Riddle solved

[Renee]

No: HPFGUIDX 129702

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tinglinger" <tinglinger at y...> 
wrote:
> Renee  <briefly delurking, because this is so interesting>:
> ===========================================================
> Is it that no one could know what the man was dreaming because he 
> died without regaining consciousness, and therefore couldn't tell 
> anyone?
> And are you saying that no one could know know what exactly 
happened 
> at Godric's Hollow because James and Lily are dead, Voldemort 
> (assuming he actually knows what happened) never told anyone and 
> Harry was too young to grasp it (though not too young to remember, 
> as the Patronus lessons show)?  
> 
> tinglinger
> =============
> Great work, Renee!
> If noone else was at Godric's Hollow to witness the alleged events
> that occurred there (in particular Lily's sacrifice which is so
> vitally important to the plot), then JKR violated the Omnipotent
> Observer rule of writing (i.e. a story must be verifiable in order
> to have validity.) 
> > SO........... what does all this tell me ?

<snip>
> 
> SOMEONE ELSE was at Godric's Hollow at the time Harry's parents
> were murdered.
> 
> As for who .... 
> 
>  
> tinglinger 
> who loves Harry Potter theories. If you do too, you will find some
> of the more interesting ones that I and 55 other members have
> dreamed up since March at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/potterplots
> 
> Renee, you are specifically invited to join and lurk all you want,
> it won't be as scary as Godric's Hollow, I promise ......

Renee:
Thanks for the invitation... but I hope you don't mind if I disagree 
with your conclusion, now that you've confirmed this was what you 
were getting at.  

As bboyminn points out in message #129691, it is possible to think 
of a context in which the riddle ceases to be a riddle (though only 
if you're allowed to introduce extra elements, like the possibility 
of a ghost telling a story, which is cheating, in a way). 

However, the events at Godric's Hollow are not presented in a way 
that violates the the narrator perspective. Any details we get are 
derived from Harry's own memories, surfacing during the Patronus 
lessons, As Harry is the viewpoint character, there's nothing wrong 
with this.  

As for Dumbledore's knowledge of the events at Godric's Hollow: does 
he say anything in the books that cannot possibly be inferred or 
deduced from the results of Voldemort's attack? That he appears to 
be aware of what it was that Lily did to protect Harry, could very 
well be because he simply knows how such things work in the 
Wizarding World, not because someone witnessed it and told him (or, 
alternatively, told someone who in their turn told Dumbledore).

Moreover, the first chapter of GoF proves that JKR does not limit 
the narrator perspective to what Harry knows (either first hand or 
through someone else) or remembers. 

So, if you're looking for an argument why there must have been a 
witness, `how come Voldemort's wand wasn't destroyed after Godric's 
Hollow?' sounds like a better question to me.  


Renee