Cedric and Pettigrew (was Re: Faking Sirius' Death)

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 91839

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "confusinglyso" 
<pjcousins at b...> wrote:
> 
> Now confusinglyso (Phil)
> The catch is, is LV telling the truth ?
> How would LV know he cannot touch Harry ? He must, at least, have
> tried to touch or possess him to learn he could not.
> We are limited for evidence (facts?) to the words of LV,( can we 
> believe him?),
> and Dumbledore's brief explanations, again while not lies, do not 
> tell Harry (or us), all necessary details.
> I am starting to believe Harry is more likely to absorb skills like 
> Parcelmouth from LV possessing him, than from a misfiring AK spell.
> 

I don't think that Voldemort realized that he couldn't touch Harry 
until 10 years later, when Quirrel's hands were burned when he 
grabbed Harry. If Voldemort was aware of it, he would have warned 
Quirrel in some way. 
As to believing Voldemort - my approach is that both DD's end of year 
speeches, and Voldermot's graveyard speech must be accepted as 
completely truthful. This, not for inner story reasons, but because 
they are presented in such a way, that revealing them as deceitful 
would collapse the integrity of the story (and of the author). If the 
reader cannot take these speeches as the final reveal it all, mystery 
solving, grounding narratives, then he knows nothing at all, and the 
story becomes chaotic and meaningless. 
Regarding Harry receiving Voldemort's powers. We have no evidence 
whatsoever that Voldemort ever tried to possess Harry (before OoP, of 
course). On the other hand, we know for a fact that Harry's scar 
reacts to Voldemort's presence, to his feelings, and that it 
functions as a conduit of thoughts and emotions between them. Why do 
we need to posit a second mechanism for transferral of powers, then? 
It's completely redundant, IMO.


Naama