Re: Mommy can’t protect you forever

[annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 99492

Okay, Neri, now you've made me doubt what I once thought obvious.  Now
I'm thinking we don't have enough information, but I'll examine the
new thoughts you've prompted and let's see if we can't get any further.

> Neri:
> DD words in SS/PS:
> "Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot 
> understand, it is love. He didn't realise that love as powerful as 
> your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible 
> sign 
 to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved 
> us is gone, will give us some protection for ever. It is in your very 
> skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed and ambition, sharing his soul 
> with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to 
> touch a person marked by something so good."
> 
> This can be interpreted as if only LV or someone sharing his soul 
> with him would trigger the protection, but also as if any extremely 
> bad person could do it. Dudley wouldn't have fit the bill, but 
> Wormtail could have.

Annemehr:
Going by Dudley's obvious lack of burns, he didn't fit the bill (yay!
something for certain!). But are we sure why that was? Is it because
Dudley is a Muggle?  If so, then Harry's only protected against
certain people (wizards), not everyone.  Is it because Dudley, full of
malice as he must have been, did not actually intend murder? Well,
neither did  Wormtail, technically, and besides, DD does not mention
"murder" in the passage you quoted.  Is it because Dudley, being a
child at the time, could not be evil enough to trigger the protection?
This one I could buy.  Is this what you were thinking of?  

Neri:
> Voldy in the graveyard scene says:
> "I wanted Harry Potters blood. I wanted the blood of the one who had 
> stripped me of power thirteen years ago
for the lingering protection 
> his mother once gave him would then reside in my veins too.
"
> 
> If the protection is specifically anti-LV, I'd say the last thing 
> Voldy would want to do is get it into his body. It is much easier to 
> explain why he did it if we assume that the protection protects the 
> carrier from any great threat.
<snip>

Annemehr:
Actually, I have no problem with LV wanting Harry's blood if the
protection was LV-specific.  It's like a vaccine then, isn't it?  A
vaccine puts the very virus you want protection against into your body
so you can develop a resistance to it. Or, it's like anti-venin being
made out of the same snake venom it's meant to block.  Even
homeopathic medicine uses this idea. So, LV took a few drops of the
blood of the one who could burn him by a touch, to make himself immune
to that. I think that makes narrative sense, so I don't think the use
of Harry's blood is an argument for either of our viewpoints.

I still think my original idea of LV-specific protection is valid, but
now I think it's only one possible view.

> 
> Neri:
> See above why I think the protection was not specific to LV. One 
> might say that this question doesn't have any importance now, if we 
> agree that Lily's protection doesn't work anymore anyway. However, 
> there is one scenario in which this question can be very important: 
> if LV believes he bought himself protection from anybody with Harry's 
> blood, but it actually doesn't work, LV might take a hit when he 
> least expects to.

Annemehr:
There are a couple different ideas at work here, so I'll try not to be
confusing.

First of all, the idea that Lily's sacrifice conferred protection
against anyone of murderous intent is maybe too much for my personal
taste -- the protection is too broad for my liking. If it's limited to
physical contact alone, though, at least it's not making anyone
immortal.  I'm interested in exactly what you posit that LV thinks
he's now protected against?

The reason I agreed that Lily's protection didn't work anymore was
because I assumed it was specific to LV, and since LV had overcome it
with Harry's blood, it was gone.  Or rather, the burning skin part was
gone; I had my mind kept open that there may still be more to it that
we don't know yet (the infamous gleam, you know).

But if Lily's sacrifice provided protection against *anyone* attacking
Harry with enough evil intent, then I don't know why it wouldn't work
anymore. If I understand you correctly, you attribute it to Harry's
age -- the protection "wore off" as Harry grew and matured.  But the
quote from Dumbledore at the beginning of this post says it would
provide some protection *forever.*

Here's another attack on Harry that was dire enough to trigger
protection if it had applied -- it's in the battle in the DoM in OoP,
in the Death Chamber shortly before Dumbledore's arrival:

"[T]hen a thick arm came out of nowhere, seized Harry around the neck
and pulled him upright, so that his toes were barely touching the floor.
'Give it to me,' growled a voice in his ear, 'give me the prophecy --'
The man was pressing so tightly on Harry's windpipe that he could not
breathe -- [...] nobody seemed to realise that Harry was dying...."

So, if I was right, and the protection was specific to LV, then
MacNair (that's who the strangler was) would not have been affected by
it.  If you were right, and the protection was universal but had worn
off by that time, that also explains why MacNair was unscathed, but
then you have to explain why Dumbledore said "forever" in a passage
where I think we have to take him at his word or be resigned to really
knowing nothing at all.
> 
> Annemehr, previously:
> I assume that Harry's resistance to LV's possession is very important
> to how Harry will defeat him, which is probably why Jo doesn't want to
> define it too closely. Though we've toyed with various ideas on this
> list, I always come back to "love" being the most fitting explanation.
> The key to the whole thing may be the particular form or
> manifestation of love that will come into play, which she's still
> keeping secret.
> 
> Neri:
> "Love" was the word DD used when explaining Lily's ancient magic in 
> SS/PS, but now you agree that the-power-behind-the-locked-door is 
> something else than Lily's protection. So is it a different kind of 
> love?
> 
> One key for finding the identity of this power might be asking: How 
> did Harry get it? Lily's protection took no less than sacrificing her 
> life. This suggests that Harry must have done some very powerful 
> things to acquire his new power.
<snip examples of things Harry and others had done>
> 
> 2, 5, 6, and 7 can be ascribed to Love. The others cannot. Therefore 
> I think it is not exactly love.  
> 
> Neri

Annemehr:
I think we're looking at this from different angles.  I'm thinking
that Love is the cause for all of these things. Lily's love caused her
to sacrifice her life which gave Harry protection.

Harry didn't acquire his capacity for love by doing things; rather, he
did things because of love. That's how I see it (though, doing things
out of love will strengthen love much like exercising a muscle
strengthens it -- but the love was there to begin with). So, during
the possession, when he was in such pain and LV goaded DD to kill him,
the thought of death only reminded Harry of Sirius which triggered
Harry's emotions of love for him.  Harry's love caused the emotions
which drove LV away.

In other words, Harry's power of love is something that he just *has,*
in the same way that he just has his magical power.  He didn't do
anything to acquire either of them except be born; by excersising and
practicing them he can increase their power as he grows.  That's what
I think.

So, to get back to the locked door: if it hides Love, it is not
anyone's love in particular, Harry's or Lily's or anyone else's, but
must be some manifestation or symbol of Love in general.  The other
rooms had concretised aspects of their themes: time turners and the
bell jar, a tank of brains, floating planets, a doorway with a veil --
all things which would have their various effects on you if you
meddled with them.  The locked door may well hide something of that
sort.  And, no, I can't imagine what form it might take without coming
up with something silly (like lacy valentines :P).

And as a very general prediction of what this all will mean, I think
Lily's sacrifice may be a foreshadowing or prefiguring of what Harry
ends up doing -- but that doesn't mean I'm at all certain that Harry
will die, even; I still have no idea what Jo has in mind other than
lots of vague possibilities.  I do think Jo means Harry to do
something huge out of love, as Lily did.

Apologies to those who now feel overly-saccharined. ;)

Annemehr