Guilty Again (Was Death chamber/ancient magic)

[annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 82348

Okay, here's my reply, finally!  I stayed off my computer for just one
day, and had to spend all my free time Saturday just catching up on
reading the posts!  Still, I'm a firm believer that a thread is *not*
dead if I'm replying to it!  So, here goes...

Talisman wrote (post #82031):

> Sorry for the length.  I decided that what was left of the 
> original "discusion" had to stay in place or it would be too 
> difficult to follow and would be more likely to lead to redundant 
> questioning, therefore snipping is minimal. Still, the entire first 
> agrument isn't here and can be found at #81908. 
> 
> Previously Talisman wrote: 
>  Dumbledore tells us that it was he (not Lily) who made 
> the "decision" that Harry would be protected by a  certain "ancient 
> magic" likely to slide under LV's radar.(OoP 835)
> 
>  We see that it is not simply Lily's death that gives Harry what  
> little protection he gets (partial days six weeks a year?) from  
> this "ancient magic." 
> 
>  It is the "charm" Dumbledore placed on Harry (OoP 836) A lovely 
> little charm that just happens to require  ingredients like Lily's 
> blood and Petunia's home. Stir it around in  a pot and Dumbledore 
> says you've got "the strongest shield charm *I* [hear Dumbledore 
> claiming credit?] could give you." (OoP 836 my  emphasis)
> 
<snip>
> Annemehr wrote: 
> You, however, state straight out that Dumbledore is responsible for 
> both the protection by Lily and the protection by Petunia. 
> 
> Talisman replied: 
> But of course it is DD who tells us that the reason Petunia's house 
> is necessary to the charm is Petunia's blood link to the sacrificed 
> Lily whose blood empowers the charm, so that's pretty 
> straightforward.  I don't understand where you think I'm adding 
> anything.

Annemehr now:
The runic charm which left its mark on Harry's forehead at Voldemort's
attack is a new idea since OoP.  Your addition is that the protection
charm was placed by Dumbledore; previously people who believed the
scar was a rune had theorised that Lily had done it (since she was
supposedly good at Charms).  You stated that this implied
premeditation on DD's part.  I'm not saying that you've added anything
to the text, I'm just saying that you're the first I've read to imply
that DD had anything to do with Harry's life being saved on Halloween
1980. It's the Privet Drive/Petunia part that was always understood to
be DD's contribution.
> 
> Annemehr wrote: 
> To go a bit further, I would say that your use of quotation marks 
> above implies that I should type "protection" in quotes also. 
> 
> Talisman replied: 
> Well, I'm not sure what you see in my use of quotation marks, which 
> are only meant to accent the operative, canonical, terms 
> like "charm" and  "ancient magic," but if you inferred that I think 
> the blood-pact explanation for Harry's years of abuse is hooey, you 
> are quite right.  I do owe you that TBAY, and I will get it out.  I 
> know, I've said it before, but I really want to and I will find the 
> time, somehow. Soon.

Annemehr, now:
I was being sloppy, unfortunately.  I remembered getting the distinct
impression you questioned how much protection Harry was getting on
Privet Drive when I read your post.  Then when I wrote my reply, I
glanced at your opening paragraphs and attributed my impression to the
many quotation marks when actually it had been the parenthetical
remark that had done it.  To requote you:  'We see that it is not
simply Lily's death that gives Harry what little protection he gets
(partial days six weeks a year?) from this "ancient magic."' Partial
days, six weeks a year is not much protection!
 
> 
> Then Talisman continued:
><snip>I suggest to you that the scar on Harry's 
> head is indeed the defensive rune "eihwaz," (OoP 715) and a 
> consequence of  Dumbledore's charm. This, of course, implies pre-
> meditation and orchestration.<snip>
> 
> Annemehr wrote:
> I'm reading from you an assertion that all this was very closely 
> choreographed by Dumbledore. [...] How can you defend going further
than saying 
> that Dumbledore was using the rune as one of a range of defensive 
> moves for Harry? 
> 
> Talisman replied: 
> [...]I don't think we see a 
> lot of superfluous movement from DD.  If you can point me to a 
> pattern of contingency plans, I'd love to consider them.  The only 
> one I can think of right now is his vetting of the Neville/Harry 
> question.  But of course the prophecy question is another topic 
> altogether and we'd better stay on course until we are through with 
> this one.

