MAJOR MAJOR SPOILER - THE ALCHEMIST THEORY IN TWO ACTS

[tinglinger]

No: HPFGUIDX 131996

John Fisher
---------------
It's brilliant: I particularly love the Tom/Harry symmetry, and the
explanation for why Tom/Voldie first became enamoured with eternal
life.

tinglinger
--------------
thanks - {blush} - I appreciate that...

John Fisher
----------------
  But there are a few things I don't like:
1) Dumbledore lied to Harry about the prophecy.
2) We've *seen* Sibyl Trelawney make a real prophecy.  The first one
might be bogus, but we shouldn't have a "prophecy ==> bunk" bias.
What if Dumbledore had planned the Stonescapade already, including the
role of the Potters, and then witnessed the prophecy, confirming (or
re-arranging) his plan?

tinglinger
---------------
This is why if I was Archimedes shouting "Eureka!" in the bathtub I
would have electrocuted myself...
The prophecy isn't "completely" bogus - i have a tendency to use words
that are too strong - more like "incomplete" with giant holes because
of all the pauses and ellipsi (izzat a word?).
I also refer to an unquoted part of Manxmouse at the very end of that
book which I did not want to ruin. The gist of the end of Manxmouse
(without ruining too much) is that prophecies don't have to come true
- they can be altered by the occurrence of specific events. This is
also mildly presaged by Firenze (we're centaurs but we don't know
everything either...) 
If nothing else happens after Book 7 is released (if not before) I
fervently hope that Jo does all in her power to get that book back
into print again. It is almost impossible to find - Manxmouse by Paul
Gallico - its on her bookshelf on her website.

John Fisher
--------------- 
3) It seems out of character for Dumbledore to make anyone (Tom, in
this case) the sacrificial guinea pig.  The notion becomes palatable
to the degree that there is mutual trust; but we saw in CoS that
Dumbledore was suspicious of Tom from the beginning.  Same goes for
Dumbledore, much less Lily and James, letting Harry get AK'd under any
circumstances.
 
Tinglinger
------------
Sacrifice is a theme running all through the series - look at Lily.
Not intentionally in her case, but there is a heavy precedent.
(sidenote - I think that Luna's mom just may fit that mold too...)
A true leader must make sacrifices for the good of all. If (s)he is
too weak not to do so, all can be lost. Besides, if it didn't work TOm
would have been "redeemed".

John Fisher
--------------
4) It doesn't answer J.K.'s conundrum in a satisfying way:
"The first question that I have never been asked--it has probably been
asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me--is, 'Why didn't
Voldemort die?' Not, 'Why did Harry live?' but, 'Why didn't Voldemort
die?'"
(In a sense it does--Dumbledore didn't get there in time to finish him
off--but it seems cheap to pin it on logistics.)

tinglinger
--------------
Why didn't LV die from the AK could be explained by unicorn blood or
posibly even one of the twelve uses of dragons blood that DD is famous
for. Then again, we are not privy to exactly WHAT dark arts Voldemort
had messed with....

John Fisher
--------------
And, going on the assumption that the prophecy *isn't* bogus:
5) "The one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord approaches. 
Born.."  It sure sounds like it's something innate to Harry, not
something he was given.  Which begs the question: what would happen if
Voldie AK'ed Harry again?
  Shades of Uncle Remus and the Fabled Briar Patch:
Hermione: "Nooo, V-V-Voldie, don't kill him!  Don't hurt him!  Don't
use Avada Ked..."
Voldemort: "AVADA KEDAVRA!  Oop--"
Hermione: "I hate when that happens."

tinglinger
--------------
Interesting question, but I don't think DD would ever have given him
a second chance had he been there..... It would also be impossible for
LV to do anything without a wand (or a body for that matter). He even
says so in GOF (methinks) when telling the Death Eaters gathered
around the graveyard that he was helpless without one...