[HPforGrownups] Adopted!Harry is Really. TTTR

[Lissa B]

No: HPFGUIDX 57725

asandhp wrote:
> How do I "know" that Harry was adopted by James and Lily? A number of
> ways, starting with the fact that JKR is the master of red herrings,
> false identities, and startling plot twists. We have been told so
> many times that Harry looks just like his father + mother's eyes that
> it "has to" be a red herring. Methinks the lady (JKR) protests too
> much.

Lissa replied:
First of all, I find this a marvelous theory.  If JKR does go this
direction, it'll be a great fictional ride indeed.  However interesting
I find the idea, though, I don't agree with it.

I agree little HP could have been transfigured by the Potters to
resemble themselves following an adoption, but that would be a rather
superficial and unnecessary thing for the Potters--who've been portrayed
in an admirable light--to do.

(snipping asandhp's impressive and significant array of proof that
Harry's messy hair is a result of magic)
> I propose that his hair was charmed into always looking like James', a
> charm too powerful for Harry to beat with a brush or mousse. (James,
> though, with no charm on his own hair, could probably style it when
> he pleased. When he charmed Harry, though, he went for his typical
> lazy look, not the one he worked at for formal occasions.)

Lissa replied:
Good detective work.  Don't you think, however, that it would be a bit
unkind for the Potters to impose such a messy hairstyle on a
child--especially if that style would stay with him either forever or
until he was magically able to change it himself?  I agree that your
speculation is possible, but it again casts the Potters in a
questionable light.  I think it's more likely that the rebel imp in
Harry is secretly proud of his own untameable locks and that he has
enough magical ability--even in his untrained early years--to keep it
that way.

(snipping asandhp's good explanation for why the Dursley's, etc would
not know HP was adopted)

Lissa replied:
It is possible no one but Dumbledore, Sirius, Remus and Peter would know
of an adoption by the Potters, but why would a wise couple like James
and Lily rush to adopt a child almost immediately upon graduating from
Hogwarts?  Given that they were helping Dumbledore in the fight against
Voldemort, it would be inconvenient at best, dangerous at worst, to
adopt an infant.  This is not to say it's impossible. :)  But if JKR is
going in the direction you suggest, at the *very least* she should have
put some detail in the novels that revealed Lily Evans' love for
children or strong desire to start a family.

asandhp wrote:
> The only puzzle is Sirius and Lupin. They were in contact with James
> and Lily until the last, and would certainly have known that Lily had
> never borne a child. However, after seeing how sincerely attached J&L
> were to Harry, they might have simply loved Harry as J&L's child
> regardless of how the Potters had acquired him, and all these years
> later, the fact of adoption would not have mattered to them anymore.

Lissa replied:
I absolutely agree Sirius and Lupin would have loved Harry Potter as
Lily & James' child whether he was adopted or not!  But, as you admit,
they would have known.  And Sirius banks that Harry's behavior in the
Shrieking Shack scene will emulate James Potter's own.  Given that James
didn't have the opportunity to raise Harry and imprint him with his own
value system, Sirius' gamble here almost *has* to be based on Harry's
blood tie to James Potter.

Then there's Dumbledore's words to Harry in Ch 22 of PoA (starts on p
427 in the US paperback) which make reference to James Potter being
alive inside Harry. Since Harry has essentially been raised by the
Dursleys, the essential personality and spirit of James Potter probably
can't be said to have been impressed upon him environmentally.  James
Potter would not be alive in Harry in any way, in my opinion, if they
weren't blood relatives.  Now granted Dumbledore is a master of
misdirection, but there's no *need* for him to make these statements to
misdirect Harry right now because the boy has *never* questioned his
relationship with James Potter.  For Dumbledore to willfully perpetuate
such a ruse in this passage would be pointlessly cruel. He could
certainly have offered words of comfort to Harry without saying that he
has his mother's eyes.  I can see that you believe JKR is hammering the
familial resemblance into us out of a desire to misdirect readers and
astonish them at the end, but she could have accomplished this without
making Dumbledore complicit with a lie in this scene.  I think Rowling
likes Dumbledore too much to have him engaging in deceit unless it's
crucial at that moment in the story.  In my opinion, it isn't crucial
here.