Annemehr now:
Who fights a war without contingency plans?  And how would Harry (and
thus the reader) see any?  The best I can think of is in the Hospital
Wing at the end of GoF when DD sends Hagrid off to the Giants and Bill
Weasley off to the MoM to look for allies (e.g. Tonks, who is too
young to have been a part of the old Order).  By the way, I'm sure
there are motions toward the Goblins too.  In a Daily Prophet article
about Umbridge being named High Inquisitor, Madam Marchbanks is
mentioned along with an insinuation that she'd been linked to
"subversive goblin groups."
> 
> Annemehr: 
> And why couldn't it be James who died for Harry if that was how the 
> situation played out? Then you'd only need Harry in the presence of 
> either one of his parents at all times, a practice Lily and James 
> are likely to adhere to in any case, with their son so threatened. 
> <snip> There is no problem in suggesting one of them [the parents] 
> would need to die defending Harry, either, if it came down to that. 
> Why can't this be all DD did,
> rather than arranging the deaths of James and Lily in a certain way? 
> 
>  
> Now Talisman writes: 
> My dear Annemehr.  You know James was going to be killed anyway.  
> His death was certain and therefore not the "sacrifice" that Lily's 
> was.  See e.g. SS 249, 298 and GoF 635. Both DD and LV repeat that 
> it is Lily's willing and unnecessary death that is key to the "old 
> magic," in all its applications.

Annemehr now:
*Do* I know James was to be killed anyway?  I've just discussed that a
bit a few messages ago, in a reply to "KIM",  and mentioned Sirius'
words about Wormtail delivering "the last of the Potters" to Voldemort
in PoA.  *If* Sirius really knew something about it, that would imply
James was targeted too.  Your page numbers above don't correspond to
my editions, though I do believe I know what the SS ones are.  The GoF
one I can't find.  I do read where V talks of Lily's sacrifice but
nothing of James. I do remember reading *somewhere* V saying "your
mother needn't have died" and think this must be what you mean?  That
would be quite persuasive, but I can't find it now to verify my memory
of it.

Talisman continued: 
> Moreover, DD's shield charm requires the home of a family member who 
> shares the blood of the sacrificed one.  James has no other living 
> blood relatives, so even if his death could qualify for a sacrifice 
> (which I deny, no offense to James) there would be no safe home 
> created.

Annemehr now:
If James was *not* going to be killed anyway, and he had sacrificed
himself as Lily did, he could at least have saved Harry that night,
and Harry's further protection would have had to be arranged
differently.  Harry's skin would presumably have still burned Quirrell
as well, and made V unable to physically touch him until the
reembodiment potion.  Still, I am beginning to agree with you that all
the Potters were targeted for some reason (which I had temporarily
ceased to believe after I first read the prophecy).

Talisman continued:
> 1)DD invoked the runic charm before the attack--that's why its 
> effect was seen as a consequence to the attack.  If the charm is to 
> work:
> 2) Lily has to die, there is no other candidate; 
> 3) Lily can't die fighting LV in any other context than willingly 
> throwing herself in front of Harry; 
> 4) Harry can't be allowed to be attacked if Lily isn't in front of 
> him; 
> 5) If you've come this far, you can't believe DD's going to leave it 
> all to chance.

Annemehr now:
1)DD or Lily did it, but they were working together I think.
2 through 4)I can see that Lily may have been told to stay with Harry
at all times while they were in hiding, especially if it was she who
did the rune charm.  Working back, listies *had* wondered before why
Lily never used her wand.  If she had been part of the planning all
along, in case of the worst, DD may have told her that her wand would
be useless to the rune charm, that she should defend Harry without
one.  Listies have also considered that Harry may be more powerful
without *his* wand, so why not Lily?  Maybe this has something to do
with "ancient magic" and the wandless magic Harry (as any other
wizard) does when pushed to extremes.
5)Do you mean that DD has arranged all this *in case* the Fidelius
Charm fails?  Or do you mean that he arranged for this very thing to
happen, implying that he ensured the Fidelius Charm *would* fail?
 
> 
> Annemehr wrote: 
> [Aside: If DD *is* choreographing things, he could have brought 
> Pettigrew to Voldemort's attention through his spy, Snape, and I've 
> no doubt he could have planted the "Pettigrew as unlikely secret-
> keeper" seed with Sirius, too -- but that's not any proof.]
> 
> Talisman replied: 
> Pettigrew had been LV's spy for over a year. (PoA 374)  The Godric's 
> Hollow attack occurred "barely a week after the Fidelius Charm had 
> been performed [on Sirius]," (PoA 205), therefore likely only days 
> after the "switch" to Pettigrew.  Pettigrew ran straight to his 
> master.

