Why ole Snapey is a vamp was Re: No fire in the office

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 88336

> vmonte wrote:
> It would be funny if Quirrell put garlic in his turbin to fight off 
> Voldemort's possesion. Maybe the real Vampire is Voldemort (as others 
> have mentioned). Maybe Quirrell wasn't a willing participant in his 
> possesion? 

> For example:
> Quirrell's confrontation with Harry at the end of book 1 is very 
> peculiar.  Harry tells Quirrell that he had heard him crying in a 
> classroom(?) and Quirrell responds that he sometimes has trouble 
> following his master's orders (not exact wording). I wonder if 
> Quirrell was forced into submission by Voldemort? 

Carol:
We're told that Voldemort possessed Quirrell after Quirrell failed to
steal the philosopher's stone from Gringotts. I don't think Quirrell
had any say in the matter. Although he willingly brought Voldemort
back to Britain from Albania, which suggests that he was already
seduced into becoming Voldemort's servant before we even meet him,
that doesn't mean he was willing to have Voldemort inside his head.
Possession was evidently a punishment, and a cruel one. (Yes, I still
have some pity for Quirrell at this point. He's still more a victim
than a villain. He hasn't yet drunk unicorn's blood or threatened to
kill a student.)

As for vampires and garlic, if Voldemort were a vampire he would have
bitten Quirrell, not possessed him. The garlic-stuffed turban, I
think, is just the student's explanation for the horrible smell. The
source of the stench is Voldemort himself. There may be garlic in
Quirrell's classroom, however, since meeting a vampire is his excuse
for stuttering and acting timid. (I need to do some fact-checking
here.) How much of his timidity is genuine terror of Voldemort and how
much is an act, I'm not sure. And since Quirrel is dead and out of the
story (sorry, CV!), I don't suppose I'll ever find out.

vmonte again:
> Wasn't Voldemort very weak when he initially took over Quirrell's 
> body? Perhaps spells (or potions) where needed (early on) to keep 
> Quirrell submissive while Voldy's possesion was taking hold. The 
> classroom scene may have been one of the times that Quirrell 
> attempted to break through V's possesion? Maybe Quirrell was doing 
> the counter curse and Snape was actually cursing Harry during the 
> Quidditch game? 

Carol:
No. Quirrell himself tells us otherwise. Snape was trying (as usual0
to save Harry, and his intentions (as usual) are misinterpreted by the
other characters. Snape casting the countercurse is canon.

vmonte:
Regardless, it's obvious that by the end of book 1, 
> Quirrell is taken over completely by Voldemort (except for the moment 
> Q shows fear in his face). I wonder what side Snape is talking about 
> when has asks Quirrell were his loyalties lie?

Carol:
Clearly Snape knows that Quirrell is trying to steal the stone, and
he's questioning Quirrell's loyalty to Dumbledore for that reason. But
the suggestion that Quirrell may be loyal to someone other than
Dumbledore suggests that Snape suspects Quirrell of wanting the stone
for Dumbledore's rival and enemy, Voldemort. I don't think he would
have used the words "where your loyalties lie" if he thought Quirrell
was trying to obtain the stone for his own use.

> 
> I realize that at the end of book 1 Quirrell sets the record straight 
> about Snape, telling Harry that Snape is on DD's side? Why would 
> Voldemort do this?  Why exonerate Snape if Snape is your enemy?

Carol:
Quirrell wants the "credit" for cursing Harry to go to himself, not
Snape, and he's setting the record straight before killing Harry.
Diary!Tom Riddle and Imposter!Moody do exactly the same thing. I guess
it's the criminal's urge to confess (and gloat), as well as a
convenient plot device for letting the reader (and Harry) know what
really happened. As for exonerating Snape, it doesn't matter to
Quirrell because he thinks no one else will find out. Harry will be
dead and Quirrell and Voldemort will be long gone before anyone finds
his body. What *does* matter is that Voldemort knows that Snape has
tried to thwart Quirrell, clearly showing his own loyalty to
Dumbledore--and by extension, his opposition to Voldemort. Discussing
Snape's behavior in this regard is not exactly exonerating Snape!

vmonte:
> It's also interesting because Tom Riddle tells Harry (in book 2) that 
> Ginny was forced into submission.  Riddle also clears Ginny of any 
> guilt. Interesting...

Carol:
Again, the urge to confess--and triumph over your enemy by explaining
to him exactly what you did to get him in your (supposed) power. . . 

Carol