Also, I think this level of authorly--and I do mean
authorly--misdirection would seriously anger readers.  For such a red
herring to be justifiable at *all* there would have to be some subtle
indication from the first book on that Harry is adopted.  If not, you
have a situation where Rowling *could* be accused of using a Deux Ex
Machina plot device.  Authors who fail to foreshadow a hugely
implausible turns of plot can rightfully be accused of manipulation and
sloppiness.  I don't think Rowling is either of those things.  And, in
my opinion, it would not be sufficient to begin foreshadowing an
adoption in the 5th book of a 7 part series.

(snipping asandhp's discussion on JKR making frequent use of false
identity in her plots)

Lissa replied:
Just wanted to note that I agree with you.  Rowling has reasonably
prepared readers for a surprise revelation about Harry's identity at the
end of the series.  If she does follow the path you suggest--at least in
this particular aspect--she hasn't cheated stylistically.
 
asandhp wrote:
> It would be a waste, after seven great
> novels, for Harry to turn out to be Ron's lost twin brother. Nice,
> mushy, but a waste. The only conclusion worthy of HP would be for
> Harry to be Voldemort himself. Not his son or father or brother; that
> is Star Wars. Harry is Tom Riddle, time-turned to the 1980's as an
> infant and adopted by Lily and James.

Lissa replied:
Hey, asandhp, I resemble that remark! (grin)  No, it's okay: Star Wars
point taken.  (Again. *Sigh*.)  This theory you propose parallels both
"Angel Heart" and "Fight Club".  The truth is, there *is* no wholly
original plot point out there.  The fact that the surprise identity
revelation you suggest isn't unique, however, in *no way* negates the
possibility that it might be where JKR is taking the plot.

Now as to maximizing angst... I'd argue that it's far *far* more
heartbreaking and agonizing for HP if he turns out to be Voldemort's
father.  Harry Potter doesn't have any reservations about risking his
own life for a good cause.  If Harry found out he was destined to become
Voldemort, I personally doubt he'd hesitate to destroy himself or
Voldemort.  Given, however, that the novels have taken pains to show
Harry's desperate desire for a family, it is *enormously* angsty if HP
learns Tom M. Riddle is his son.  *That* gives Harry internal conflict
regarding how to proceed.  It would be painful as hell for Harry to
learn that he's Voldemort, yes, but his course of action from there
would emotionally uncomplicated.

(snipping asandhp's explanation that though the time-turner would be
hard to use to justify a long range time leap, the fact that time travel
exists in the Potterverse means other devices could probably do the job)

asandhp wrote:
> I propose that Voldemort himself brought his infant self forward
> using some dark arts which allowed his adult self to continue to
> exist even though his childhood time-line was being disrupted. And I
> propose that he did so for the express purpose of killing his infant
> self.

Lissa replied:
I'm confused.  Are you saying he took a magical replica of himself to
the future?  (Note: I'm not being sarcastic here.  I genuinely don't
understand.)  We know from canon that Tom M. Riddle was in an orphanage
then attended Hogwarts in the far past.  I'm not sure how this fits with
Harry growing up with the Dursleys then attending Hogwarts in the 90's. 
Are you suggesting concurrent alternate realities in one realm for the
single entity that is Harry Potter?  I'm not saying that would be
impossible, but Rowling hasn't given an indication of that being a
possible aspect of this universe. If Voldemort took baby Riddle to 1980,
why is Tom Marvolo Riddle still in an orphanage?  I *know* I'm missing
stuff here, so I'll just let you explain.

> Why? Because, as we know, Voldemort's main goal is immortality and
> absolute power, and, I propose, he discovered a way to attain not
> just "ordinary" immortality and absolute power, but something even
> greater: a form of dark godhood; not just living without end, but
> becoming a being "without beginning and without end" as G-d is. And
> part of the magic that would accomplish this godhood would require
> getting rid of his beginning  killing his own infant self. Thus, I
> believe he snatched his infant self to the present (1980's) where the
> ritual was prepared, and was about to kill infant!Riddle when someone
> stole infant!Riddle at the last minute, saving the world from an
> unstoppable god!Voldemort.