Annemehr now:
Are you agreeing with me then?  The prophecy was given when Lily was
pregnant (DD says, "shortly before [Harry's] birth" in ch.37 of OoP).
As the Godric's Hollow attack happened when Harry was 15 months old,
that does give DD some time to make plans, put V on to Pettigrew, and
have Pettigrew establish himself as a spy for "over a year" before
that Halloween.  I'm not saying that's what I believe, just that it's
possible.

<snip> 
> Annemehr wrote: 
> Now, if this "protection at Privet Drive" business was so wonderful, 
> you could argue that DD hoped to be able to deploy it, but as far as 
> we can tell from OoP, Harry needs to be in the house to take 
> advantage of it. You yourself, in your second paragraph above, imply 
> this "protection" is not all it's claimed to be. 
> 
> Talisman replied:
>  I know, I need to get that D.O.L.L.A.R. Tbay post out. But "how 
> wonderful" (or not) the protection is, is a secondary question.

Annemehr now:
Well, just get your TBAY out when it's ready; it'll still probably be
before book 6 comes out.  ;)  And the Privet Drive protection does
seem to have deterred Voldemort, however potent it actually is, so
it's certainly served a purpose, I suppose. As I wrote before:
>  On the other hand, this certainly doesn't seem to be Voldemort's 
> understanding. He certainly seems to know about the protection (but 
> how?) and believe in it, but he seems to think it applies to the 
> entire neighborhood; or else he's just scared of DD's guards and is 
> embarrassed to admit it. Why wouldn't he try an alleyway attack as 
> Delores Umbridge did? Did Dumbledore manage to feed him some (mis)
> information somehow?
> 
> Talisman replied: 
> Supposedly LV's been too weak until his re-bodification in GoF.<snip>

Annemehr:
Yes, but rather than the elaborate setup with the TWT, why not wait,
what, a week or so, and attack Harry in Little Whinging?  V seems to
believe Harry *is* too well protected there, that he does need to get
Harry to win the TWT (no small feat!) instead.  I still wonder how V
got that information and how much of it is correct.

<snip> 
> Annemehr wrote: 
> I'm not sure this applies to anything else, but the spell is very 
> fortunately constructed for Voldemort. Three people are required --
> Father, Servant, and Enemy. Pick a servant, any servant: no problem.
> 
> Talisman replied: 
> Can't agree with that. Vapormort was rather short on servants as he 
> languished in Albania. Especially ones DD would send him because 
> they have a blood debt to Harry Potter. Then there's Wormtail's 
> lovely proclivity for amputation.

Annemehr now:
>From V's point of view, as long as he had *any* servant who could take
him to Little Hangleton, brew the potion, etc., then he had one potion
ingredient to hand. It's not a very specific ingredient.  
> 
> Annemehr wrote:
> Enemies are a dime a dozen for Voldemort: another easy ingredient.
> 
> Talisman replied: 
> Well, that's what Wormtail thought,too.  (GoF 8-9; 656)  But LV (and 
> DD)knew better. LV had a very specific enemy in mind, and it took 
> his whole elaborate plan in GoF to get him (GoF 9-10; 657), a plan 
> which DD "gleamingly" co-opted/facilitated.

Annemehr now:
Yes, V *wanted* to use Harry. Really, really, really badly.  V
believes he has certain advantages by using him.  But, he didn't
*need* him.
> 
> Annemehr wrote:
> But then he needs one very particular person: his father. Imagine if 
> a bit of soft tissue had been required ("EAR of the Father?" 
> Voldemort screeched. "How am I supposed to get EAR of the Father 
> NOW?") Shades of William "Bootstraps" Turner, there.
> 
> Talisman replied in part: 
>  He had been planning his LV role for some years by that time, and 
> may already have known he'd never need more than Daddy's bones. 
> Otherwise he would have canned something.

