Harry's protection

[snow15145]

No: HPFGUIDX 112892


Snow (me) previously:

> > Yes! Exactly. The curse that was used by Voldemort to kill Harry 
> > could not be the AK curse (but it was a killing curse) because as 
> > Fake Moody said there is no countercurse to an AK. Along with the 
> > fact that Tom Riddle quite plainly says, "So. Your mother died to 
> > save you. Yes, that's a powerful counter-charm." 
> > Riddle admits that the curse was countered by a charm therefore 
the 
> > AK which cannot be countered could not have been the killing 
curse 
> > that was attempted by Voldemort on baby Harry. There is also the
> fact that Harry only remembers one flash of green light that
> accompanies the AK curse, which killed Lily. <snip>
>


Carol snipped:

My understanding of a countercurse is that it's a spell used to
counter another curse *after the fact.* Lily's protective charm (which
I think was triggered by the combination of her self-sacrifice and the
AK that hit Harry) would obviously have been placed on him *before*
the fact. If I'm right, Lily performed a charm (or "countercharm," to
use Tom's word, which admittedly muddies the waters a bit, especially
since he seems to think that her self-sacrifice was all that was
required to save Harry), not a countercurse; ergo Crouch!Moody's
statement about there being no countercurse is not contradicted.

Snow:
I don't want this to sound bad but wouldn't a counter (curse) be 
during a curse not after one? To counter ones intention would be 
before or during
 not after, wouldn't it? Curse and Charm seem to be 
the bigger issue. I suspect that there is no counter of any type to 
an AK what so ever, whether it is a countercurse or a countercharm. 
If this were true then whatever killing curse was used (on Harry) at 
GH could not have been an AK, which cannot be countered. 

Carol snipped:
Dare I suggest that maybe JKR hadn't thought out all the details and
implications when she wrote the first two books and that we're bound
to find inconsistencies between them and the later books? (The idea 
that Neville's family thought he might be "all-Muggle" rather than a 
Squib is another example.) Maybe, like LOTR, "the tale grew in the
telling,"


Snow:
Yes and Yes. First I think that everything necessary to the story is 
in the first two books and second I believe that you are right that 
we will find inconsistencies in the following books because as you 
point out what JKR had quoted herself about the fifth book "the tale 
grew in the telling", which is bound to be caught up in such scrutiny 
from the very avid, devout reader. 
I got such a chuckle out of the Neville portion of your response 
because I saw the same dilemma with that portrayal. There wasn't a 
problem until OOP when Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort didn't 
choose the pureblood but the half-blood like himself. Now there's a 
problem with the first book reference. Why would Neville or any 
member of his family believe him to be a muggle or if they all were 
pureblood?

Carol snipped again:
Carol, who is not blaming JKR for not having the time to revise her
books, but does wonder how she can possibly tie so many loose ends
together without still more inconsistencies and some glaring plot 
holes

Snow:
And so many doubt that there is an end to this site after the seventh 
book
We'll See!