Re: Adopted!Harry is Really. TTTR

[Kirstini]

No: HPFGUIDX 57706

Thought I'd de-bonnet my bees re. the Admiring Skeptic's huge 
Voldemort!Harry theory:

The Admiring Skeptic said:
<snip most of theory>  
 8: Now that Harry's blood is in Voldemort, killing Harry won't 
 completely eliminate Voldemort's beginning, so no godhood. Or, 
 Voldemort touching Harry proved that the preparations for the 
godhood spell were done wrong to begin with. Or whatever. But then 
Dumbledore looked old and tired again because he realized that even 
if Voldemort doesn't become a god, he can do lots of evil anyway.

Kirstini (c'est moi): But surely they'd have the same blood in the 
first place?

<snippety snip Snape snip>
Admiring Skeptic again:
 Making Harry = Voldemort plays the strongest 
 card possible for the moral choices theme. Harry doesn't defeat 
 Voldemort because he is born with any special abilities – he has 
 exactly the same ones Voldemort has. Neither does Harry have an 
 innately better character – he's got the identical innate character 
 as Ultimate Evil. But somehow (JKR will pick the somehow she  
believes in), Harry made better choices, and that's the only 
difference.

Kirstini again:
I'm just not buying this "identical innate character" thing. As I 
read down your post, I found a lot of your argument convincing, but 
I thought to myself "how on earth is this going to get round the 
fact that Harry and LV have completely different characters?" It 
would seem to me that the facts of their similar upbringings - which 
neither had any control over - and their very different *reactions* 
(NOT "choices") to said upbringings would make the inherent 
differences in their characters immediatly obvious. Both grow up 
(as) orphans, completely isolated, friendless, and treated badly. 
One of them develops an inferiority complex displayed in 
overachievment/desire for ultimate power ("...I...the greatest 
sorcerer in the world!" CoS Brit, p231) , becomes bitter, nasty, and 
generally psychopathically genocidal. The other makes friends 
easily, doesn't really like a lot of publicity, finds an outlet for 
lack of recognition in Muggle world through competing at a *team* 
sport, and tends to support the underdog.
Nope. I'm still not seeing it.
Plus there's the point someone else answering this message made 
about the whole "True Gryffindor" thing [possible theory - were the 
Founding FathersandMothers of Hogwarts really just one person with 
many different facets, ultimate message of the series being 
something like "We found out that each of us was a brain, a 
princess, a criminal, a basket case and a genocidal maniac" cf. 
Hermione as Ravenclaw? ;)]

The Skeptic continues: 
 Or in other words, the ultimate battle is with the evil who is 
 oneself. Sounds good, no?>

Kirstini - yerrrrsss. It does, darn it. But also a bit reminiscent 
of that bit in the cave in The Empire Strikes Back where Luke takes 
off Vader's helmet to reveal..dahdahdah...himself! JKR is no Piggy 
Lucas. She's far more intelligent and a lot subtler. I'm sure that 
if all the Harry/Riddle similarities which made the first part of 
this argument so compelling are going to be employed to this kind of 
end then she'll use the similarities to highlight parallels in (as 
you said) choices - ie CoS Sorting Hat dilemma. 

Final Skepticism:  
 I have a continuation of my theory that involves the end of the 
> series and the night J&L died, but enough is enough for now.

Oooh! Please! Apocolypse *now*! (but no more TimeTurners, please 
chaps. They're making my head spin)


Kirstini
can't seem to keep her hands off CoS this week.

PS-I think you need an acronym for this, though. I really do. 
That'll keep *me* occupied while I'm supposed to be helping my first 
years revise. Anyone else?