[HPforGrownups] Quirrel dead?

[Trond Michelsen]

No: HPFGUIDX 51370

On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 10:06:25PM -0500, srsiriusblack at aol.com wrote:
>> OK, OK, he might be alive, but I can't begin to explain how disappointed
>> I'll be if he does turn up again. Particularly if he makes his sudden
>> reappearance as the villain of any of the remaining books. We've already
>> had two supposedly dead guys as the villain. Isn't it time to let the
>> living take over?
> but, you snipped the part out of being in St. Mungos... and being too crazy 
> now to be a threat.

Ah, yes. I guess I didn't read the text properly. Sorry about that.
However, I just have to ask: what would be the point?

> I don't think he would come back in a villainous role. That would be too 
> silly for JKR. But, think of all the people that Voldie did sent to St 
> Mungos... It's a possibility....

OK, let's look at the possibilities:

1. He's dead

Not much to say about this, as this is what "everybody" thinks.

2. He's alive, but we never meet (or hear from him) him again

This probably belongs in the "You can't prove me wrong" category. If
Quirrel's never mentioned again in the remaining books, anybody who
wants to believe that he's actually alive, can do so, I guess. I just
don't see the point.

3. He's alive, and we meet him briefly without any connection with the
   plot.

Again, I'll have to ask: Why? I mean, if you choose to bring back
somebody from beyond the grave, why would you do it for something
that's completely irrelevant for the story? Seeing Quirrel again would
be a shocking surprise for almost every reader, and if we just see him
briefly in a single chapter, then never hear from him again, I'd feel
pretty cheated.

4. He's alive and will be a major part of a future plot.

I've already said how disgusted I'll be if this happens.


Did I forget any?


Now, if I remember correctly, the "we can't prove he really died"-theory
comes from Dumbledore's comment that Voldy just left him to die, and
that this doesn't rule out the possibility that someone saved his life.

That may be so, but what if we look at the whole situation? Here we have
an eleven year old boy who's just found out that his teacher has been
possessed, and that had to fight for his life against him. When he wakes
up, Dumbledore tells him that the teacher was left to die. He must
realize that Harry will think that this mean Quirrel actually did die.
Isn't it spectacularly cruel of him to leave out the fact that he
survived, and just let Harry think he was killed? Unless you subscribe
to the evil Dumbledore theory, this just doesn't seem like him at all.

I mean, try to imagine the principal of a muggle school entering a class
of eleven year olds to tell them that their teacher has been the victim
of a robbery. That she was stabbed and left to die. I would absolutely
expect her to tell the class about it if the teacher actually survived
the stabbing. Wouldn't you?

Anyway, there are also an incident outside canon that could make it
difficoult to bring him back, even if JKR might have wanted to
initially. In the movie, there is absolutely no doubt that Quirrel died,
so JKR would probably think twice about bringing him back. His part
would probably be pretty important if he returns, something that only
increases Warner's headache, as that makes it even more difficoult to
cut out Quirrel from future movies.

-- 
Trond Michelsen