The Death Chamber

[Richard]

No: HPFGUIDX 81653

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" 
<entropymail at y...> wrote:
<snipping my (Richard's) prior comments>
> Yes, surely "dead is dead." But you must admit that there are myriad
> examples of JKR's "cheating" a bit on the dead stuff. From the house
> ghosts, to the figures dripping from Voldemort's wand in the
> graveyard, to the listening/sleeping/gossiping portraits in
> Dumbledore's office, the WW is certainly a place where the dead are
> never quite completely gone.


also sprach Richard ... ("thus spoke Richard" for the non-German 
speakers and those who haven't read Friedrich N.)

I think there is both more and less to the "undead" in the series.  
Harry's parents and the other murder victims expelled via the priori 
incantatum effect aren't those individuals, merely magical "echoes" 
of them.  As echoes, they bear some of the character, love and 
behavior, but they are fleeting wisps that will disappear more 
quickly than they appeared, once the connection between the wands is 
broken.  Similarly, Nick says that he is neither here nor there, and 
something along the lines of that ghosts are just pale echoes of 
those who have passed on.  (Sorry ... I don't have the text here to 
quote exactly.)

As for portraits, these are the dead they represent.  Sure, they bear 
the character and attitudes of the departed, but I see it more like a 
portrait by a great painter who captures the character of his subject 
than that of a means of restoring (or retaining) the dead to this 
World.  The physical, sensual, dynamic person dies, and the painting 
just provides a very, VERY good similitude of that person, devoid of 
the one characteristic that makes the living truly alive -- the 
ability to change, to develop and to grow.


entropy continues:

> And, as a side note: although I wouldn't be particularly happy to 
see
> Harry fall through the veil in a firestorm of curses and kadavras,
> only to be reborn by coming back through at a later time (it seems 
so
> "Dallas"/it-was-all-just-a-dream), it would tie up the 
whole "phoenix"
> imagery rather well, don't you think? 


I, Richard (though not a caesarian emperor) say:

I don't believe the phoenix imagery really applies to Harry.  He 
doesn't die and miraculously arise from his own ashes.  He simply 
survives, sometimes by the skin of his teeth, sometimes by the 
intervention of others.  True, he did "arise" from the wreckage at 
Godric's Hollow, but he wasn't "reborn" in any sense that I am aware 
of.  Still, there are some interesting points to ponder relating to 
Harry's life and possible death, though.

I'm not sure that anyone other than Voldemort can kill Harry, or that 
Voldemort can kill him with a Avada Kedavra.  The prophecy in OotP 
says that either must die at the other's hands as neither can live 
with the other survives.  The AK is performed with hand on wand, but 
isn't truly "death at the hands of" in the sense that I suspect to be 
hinted at.  It is rather attenuated, and more so than would be the 
case if one were to use a knife to stab another to death, rather than 
using a spell.

We've been living with the fact of Harry's survival of the first AK 
fired at him since early in PS/SS ... which obviously failed, but for 
which we still have no complete explanation other than that it was 
PROBABLY his mother's love and sacrifice that protected him.  This 
protection might well be more durable than even Dumbledore suspects, 
at least with regard to the AK.  Harry has also survived other AK 
attempts, such as Lucius Malfoy's interupted AK from the CoS movie, 
and another AK fired at him at the MoM and blocked by the statue.  
But would any of these really have killed him?  Is it perhaps 
REQUIRED that either Harry or Voldemort LITERALLY kill the other with 
his hands for the prophecy to be fulfilled?  Remember what happened 
to Professor Quirrel (sp?) in the PS/SS?  Harry's hands burned 
Quirrel, but Quirrel was also bearing Voldemort and sustaining him.

It may well be that Lucius should be very glad that his AK was 
interupted by Dobby, else it might have recoiled upon him much as 
Voldemort's had ... but Lucius likely hasn't gone to the lengths 
Voldemort had in seeking immortality.  Might Bellatrix be unaware of 
how close she came to death in attacking Harry and friends?  For the 
prophecy to hold in detail, something must ALWAYS save Harry from any 
lethal attack by any other than Voldemort himself.  For it to hold in 
literal detail, only Voldermort's hands can kill Harry, and vice 
versa.  So, apart from Voldemort's first AK, was it really necessary 
that such attacks be blocked, interupted or such?  Or does the 
prophecy simply mean that something will ALWAYS go awry with any 
attempt to kill Harry by any but Voldemort?

Eventually, JKR will enlighten us all, but until then, canon provides 
some intriguing clues and blind alleys ... which is just SOOO much 
fun!


Richard, who is curious what would have happened had Dobby not 
intervened in CoS.