Annemehr now:
Talisman, that was supposed to be funny.  That potion was a piece of
ancient magic and included a piece of his father.  I just thought it
was lucky for V that it was a piece that lasts.  -- You actually think
he would have canned something?  :-P

> Then Talisman wrote: 
> <snip>  (He had already insured that LV got his limb-chopping 
> servant back,  and soon fixed it so he got Harry's (gleam) blood, as 
> well.)
> 
> Annemehr replied:
> See, I can see the possibility here. <snip> but I don't yet see that
DD *alone* chose and brought 
> about this one *particular* course of events. Wouldn't sending Harry
> to the graveyard be too much of a risk? How did he not nearly lose 
> him right there?
> 
> Talisman replied to that: 
> I think there was as much protection at the graveyard as DD has had 
> in place any of the times he has pitted Harry against LV.
> 
> 1) I don't think LV is referring to Snape as the one "has left me 
> forever," I do think it highly likely that Snape is there, under a 
> hood;

Annemehr:
As to that, I don't know.  What protection could Snape have been?
Could Snape have assured the wands would connect?  Harry was nearly AKed!

Talisman:
> 
> 2) No one, not even DD, has said that _Priori Incantatum_ was 
> responsible for :
> 
> a) H and LV rising into the air and gliding over to a place free of 
> graves (GoF 663);
Annemehr:
Yes, that always did seem weird.

Talisman:
> b) Phoenix song that gives H hope and strength;
Annemehr:
No, that I think *is* the wand connection.  I think Priori Incantatum
is only one result of the wand connection, and this is another.

Talisman:
> c) the "thousand" beam dome-web/light-cage that separates H/LV from 
> the DE's (663-64);
Annemehr:
All right, that is debatable.  It's not as odd as floating away from
the graves, though.

Talisman:
> d) the voice, " almost as though a friend were speaking in his ear" 
> that advises H (664);
Annemehr:
It's not a voice.  It's the phoenix song, which was the sound he
connected to DD and it was *almost* as though a friend was speaking in
his ear.  Phoenix song gives courage to the pure of heart, and strikes
fear into the evil.  And when Harry answered, he answered the *music.*

Talisman:
> e) and, it's one thing to see a victim regurgitated, but what was 
> with all the advice from the shadow/echos? Lily knew about the 
> portkey? James saying "when" to go?
> 
> When Sirius asks, and DD explains the "effect," he only speaks of 
> the connection/spell regurgitation (GoF 697).  If you think 
> everything is explained by the effect, you are assuming more than I 
> do.
Annemehr:
The Priori Incantatem effect is the important thing to DD. And, he was
speaking in general about the effect of forcing brother wands to duel.
 Presumably, the effect would differ somewhat if brother Unicorn-hair
wands connected.  How do the "echoes" know what's going on? 
Presumably like photos or paintings do, although it *is* hard to see
how they would recognize a portkey.  Unless they were always in the
wand and heard V taling about it. :-P

 
> Annemehr wrote:
> One last question. In GoF, ch. 36, when Harry is telling everything 
> that happened in the graveyard to DD and Sirius, we read : "The 
> wands connected?" [Sirius] said, looking from Harry to 
> Dumbledore. "Why?" 
> Harry looked up at Dumbledore again, on whose face there was an
> arrested look.
> "*Priori incantatem,*" he muttered. 
> 
> Dumbledore appears to have forgotten all about priori incantatem 
> until
> that moment <snip>

Talisman replied: 
> 1) I don't think "arrested" means surprised.  Recall that we've just 
> seen DD recover from his momentary "gleam."  My dictionaries suggest 
> such synonyms as "checked" or "restrained movement." [...] I think
an arrested face is a 
> restrained face, a face where expression has been checked or 
> controlled.  It is a poker face. 
> 
> DD shoots H a knowing look and when Sirius asks if Priori Incantatum 
> means the "reverse spell effect," DD says "Exactly."  He doesn't 
> say "Great Merlin's Beard, that must be it!"

Annemehr now:
A poker face is a blank face.  To me, the arrested look was when DD
stopped to think.  It's as if he'd just thought of a new implication
of something and went within himself to consider it. He *muttered* the
words "Priori incantatem" as if he'd just remembered about it, and was
muttering to himself.  And after all, one thing he never could have
planned on is V and Harry shooting spells right at each other's wands
so that the beams could connect.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Annemehr wrote: 
> Anyway, I believe DD is up to something. I know we've been told only 
> a fraction of the truth. But, I'll need a lot of persuading if I'm 
> going to believe he's orchestrated *everything* since he heard that 
> danged prophecy! 
> 
> Talisman replied:  
> My dear, Harry (and Neville) were added to the plan when the first 
> prophecy came out.  The plan is much older than that.

Annemehr ::blinks:: It is?  You know that?  Huh?  ::looks blank::
I always thought DD built that plan around "the one" in the prophecy...
...and I *still* don't know what the danged plan *is*!

Annemehr
tearing out hair (it rhymes!)