The Scar. Was: Choices - or not (long)

[Hitomi]

No: HPFGUIDX 89992

Hitomi:
Hey guys!  I'm answering quite a few posts in here, and this is for 
Carol, who wanted me to go back and read the thread, which I did.  
Anyway, just bear with me on the quoting.
 
 
Whizbang wrote:  
I must be missing something.  How does Harry's being 
a parselmouth or any skill aquired when Voldemort marked him an 
equal, suggest that Lily did a protective charm?  The prophesy 
states that the one had the power as he approached, not that he 
aquired it later or as the result of someone else's action.  The 
power to vanquish the DL is in Harry.  It always has been.

Carol wrote:
I wasn't talking about the charm here. I was talking about the
progressive revelations regarding the scar that convinced me that
Harry's survival had nothing to do with powers within himself. Those
powers were acquired from the AK (but the fact that the curse
rebounded could relate to the charm). Let me state again that we 
first learn that Harry alone survived the curse. Then we learn that 
he acquired powers from Voldemort. Then we learn that his survival 
had something to do with his mother's love and/or her sacrifice ("old
magic," Voldemort calls it). JKR is not telling us everything at 
once.  She's adding layer by layer of new information. I think we 
can discard any thought that an inborn power within Harry enabled 
him as a baby of fifteen months to throw off a curse that had killed 
every other wizard it was used on.
 
Also, where does the prophecy state that "the one had the power when
he approached"? If you mean "the one who would destroy Voldemort
already had that power when Voldemort marked him as his equal," I
think you're mistaken. It would help if you'd quote the specific
phrase you're referring to, but please remember that prophecies are 
by nature ambiguous and this one is no exception, so we probably 
won't agree on the interpretation in any case.

Whizbang wrote: 
I'm baffled again.  Why would the opening phrase of the prophecy 
be, "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches," 
if he didn't have the power?  Wouldn't it have said something 
like, "The one who will have the power to vanquish the dark lord 
approaches"?  
 
And if Neville was also a possibility, it would have to be different 
again.  "Between those approaching the dark lord will choose and 
mark one who will then have the power to vanquish him."  I don't 
know.  The first phrase of the prophesy seems kind of cut and dried.

Hitomi:
Both of you have points, though Whizbang, you're interpreting the 
prophecy only literally, not theoretically.  I didn't agree with 
Mandy that Lily gave Harry the scar, that doesn't make any sense, in 
my opinion, because that scar connects Harry to LV in obvious ways.  
But Lily COULD have placed a charm on Harry, we are not entirely 
sure what saved him that Halloween, DD's answer always struck me as 
more of a theory.  Lily's love did save Harry, but the prophecy 
probably did too, along with, perhaps, a charm.

Again, I'm with Carol, in that we have not been told everything.  
This is JKR we're talking about.  She loves not telling us 
everything.  There could be things about the scar, about that night, 
that we don't know.  We don't know what Harry has that LV doesn't, 
not exactly.  We know it's not power, because Harry isn't anywhere 
near being as powerful or advanced as DD or LV, which is to be 
expected, he's only sixteen (now).  The prophecy could apply only to 
whoever LV chose, or it could apply only if LV chose the right one.  
Again, we don't know.  We don't know if LV had attacked Neville 
first, whether Neville would have died, or would have been *the One* 
instead of Harry.  Yes, the prophecy begins, "The One with the power 
to defeat the Dark Lord approaches..." but that's incredibly open-
ended.  It could mean that "the One" will only exist after the 
identifying factors are present, or that you will only be able to 
identify him once the identifying factors are present.  We don't 
know if it could have been Neville, not really.  We do know it's 
Harry now, if the prophecy is to be believed (I don't agree with the 
theories of Neville being "the One," either; doesn't make nearly as 
much sense), but JKR didn't throw in that allusion to Neville 
without a reason.  It would be most unlike her if she did.  Maybe 
Harry was always *the One*, but we don't have conclusive evidence, 
not at the moment.

