Killing Harry for Fun and Profit

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 127967


SSSusan previously:
> > I don't think we do have reason to believe this works in both 
> > directions, Steve.  While it's true that the prophecy stated 
> > that neither can live while the other survives, *that* part of 
> > the prophecy is not the part which speaks to who can kill whom.  
> > ...edited..
 
bboyminn replied:
> But what about-
> "Either MUST die at the hands of the other..."
>
> So if either Harry or Voldemort MUST die at the hand of the other, 
> a reasonable interpretation is that Harry and Voldemort can die by 
> the hand of NO other; meaning that only they have to power to kill 
> each other which in turn means that no one else can kill them. Is 
> that right? Well, we'll have to wait 3 years and see, but I think 
> it is a fair interpretaion. 


SSSusan:
Heh heh.  Whoops -- there *is* that part, isn't there? :-)

You know, that part ["either MUST die at the hand of the other"] 
just leaves me confounded.  Here's why I have trouble with it.  If 
ONLY Voldy can kill Harry, then why is DD worried about Harry in 
Quidditch, in the TWT, etc.?  Or is that just a concern for his 
general safety, as in not wanting him to break bones & such?

More importantly for me, and bearing on the series' end... if ONLY 
Harry can kill Voldy **and** ONLY Voldy can kill Harry, then does 
that lock us in to a scenario at the end where both have to die?  I 
know I certainly prefer to have Harry defeat/kill Voldy but to live 
himself.  But if that were to happen, then how would Harry *ever* 
die, if his death MUST come at the hand of Voldy?

Or is that where the distinction of "to die" and "to be killed" 
comes in?  Only Voldy can KILL Harry, but he can DIE in any number 
of ways -- an accident, of old age, of illness, etc.?

Or is JKR toying with us and "either" and "other" are in some 
convoluted way not necessarily talking about Harry & Voldy?

Gah!  I know this has been hashed over hundreds of times, but I 
still have questions.


SSSusan:
> > ... it would be out of a fear that NO ONE will be able to kill 
> > him -- at least by an AK.  Now, an *AK-47* might be another 
> > matter. ;-)


bboyminn concludes:
> AK-47, I like that, that's funny. 

SSSusan:  
Happy to serve. :-)

Steve: 
> As far as ONLY Voldy being able to kill Harry, I have implied that,
> but the great mystery is that we know Harry is protected from being
> killed by Voldemort AND Voldemort is protected against being 
> killed by Harry, yet we also know that one MUST kill the other, 
> which again makes the greatest question of all - HOW?

SSSusan:
See?  You're doing it, too!  I'm glad I'm not the only one ending 
posts on this topic with questions.  

Siriusly Snapey Susan, *hoping* that maybe some light will be shed 
on this in 83 days, but *suspecting* that no light will really be 
shed on it 'til we get Book 7.