"bone of the father" and blood (WAS: Re: book 7: back to the future theory)

[nobodysrib <nobodysrib@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 53137

I previously proposed a back to the future theory for book seven 
about Harry traveling back in time to kill Riddle, thus killing 
Voldemort (complete theory found in post #53301).

Tanya gave her own time-travel theory: 

> My theory is that Harry is actually "the stranger. The teenage boy, 
> dark-haired and pale" that Frank Bryce sees on the day of the
> Riddle Murders. 
<snip>
> Why would Harry go-back in time to this particular event? 

I adore Tom's answer: 

>Now we all know that for V to come back, he needs 3 things, in 
> reverse order to make a point:(chap.22 US, page641-642)
> 3)"Blood of the enemy....forcibly taken <snip> 2)Flesh of the 
servant - willingly given <snip> 1)Bone of the father, unknowingly 
given <snip> 
>
> Did you catch it? 
> 
> "UNKNOWINGLY GIVEN"? What would happen if before he died, Mr 
Riddle, the father, knew his son was coming back for the bone? 
> Well, it is no longer "unknown" if the person knows about it in 
> advance, is it? And, Harry really doesn't have to change anything, 
> have to worry about having the future altered in any way by doing 
> this. 
<snip>
> it would also explain the twinkle in Dumbledore's eyes after seeing 
> the cut on Harry's arm. Because, I'm sure he knows exactly how that 
> spell works, and when he is sure of which spell it is, he has an 
> extremely odd thought. "What if Harry can change one thing in the 
> events that preceded all of this? What if Harry goes back 
> before 'V' kills Mr Riddle,  and told him of the coming situation? 
> Could this act, would this act, change things still to come?" 
> And that, IMO, is what the "twinkle" was, an idea.

Me: 

I love it!  So much so, that I went back to look up both passages:

"Frank was stubbornly repeating, again and again, that he was 
innocent [of killing the Riddles], and that the only person he had 
seen near the house on the day of the Riddles' deaths had been a 
teenage boy, a stranger, dark-haired and pale.  Nobody else had seen 
any such boy, and the police were quite sure Frank had invented him," 
US Hardcover GoF, page 3.

So far, so good.

As for the Dumbledore part, the text doesn't say whether or not Harry 
went into all of the specifics of V's spell (that is, we have no 
direct quotes.)  But we have no reason to believe that Harry left 
anything out.  I really want this theory to pan out, but I am worried 
about one thing: as Harry is telling the story, Sirius keeps trying 
to interrupt, but Dumbledure shushes him.  Dumbledore is moved to 
interrupt only after Harry  tells of being cut by Wormtail:

"Sirius let out a vehement exclamation and Dumbledore stood up so 
quickly that Harry started.  Dumbledore walked around the desk and 
told Harry to stretch out his arm... [description of Harry's 
arm]  '[Voldemort] said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd 
used someone else's. <snip> And he was right - he could touch me 
without hurting himself, he touched my face.'"  And it is only after 
this information that "For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a 
gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes," GoF, pgs 695-6.

So I worry that if our bones theory is accurate, that we would have 
read about Harry describing the bones, after which Dumbledore would 
have had his Look.  There are so many other themes and storylines 
having to do with the blood (pure-/mudbloods, unicorn blood, dragon 
blood, family connections/blood) the I fear the blood part was the 
most important here.  

On the other hand, one of the blood themes has been that blood 
*isn't* enough to make the final difference: Voldemort was sustained 
at the "barely living" point by drinking unicorn blood, but it 
couldn't fully bring him back; family blood ties are not always the 
strongest (consider the Dursleys) nor do they produce the best 
results (consider the Crouches); and, of course, there's the whole 
pure-/mudblood debate, which I don't need to sum up.  

So maybe we will be *led* to believe that the blood in the spell was 
*the* thing to make the difference - only to be reminded later that 
blood, though powerful, isn't always the defining factor of a thing.  
Could JKR have purposefully misled us with D's eye-twinkle, giving us 
just enough to notice it and wonder about it, and just enough to make 
that incorrect blood-assumption?

- Nobody's Rib