But Carol's thought process is far more sensical, in that I doubt 
Harry did anything to stop LV at the age of one.  Which goes back to 
the theory of perhaps there was a charm, or maybe it was just the 
prophecy taking effect.  Prophecies are meant to be read without 
assumption; they are the kind of things you don't truly understand 
until after they're are fulfilled.  And Trelawney's prophecy, in 
true form, leaves us without any definite answer.  I, too, remember 
the incidents in Book 5, when Vernon grabbed Harry, and something 
made Vernon let go, and when the Dementors attacked Harry and 
Dudley, and Harry's wand lit up while he wasn't holding it.  I think 
those events mean something, and I also think Harry has something 
(powers, emotion, ability, whatever) that we don't know of yet that 
somehow enables him to have power "the Dark Lord knows not" 
(alluding to Lily's eyes, his unique talent in DADA, all the 
allusions to snake-like behavior - especially in Book 5, his ability 
to throw off the Imperius Curse, his abrupt talent in magic when in 
need, etc.)  We all know that if Harry is "the One," as we are led 
to believe, and as I believe, then there has to be something about 
him, as of yet, unmentioned.  But we also know, that ANY wizard can 
use non-focused magic when emotionally provoked.  Hence, how wizards 
and witches are discovered before the age of eleven.

We also don't know everything that happened Oct. 31, 1981.  Could 
LV's back-fired AK Curse have blown up the house?  Possibly, though 
unlikely.  Until we are given conclusive evidence, we are open to 
making up theories, and bringing forth evidence to prove and dispute 
such theories.  In that, Carol is more than right.  Though again, I 
am more inclined to agree with Whizbang's theories than I am 
Mandy's.  It's a matter of opinion and thought-process.  Though, 
again, Carol's theories are far more sensical.

 
Whizbang wrote:
Somehow, the fact that Lily's wand was good for charms and the
identification of the rune represented in the scar seem very thin
canon to base this on. Knowing what we do about Harry, and 
Dumbledore's statement that he put the protective charm on Harry 
seem to contradict it.
 
Carol wrote:
Again, I think you're confusing two different charms, the one that
Mandy and I think Lily may have used to protect Harry from the AK and
the one we all know Dumbledore used to provide him protection while 
he stayed with the Dursleys. I know it's confusing, but the known
existence of one charm doesn't preclude the possible existence of the
other. And Lily's skill with charms as revealed by her wand *is* an
important hint that we shouldn't ignore. It hints at what's to come
just as James's wand hinted at his skill as an animagus. The rune 
also will prove important. I'm only stating a possible connection, 
not a proven fact--putting two and two together like Snape, if you 
like. I may be right or I may be wrong, but at least it seems like 
an intriguing possibility. Surely you can at least concede that the 
hints are there, whatever they may mean.

Hitomi:
I'm going to agree with Whizbang in that the rune is a TINY piece of 
evidence, but Carol is more than right that Lily's talent in Charms 
is important, and that the existence of one Charm (DD's), does not 
disprove that there may have been another one.  DD's Charm protects 
Harry after LV attacked him at the age of one; the theory is that 
Lily's Charm protected Harry THAT night.  It's just a theory, though 
one that has quite a bit of very logical evidence.  Though, no, it 
cannot be proved.  Just like all those Gryffindor's heir theories, 
with Harry being the heir of Godric.  Lots of sensical evidence, 
though what with the prophecy in Book 5, we're not all clamoring to 
believe that theory anymore.  Until the next two books come out, for 
all we know, Lily might have placed a Charm upon Harry.  It would 
make sense, if she had a talent in the field, and knew LV was after 
them, wouldn't she try to protect her son in some sort of physical 
way, besides by just shielding him with her body, as we assume she 
did?  

 
Carol wrote:
Also, you might consider that we don't know what powers Harry had 
as a baby before LV "marked" him. 

Hitomi:
My point exactly.
 

Whizbang wrote: 
Harry had the power to vanquish the dark lord as he approached, 
before he was born.  The prophesy should be taken into consideration 
in this theory.
 
Carol wrote:
Forgive me, but you're taking your own theory for granted here. We
*don't* know that Harry "had the power to vanquish the Dark Lord as 
he approached." I think you're confusing what happened at Godric's 
Hollow with what the Prophecy (ambiguously) states will happen in 
the final confrontation. I'm not ignoring the Prophecy, but clearly 
we're interpreting it differently.

Hitomi:
Again, it's a prophecy.  It's meant to be ambiguous, non-conclusive, 
and open to interpretation.  There are different ways in which to 
read it, as I said, literally or theoretically.  Do I think Harry 
is "the One?"  Yes, because, as far as I'm concerned, it makes the 
most sense, and he is the main character.  Does that mean I could be 
wrong?  Yes, because we won't know until the next two books come 
out.  As Carol has said, we should be open to different theories, 
until, of course, we know differently.

