Death Chamber/ancient magic

Tue Sep 30 17:03:31 UTC 2003

No: HPFGUIDX 81932

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at y...>
wrote:

> Alas, long after St. Vander Ark laid down the Lexiconic gospel you 
> rely on, Dumbledore tells us that it was he, DUMBLEDORE, (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)

Annemehr is intrigued.
All right, first of all we have two things going here.  The first is
whatever saved Harry's life when Voldemort attacked him, and the
second (which follows directly from it to be sure) is Harry's
protection at number 4, Privet Drive.

The text would seem to imply that, finding (or *putting*) himself in
charge of a boy who was saved by his mother's death, Dumbledore used a
certain charm to take advantage of this situation and the fact that
the boy's mother has a sister.

You, however, state straight out that Dumbledore is responsible for
both the protection by Lily and the protection by Petunia.  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 continues:
> 
> By the way, we know Lily's "sacrifice" didn't leave a physical mark 
> on Harry. (SS 299) 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. (Wouldn't do to have LV come knocking when Lily was 
> upstairs taking a nap and Harry was bouncing on his Daddy's knee in 
> the living room.) Ah, shades of Sirius Black.

Annemehr:
I'm reading from you an assertion that all this was very closely
choreographed by Dumbledore.  I have liked the theory that Harry's
scar is indeed the rune ever since I first saw it posted.  However,
when I'm playing a strategic game (all right, Pokemon card game, don't
ask), I like to lay a lot of defenses as well as planning an offensive
strategy.  How can you defend going further than saying that
Dumbledore was using the rune as one of a range of defensive moves for
Harry?  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.

The "defensive plan" would evolve like this:  Dumbledore perceives the
threat to baby Harry who is his great hope for defeating LV.  DD
shares with James and Lily that Harry (or the whole family) is
targeted; suggests a number of things they might do.  One thing is to
place a defensive rune on Harry's head in case the worst happens: both
parents are killed and there's no one left to protect Harry.  There is
no problem in suggesting one of them 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? 

[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.]

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.  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?

I'll deal with Sirius Black some other time...

Talisman:    
> 
> Moreover, that's not the only "ancient magic" that uses a parental 
> soup base.  Recall that "old piece of Dark Magic" (GoF 656) that 
> required some "Bone of the father....Flesh of the Servant... and 
> Blood of the Enemy?" (GoF 641-42)  Odd fabric of creation, that.

Annemehr:

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.
 Enemies are a dime a dozen for Voldemort: another easy ingredient. 
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: 
<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:
See, I can see the possibility here.  I can certainly see how DD can
be aware of these possibilities ahead of time and make plans
accordingly, 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?  Would a ressurection potion merely containing flesh
of a servant indebted to Harry have been enough for DD's needs,
assuming the blood came from some other enemy (who would then have
been murdered, to be sure -- only Harry had any real chance of coming
back)?

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 agian, on whose face there was an
arrested look.

"*Priori incantatem,*" he muttered.   
--------

Dumbledore appears to have forgotten all about priori incantatem until
that moment (reminds you of phoenix tears, doesn't it?).  Doesn't that
seem very unlikely for one who knew that each wand contained one of
Fawkes' feathers?  But if he had indeed forgotten, wouldn't that
suggest that Harry's trip to the graveyard was *not* planned by
Dumbledore?

Unless <evil cackle> Dumbledore did plan it, had (in a fit of
senility) forgotten PI, fully expected Voldemort to AK Harry, and  --
then what?  If he expected V's AK to be V's own destruction then, why
was he so careful to protect Harry from it in the DoM atrium one year
later?  Bah.  I have no explanation.

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!  In other words, I'm sailing along with you for
*now*, but may end up kicking and screaming by the end, and still
wondering just where the truth lies.

<looks forward to more from Talisman>

Annemehr
feeling like Will Turner to T's Jack Sparrow, but what the hey...