DRIBBLE SHADOWS addendum -- FAQ Poll Spoiler

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 129079

Jen: 
> > Take the much quoted Graveyard speech. Voldemort admits he can't 
> > touch Harry at Privet Dr., but also states he can't reach him at 
> > Hogwarts, either. No blood protection there! LV atrributes it to 
> > Harry being under the watchful eye of the 'Muggle-loving fool' 
> > but really, I doubt even DD would agree his twinkling eyes are 
> > enough to keep Harry safe 100% of the time ;). 
 
Neri:
> All this is well and good, but as far as I understand, the only 
> piece of canon linking Harry's protection to dragon blood is the 
> expression "ancient magic", which is mentioned once regarding the 
> protection of dragons. So "ancient magic" is your only substantial 
> cannon connection with dragons. However, AFAIK when DD and Voldy 
> mention these words (twice as "ancient magic" and once as "old 
> magic") they always refer to either Lily's sacrifice protection, or 
> to its extension to the Dursley's house. So IMO if you want to link 
> dragon blood to these specific protections, then you have some 
> basis in canon, but if you want to link dragon blood to other 
> protections, then you are stretching canon thinner and thinner. 


SSSusan:
Cap'n Susan stepping up here, defending her able First Mate!  

Oh, I don't think Jen and I do have much canon at all for believing 
there was dragon blood protection applied to Harry!  There, THAT'S 
said. :-)  What we do have are gaps we'd like to fill, and some fun 
ways (well, in our minds) in which we have tried to fill them.  To 
wit:

*We have the information that DD discovered the 12 uses of dragon's 
blood, interestingly presented but not yet explained, as well as 
other bits & pieces about the difficulty of penetrating dragon hide, 
and a dragon's vulnerable spot (its eyes, possibly matching Harry's, 
per JKR comment).  

*We have the canon on DD trusting Snape and Hagrid defending Snape's 
loyalty to the trio.

*We have missing 24 hours, just CALLING out for ideas to fill it.

*We also have references (as I posted earlier today) to Voldy's 
belief that Harry has been better protected than he knows and his 
(Voldy's) suspicions that DD has done thing*s* to protect Harry.  

Is that much canon support?  Erm... nope!  But there's isn't exactly 
canon *refutation* at this point, either, and so it's still fun to 
play, isn't it? ;-)  May not be everyone's cup of tea to build a 
theory that way, but it seems an allowable option.  If it means there 
isn't much of a crew aboard, well, that's okay -- 'tis a small ship.
 

Neri:
> I'm also sure that DD's clever ideas and Hogwarts' protections also
> factor in this, but I still don't see any reason to assume they come
> in the form of an "ancient magic" ointment, especially one that is
> applied by Snape. 

SSSusan:
And you definitely don't have to see any reason to assume it.  JKR, 
though, has been known to give us surprising revelations which seem 
totally out of the blue, but for which tidbits can be located when 
looking back after the fact.  That's all *I'm* doing here -- taking a 
stab at something which might be.  Nobody else has to like it or to 
think that it's likely.  

> > Jen, highly enjoying the ride of the good ship DRIBBLE SHADOWS 
> > even if we spring a leak after HBP.
 
> Neri:
> Spring a leak? Heh. If the VASSAL will be just "springing a leak"
> after Hurricane Jo is through with her, I'll hold myself *extremely*
> lucky. I'll consider changing my YahooID to Felix_Felicis_Felicius.

SSSusan:  Hee, I'll look forward to that change, Neri.  In the 
meantime, Jen & I and any others who think we're not totally bonkers 
are welcome to hang out on the dinghy.

Siriusly Snapey Susan