I suggest everyone go read these essays by Maline on MuggleNet.  
They are eloquent and concise, and give good insight into the 
prophecy argument and others:

http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/


Whizbang wrote:
<snip>
According to Dumbledore, the powers transfered by Voldemort are what 
have given Harry the "power, and a future" to escape the DL four 
times.  None of the transferred powers will vanquish the DL. Even 
Dumbledore can't do that.  This is a power or a quantity of power 
somehow exclusive to Harry. He was born with it. 

Hitomi:
We don't know this for sure.

 
Carol wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're saying here. In any case, a
power within Harry that will ultimately enable him to defeat LV is 
not necessarily a power he was born with. And again, his ability to 
defeat LV in the future is not the same as his "ability" to survive 
the AK in the first place. As far as I can see, there is no evidence 
that his survival was the result of anything the infant Harry said, 
did, or willed. His survival is the result of something his mother 
did--her love, her self-sacrifice, or a charm she put on him to 
protect him--we don't know yet. 
<snip>

Hitomi:
Again, we don't know this for sure.


Carol wrote:
You seem to be certain of your view, but it is really only an
interpretation just as mine is. We are looking at the same passages
and interpreting them differently. We are both presenting theories.
There are no absolutes here, and evidence is only evidence, not 
proof. 
 
Hitomi:
Yes, yup, definitely, exactly, and any other word of agreement.


Whizbang wrote: 
There seems to be far more in canon to support the AK failing to 
kill Harry, marking him with a lightning bolt scar, transferring 
Voldemort's powers and then rebounding to tear Voldemort painfully 
from his body, leaving him less than the meanest ghost. 

Carol wrote:
We both agree on this point. Where we disagree is that you think the
power to deflect the AK was within Harry himself, something he was
born with, whereas I think he was protected by Lily, at the very 
least by her love and self-sacrifice, but possibly by a protective 
charm as well (which is where the other evidence--her wand and the 
Eihwaz rune, comes in).

Hitomi:
And, with what we know, either theory is quite valid.  Which do I 
agree with?  Whizbang's, but that's only because I prefer that 
theory.  I remain open to Carol's, however.

 
Whizbang wrote:
Of course, the house was also destroyed.  And ten years later, Aunt 
Petunia wouldn't leave Harry home alone because she was afraid she 
would come home and find the house leveled.  Harry protests that he 
won't blow up the house, but she is unimpressed. (Just what does she 
know?)

Hitomi:
Alright, this is WAY taking your theory for granted.  And no 
offense, but Petunia is the absolute WORST example of knowledge 
about magic.  We don't know what happened that night, as I've 
reiterated time and again.  And Harry, more than likely, was not 
able to blow up a house on his own (with magic).  I don't even know 
if he could do that now.


Whizbang wrote:
How was the house in Godric's Hollow destroyed?  I think Harry 
attacked Voldemort at the same time that the AK was cast and either 
Harry's alone, or the combination of spells brought the house down 
as well as all else that occured.  "Either must die at the hand of 
the other."  But when they attacked each other simultaneously in the 
graveyard, they both survived.  Has that happened before?
 
Carol wrote:
A fifteen-month-old baby who couldn't even talk yet beyond "Mama" and
"bye bye" picked up a wand and cast a spell? I have no idea why the
house was destroyed, but I'm willing to bet fifty galleons in
leprechaun gold that it wasn't that. Again, you seem to be confusing
the Prophecy, which concerns the ultimate defeat of Voldemort by the
one he marked as his equal with the events at Godric's Hollow.

Hitomi:
I'm with Carol, that theory just doesn't make sense.  Knowing what 
we know, I've always assumed the AK Curse back-firing was what 
probably blew up the house, which of course, would be no doing of 
Harry's (not directly, at any rate).  But something else could have 
happened, something else could have occured that we don't know of.  
Perhaps James tried dueling LV before his death, and that leveled 
part of the house.  It might not have anything to do with Harry; 
three people were attacked that night, not just the baby.  We may 
know eventually, but I can state, with almost certainty, that Harry 
did not PRODUCE a spell that night.  He was ONE for heaven's sake.


Carol wrote:
P.S. What I really want is for SOMEBODY to look at this argument and
back me up on a point or two, or help me unconfuse Whizbang, who
doesn't seem to understand my detailed explanations of my arguments.

Hitomi:
I hope I've helped to at least clear up a few things.  Anyway, I 
hope this rather long post wasn't a waste to either you, Carol, or 
Whizbang ;)

Ja ne! ~ Hitomi