Lissa replied:
This is very interesting, but doesn't necessitate time travel into a
whole new generation--at least as far as I understand it.  If it was
important for Voldemort to destroy his infant self, he could have done
so without yanking that infant self into the 1980's.

Even though I don't agree with your theory, may I say I think it is just
plain cool--especially the aspect of a Potter-god without beginning or
end?  Man, asandhp, I like your quest-to-become god theory *so* much
better than my own theory.  This is just really, deliciously sweet
stuff.  If Rowling wrote a series like this, I'd buy it. I don't think,
however, that it's backed by the texts.  I also think that it would do
some unforgivable damage to the characters of James, Lily and Dumbledore
for them to behave in the ways that would be necessary to put this plot
in place.  (See above and below for elaboration.)

(snipping asandhp's suggestion of a possible way the Potters ended up
with HP)

asandhp wrote:
> Probably, no one knew about the ritual but Voldemort himself, and
> Dumbeldore, who knows everything.

Lissa replied:
Out of curiousity, why does Dumbledore know this?  (I know I have
speculations in regard to my own silly HP-is-father-of-LV theory as to
how, precisely, Dumbledore knows the secret truth, but.. I don't see why
the Dumbledore in your theory would be privy to any of Riddle's agenda.)

(snipping asandhp's fully reasonable justification for other characters
not knowing and/or not telling the big secret)

asanhp wrote:
> As for Dumbledore, can
> you imagine him telling Harry such a thing? Maybe that is what is
> coming in the "tell everything" speech, but personally, I don't think
> JKR is going to divulge this until Book 7.

Lissa replied:
Assuming your theory is correct, I can't imagine Dumbledore having an
easy time telling Harry at all.  Like you, I don't think the "big
secret" of the books, whatever it is, will be revealed until book 7.  I
think Dumbledore will give Harry more of the truth in OotP, but not the
whole truth.

(snipping a whole lot of good discussion from asandhp about the
harry=voldemort god-quest theory and how it answers neatly a lot of
questions that currently exist in regard to Harry and Voldemort and fits
beautifully with Rowling's theme of personal choices determining
character)

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

Lissa replied:
Man against self is an irresistable theme, asandhp.  Your theory is
delightful, but I think it's wrong for a few reasons.

Why was it important for Voldemort to kill James Potter?  James should,
in your theory, have no bearing on Riddle's ascension to godhood since
he's not genetically related.  There's textual suggestion that Voldemort
didn't hesitate to kill James, but did try to persuade Lily to step
aside and be spared.  This implies he minded killing Lily, but not
James.  Why would this be if they're both just adoptive parents with no
relation to him?  This is a minor problem, but I don't think it's
irrelevant.

More importantly, why would Dumbledore go out of his way to deceive
Harry in regard to his adoptive status?  And why put Harry with the
Dursleys--who wouldn't, in your theory, be blood relatives--instead of a
different, *reasonable* adoptive family?

A few other quibbles:

Your theory renders the Weasleys, who I personally believe are as much
at the heart of the Potter series as the Potters themselves,
unimportant.  It also makes everything--*everything*--all about Harry. 
That would be okay, I suppose, if the novels weren't doing some serious
exploration of the themes of family.  Why do you think the first novel
opens with an appalling day trip into the lives of the most wretched
family imagineable? Why do the Malfoys need to exist?  (That is to say,
how do they help fulfill the novels' theme?)  Why is purity of blood an
issue in the stories?  Is this all just window dressing for one man's
catastrophic battle with himself?

Don't get me wrong, I do love your theory.  If you wrote a story along
these lines and wrote it in a compelling and vivid style, I'd read and
enjoy it.

In my opinion, you need more evidence that suggests Rowling is
foreshadowing this resolution.  If she doesn't foreshadow it, I can't
accept it.  Even if it is really *really* pretty. :)

This concludes glass-housed Lissa's excursion into throwing stones at
asandhp's own fragile & shiny abode.

Fascinated,
Lissa