 'collateral damage'.
>
>While I'm sure kids were killed, we see from the story that adults
>were killed more often. If and when kids were killed it was probably
>an act of terror, and parent were give little or no opportunity to
>protect them.

GoF-9 'The Dark Mark'
   "  The floating people were suddenly illuminated as they passed
    over a burning tent, and Harry recognised one of them - Mr
    Roberts, the campsite manager. The other three looked as
    though they might be his wife and children. One of the
    marchers below flipped Mrs Roberts upside-down with his wand;
    her nightdress fell down to reveal voluminous drawers and she
    struggled to cover herself up as the crowd below her screeched
    and hooted with glee.
      'That's sick,' Ron muttered, watching the smallest Muggle
    child, who had begun to spin like a top, sixty feet above the
    ground, his head flopping limply from side to side. 'That is
    really sick ...' "
(p. 108, Bloomsbury)
   "  'Ron, You-Know-Who and his followers sent the Dark Mark into
    the air whenever they killed,' said Mr Weasley. 'The terror
    it inspired ... you have no idea, you're too young. Just
    picture coming home and finding the Dark Mark hovering over
    your house, and knowing what you're about to find inside ...'
    Mr Weasley winced. 'Everyone's worst fear ... the very
    worst ...' "
(p. 127, Bloomsbury)
   "  'The point?' said Mr Weasley with a hollow laugh. 'Harry,
    that's their idea of fun. Half the Muggle killings back when
    You-Know-Who was in power were done for fun. I suppose they
    had a few drinks tonight and couldn't resist reminding us all
    that lots of them are still at large. A nice little reunion
    for them,' he finished disgustedly. "
(p. 127f, Bloomsbury)

Would you mind tell me where in canon you find anything to
indicate that any children were spared while Voldemort's reign
lasted? I claim that Voldemort and his Death Eaters costumarily
killed /everybody/ in the house; men, women and children ("the
very worst").


> > Troels continues:
> >
> > ... and if her death was inescapable anyway, then this situation
> > would not only negate the sacrifice, but it would also make it just
> > one more family killed by Voldemort - nothing special!
>
>bboy_mn:
>
>Can argue with that. Why does it negate the sacrific?

As I see it a sacrifice means giving up something that is
actually yours - something you would otherwise have been
able to keep; there isn't any sacrifice in giving 1000
pounds to a charity if you can deduct everything, because
the money would have been lost anyway - you just get to
decide who is going to have it. The same way with Lily's
life - if all she does is to decide whether to die before
or after her son, then there is no sacrifice.

>You seem to have overlooked a word I used repeatedly and with some
>attempts at emphasis; that word is 'insignificant'.

No - I didn't overlook it. I don't believe it. Fortunately
we have been promised that we're going to learn more about
Lily in OotP - so in 3 months we might know ;-)

The argument of course becomes circular - I don't believe
that Lily was insignificant, therefore I believe Voldemort
when he said he tried to spare her, therefore Lily wasn't
insignificant ...

The same goes the other way around - the problem is that
we don't know enough about Lily to break the chain at any
point.


>Whether Lily lived or die was insignificant to Voldemort.
>In that sense, Lily could have been spared. Since her death
>had no significants, not only was there no need to kill her,
>but there was no need to deal with her at all.

Under the assumption that what Harry hears when under
the influence of the Dementors is a correct presentation
of the events (the audible part), /I/ don't think that
Voldemort treats Lily as someone who is insignificant
PoA-9 'Grim Defeat':
   "  At least a hundred Dementors, their hidden faces pointing up
    at him, were standing beneath him. It was as though freezing
    water was rising in his chest, cutting at his insides. And
    then he heard it again ... someone was screaming, screaming
    inside his head ... a woman ...
      '/Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!/'
      '/Stand aside, you silly girl ... stand aside, now .../'
      '/Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead -/'
      Numbing, swirling white mist was filling Harry's brain ...
    What was he doing? Why was he flying? He needed to help her
    ... she was going to die ... she was going to be murdered ...
      He was falling, falling through the icy mist.
      '/Not Harry! Please ... have mercy ... have mercy .../'
      A shrill voice was laughing, the woman was screaming, and
    Harry knew no more. "
(p. 134, Bloomsbury)

Why not (if Lily really was insignificant):
       '/Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!/'
       '/Both/ of you, then! /Avada Kedavra!/


>That is, until she became an annoyance and an obstical between
>Voldemort and his single minded objective, Harry.

