GH re-re-revisited

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 115324


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" <spotthedungbeetle at h...> wrote:
> snip>
> That's a verrry good question.  How the hell was DD so sure?  Sorry 
> to quote the barmy old codger again, but: 
> snip>
>...... and I was sure, too, knowing him as I have done, that 
> he would not rest until he killed you.'
> 
> `Knowing him as I have done'? What's that all about? Is this his way 
> of saying that he knows exactly what steps Voldemort took to protect 
> himself from death?  But then... the answers to the two questions 
> JKR said we *should* be wondering about might be the same... And she 
> didn't think anyone would guess them. Well, perhaps I'll come back 
> to that later, once we've figured out what happened at GH. (Ahem - 
> nothing like naïve optimism, is there?) 
>

Kneasy:
Good  question.
He knew him as a schoolboy, of course, but the phrase seems to suggest
something more recent and of greater depth. He  will have had the 
experience of fighting his organisation and of information gleaned by
spies and informers, but - I don't know, this sounds to me as if he
knows Voldy's mind rather than his  strategy.

Unless.... another of my wild ideas - that Voldy is TR + Sally  Slyth, or
rather the essence  thereof. A  more or less immortal spirit that DD has
cause to know from previous encounters with evil. No canon, but I
can draw  inferences with the best of 'em. (108664 - 'Shared Minds') 
This line of thinking could also make one pause and ask "Just what/who
is DD?"  - a fertile  field for theorists with vivid imaginations.

 
> By the way, Kneasy, I'm in agreement that DD's not ESE, but 
> unquestionably somewhat selective when it comes to the truth (he 
> says something to this effect at the end of PS – `I will not, of 
> course, lie').  Do you think he *does* lie, or do you think he's 
> super-careful with his phraseology?  I keep coming back to JKR's 
> words about him being the epitome of goodness, so I'm somewhat loath 
> to think he lies directly.  
> Caveat: Or, at least, that he *frequently* lies directly without a 
> very good reason.  Any ideas (even if it's only in one or two 
> instances from canon) how we can distinguish between the two? 

Kneasy:
"The truth." Dumbledore sighed. "It is a beautiful and  terrible thing,
and  should therefore be treated with great caution..."

I've come across one instance where (to my own mind at least) what
DD says doesn't comply with his own explanation of how things are.
It's the Mirror and his tale of why Quirrell couldn't find the Stone but
Harry could:
"It  was one of my more brilliant ideas.[...]...only one who wanted to find
the Stone -  find it but not use it -  would be able to get it..."
But that's exactly what Quirrell was up to;  he does not intend to use it,
in fact he sees himself giving it to Voldy. Whether this was JKR having
an off-day on the plot front or if it's DD obscuring what the Mirror is
*really* about is open to  question. But the immediate addition of:
"Now, enough questions." tends me towards the latter. (I've long
suspected that DD controls what viewers see in the Mirror and since
DD states that it doesn't give "truth or knowledge" it adds to my doubts
about  his total truthfulness. DD is a fixer, a manipulator; he'll  do what
is necessary -  and that doesn't make him ESE.)  

> Dungrollin:
> *But*...
> Why possess a toddler?  My understanding (limited though it may be) 
> of possession, is that it's about forcing someone to do something 
> they don't want to do.  Or forcing them to do something that the 
> possessor can't do themselves. Or else, forcing them to do something 
> that's a smidge dangerous, and the possessor would rather someone 
> else snuffed it if the plan goes pear-shaped.
> 
> What could he gain from possessing baby Harry?  15 month-old Harry 
> was filling nappies and gurgling in his cot, he can't have been in a 
> position to do anything useful. And what was there to do? Voldy's 
> already knocked off James and Lily. If he wants to read Harry's mind 
> to check whether he's a potential competitor for the 
> EvilBastardoftheMillenium cup, he should use Legithingy, shouldn't 
> he?  Can you read a wizard's powers like that?  What could he gain 
> from *possessing* Harry?  Means and opportunity granted in spades, 
> but where's the motive? 

Kneasy:
Not sure that Legilimancy would be the right tool for the job - it 
accesses memories, reads thoughts - and Harry is unlikely to have
used his power yet so he'll have no memories of it.
Not sure it can measure power, magical potential. To  find out about
that I'd think that you would have to get in there and use it to see
what it can do. Could be wrong, but that's my take with the information
available as of now.


> Dungrollin.
> PS – I like SSSusan's idea that the eyewitness to the GH incident 
> was a painting.  Remember reading something (though have absolutely 
> no recollection of when or where) about the possibility of there 
> being a painting of Godric Griffindor in DD's study.  Could have 
> been You Know What contamination, though.

Kneasy:
It's a popular theory. Don't go  for it myself - not because it couldn't
happen that way, but because it reduces drastically the opportunity for
unknown person(s) to be at GH, hidden agendas, dirty doings at the
crossroads  - that sort of thing; you know - the fun stuff.
Compulsive  theorisers have to have something to  get twitchy about
and "It was Grannie's portrait" would be feasible -  but boring.