Survival of AK

[macfotuk at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 114099

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, kim reynolds <ginnysthe1 at y...> 
wrote:
> Kim here, adding to the following thread:
> 
> > Steve wrote:
> > Not necessarily. Right before the duel between LV and HP in the 
graveyard, 
> > LV cast both the imperius curse and the cruciatus curse on HP. 
But during 
> > the priori incantatem the first spell out was the AK that killed 
Cedric, 
> > not the imperius curse that should have been first. The only 
things that 
> > come out are 'people' killed by the AK. Where are those other 2 
spells? 
> 
> > Kneasy wrote:
> > Sorry, you're mistaken. The first replay was screams of pain 
(Cruciatus - 
> > Harry's, Avery's) then Peter's hand, then Cedric. The wand 
replays *every* 
> > spell that has an observable physical effect. The Imperio! 
wouldn't show 
> > because it has no *physical*  effect.
> >
> > At GH the last spell used (according to the wand and JKR's 
corrections) 
> > was the AK that killed Lily. And if you accept Harry's 'visions' 
Voldy was 
> > still laughing after that one. But then something marked Harry, 
dis-embodied 
> > Voldy and wrecked the house -  all physical effects. So where's 
the spell? 
> > Of course if it wasn't a wand spell but something else 
(something I've been 
> > banging on about for a long time) then that would explain it, 
wouldn't it?
> 
> 
> Kim now:
> 
> But it was a wand spell that marked Harry, etc.  I found this 
paragraph (Ch. 2, p. 20 of GoF, US Scholastic edition) which retells 
what happened at GH the night Harry got his scar.  It's the narrator 
speaking, not a character, so one would suppose it's meant to be the 
correct history of what happened:
> 
> "Harry had been a year old the night that Voldemort--the most 
powerful Dark Wizard for a century, a wizard who had been gaining 
power steadily for eleven years--arrived at his house and killed his 
father and mother.  Voldemort had then turned his wand on Harry; he 
had performed the curse that had disposed of many full-grown witches 
and wizards in his steady rise to power--and, incredibly, it had not 
worked. Instead of killing the small boy, the curse had rebounded 
upon Voldemort.  Harry had survived with nothing but a lightning-
shaped cut on his forehead, and Voldemort had been reduced to 
something barely alive.  His powers gone, his life almost 
extinguished, Voldemort had fled..."
>

Mac: I'd spotted this too on a recent re-read but taken it that 
the 'narrator' is only telling us the story so far from Harry's 
(reader's) point of view, so may not be 'correct' or, at least 'the 
whole truth and nothing but the truth'.
 
> (Kim) Looks like Voldemort used a separate AK on Harry after 
killing James and Lily with AK's, and that that was the last spell 
(at least the last that's ever been mentioned) used at GH.  That 
single AK gave Harry a scar instead of killing him and also nearly 
killed Voldemort when it rebounded.  

Mac again: - and also blew up GH, but not Lily or James' bodies 
(an 'early version' mentioned at JKR's site suggests destruction of 
Gh but not of L&J's bodies and I don't think that has altered). I 
think that both the books and JKR in interviews has repeated that 
there was a last spell (after Lily's death), WITH a wand and just 
one spell. It seems REALLY unlikely that a different wand was used, 
though it can't be ruled out (Sherlock Holmes theory), and there is 
a strong suggestion it wasn't wandless magic, even though I think 
there have been posts (and I'm moving towards being persuaded) that 
Harry is that rarest of wizards for whom his wandless magic is 
actually more powerful than that with a wand (has anyone considered 
btw that while the wand chose Harry in SS/PS, it actually is 
inhibitory?). We have many examples of wandless magic (most potions -
 Snape's first speech - no foolish wand waving), 
occlumency/legilimency, divination and broom-riding/snitch catching. 

>(Kim)In re. another theory somewhere in this thread, if the same AK 
that killed Lily had then gone through her and somehow scarred Harry 
too, Harry probably would have witnessed her death, but according to 
JKR, Harry didn't see either of his parents die.  He was in his 
little cot at the time (and maybe in his own bedroom where Lily 
might have been heading to protect him from Voldemort but she got 
zapped by an AK and died instead).  That's why Harry couldn't see 
the thestrals til after he'd witnessed Cedric's death.

Mac: I'm not quite persuaded of this view either (i.e. Lily died 
during the final spell), though your last point I've always felt 
weak when others mentioned it. In general, the idea that Harry has 
some subconcious recall of events at GH (aged only 15 months) seems 
rather preposterous for muggle babies, though yes maybe wizard 
babies are 'special' (e.g. Ginny who one migh argue wans't even a 
twinkle in Arthur's eye when Bill first started Hogwart's but has 
been 'looking forward to coming to Hogwart's ever since he came').

> 
> (Kim)Here's a thought -- maybe the AK spell that hit Harry and 
then rebounded onto LV at GH didn't come out of the wand during the 
GoF Priori Incantatem scene because the two people involved (HP and 
LV) were standing right there alive dueling with each other.  

Mac: This is a really interesting view I hadn't thought of and maybe 
gets her out of what would otherwise be a Flint (mistake) in a 
segment that she'd already made a  Flint in (Lily/james emergence 
order problem).

> (Kim)JKR could have included images of baby Harry being scarred 
and Voldemort losing his body, but she chose not to for some 
reason.  

Mac: I suspect the reason is that the details of the events at GH 
are crucial and, if revealed in sufficient detail, would give the 
whole game (or too much of it) away to the really 
thoughtful/perceptive. There HAVE to be reasons why JKR hides the 
details, who was present, what Lily's job was, any sign of a blood 
relative other than Petunia and so on - she's pretty well admitted 
as much.

> (Kim)Of course the counter to that idea is that PP was standing 
right there too and the image of his severed hand came out of the 
wand.

Mac: hmmmmm and the theory was going so well too ...   
> 
> (Kim)IMO, JKR writes wonderful stories and she's justifiably got a 
lot of folks hooked.  But she isn't always perfect in every detail 
she writes.  Few authors are.  So sometimes things don't seem to add 
up, the above possibly being a case in point. 

Mac: JKR isn't perfect? Well, she'll do. As you say, millions love 
her stories and it's just WAY too much presure to expect that she 
ever could be (perfect). 99.9% is not so bad.