I maintain that Voldemort - especially if so obsessed
with killing Harry - would have just blasted his way
/through/ any obstacle.

>If Lily had cowered in the corner paralyzed by fear, she could
>probably have lived.

Ah - OK - so we agree on that, sorry ;-)
Now all we disagree on is /why/ Voldemort would have
let her live had she cowered in the corner ;-)

>So the point I dispute is not whether Lily would or wouldn't have been
>killed but whether Voldemort actually offered to spare her. I say he
>did not offer to spare her. When he said 'step aside', he was not
>saing, 'step aside and I will spare you', he was, in his polite
>British way, saying, 'Get the hell out of my way, I've go more
>important things to do than screw around with you'.

Well, I guess we will just have to wait for that to be
resolved - I don't think there are sufficient evidence
in the books to decide one way ot the other.

This of course makes much of our discussion rather pointless ;-)
so I've snipped those parts ...


> > there is absolutely no indication in canon that he bought his
> > wife and son anything but a little time.
>
>bboy_mn:
>
>My problem here is with your emphatic use of the word 'absolutely'.
>There is very little indication that James sacrifice was of primary
>importance in the protection, but I can't accept 'absolutely no
>indication in canon' as an acceptable statement.

I was, I guess, a bit too emphatic here - my apologies.

I will maintain that there is nothing in the books to indicate
that James bought his family anything but time, but let me
hasten to say that there is nothing to refute it either.
There are even some passages that can be explained by such a
theory, but that does not mean that they imply it.

>I could present canon what weakens your postion, although, I admit I
>can't present anything that disproves it.

What? Pray tell?

>So, I will acknowledge that you have a very strong position, I
>just can't bring myself to accept that you have an absolute
>position.

Rest assured that I wouldn't dream of even claiming that -
but that other explanations are possible - even probable
perhaps - does not mean that /every/ explanation is
possible.

What is more, I never said anything about the veracity
of the idea - I just established my position on it's
canonical basis (in admittedly rather strong terms -
too strong probably).

>bboy_mn:
>I already covered most of this earlier in this post.

Yes - my bad. I thought we were discussing Lily's chances
of survival had she not chosen to protect Harry based on
your earlier post:
> >> What makes you think Voldemort wanted to spare Lily or that he would have?
[...]
> >> I don't recall anything in the actual event of Lily and James's death
> >> that indicates that Voldemort had any intention of sparing Lily.
> >>
> >> True, Voldemort said at other times and in other places that Lily
> >> didn't have to die but those word suited his needs at the moment. I
> >> see nothing in the event or in my analysis of Voldemort's character
> >> that makes me believe that his words can be trusted.
[...]
> >> In the moment of Lily's death, she was nothing more than an annoyance
> >> that stood between him and his objective. As soon as he achieved his
> >> objective, I have no doubt that he would have killed Lily for no
> >> reason other than his initial preception of her; that is, an annoyance
> >> to be gotten out of his way.



>Others have pointed out that Voldemort doesn't have the greatest
>attitude towards women. He is very dismissive of them,

I wonder where that came from ...
Do you have some references?
We know that he is angry with the way his father treated his mother.
We know that he had at least one female Death Eater
He used Ginny (though dismissive of her feelings - and honestly,
I can sympathise with a 16 year old boy being dismissive of the
emotional confidences of an eleven-year-old girl without thinking
it makes him dismissive of women in general).

Do we have any other examples of his treatment of women?
(except of course of Lily over whom we don't agree).


Troels