Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion

[spotsgal]

No: HPFGUIDX 148619

> > Christina:
> > JKR has answered her FAQ Poll question!  It seems as though, as
> > many of us have predicted, when a Secret-Keeper dies, the "secret 
> > dies with them."  Meaning that 12GP is still supposedly safe for
> > the Order....  This is really the only thing that makes sense;
> > after all, the whole idea of the Fidelius charm is a bit silly
> > if your secret can be broken by the Secret-Keeper getting run
> > over by a bus or something.  

> bboyminn:
> 
> Well, you point out the very misconception we are trying to clear 
> up. When JKR says 'When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with
> them...' does she mean that the secret is no longer a secret since 
> the Keeper has died, or does it mean that the secret can never be
> revealed again since there is no one to reveal it? If we look at 
> what she says next, we have the answer....The Secret can only be 
> given away by the Secret Keeper. If the Secret Keeper is dead then 
> only those people to whom the secret has /already/ been revealed can
> know it, yet none of them can reveal it, with out the Secret Keeper,
> no new people can be let in on the secret. 

Christina:

Well...yes.  I just quoted the first sentence or so of JKR's
explanation - I figured everyone would rush over there and read the
rest on their own.  But the rest of my post very definitely took into
account the rest of JKR's explanation on the subject.  There is no
longer any misconception.  12GP, as far as we know, *is* likely still
safe for the Order, because the secret is still hidden.  In other
words, Snape can't go babbling it to Voldemort (although he could
charge in there himself).  What I was saying was that JKR's
explanation was the most reasonable to begin with.


> bboyminn:
> I think JKR thought she was clearing up this problem for us, but
> instead she has only made it more complicated. Most of us suspected
> that when Dumbledore died, the secret died in the sense that it was
> no longer a secret. The Secret Keeper spell was broken. But it 
> appears that this is not true. The Secret is still secret except to
> those to whom it has already been revealed.

Christina:

Well JKR said herself that this particular FAQ question wasn't the one
she would have picked (although it is the one that I picked) - I don't
think she puts up FAQ questions that will necessarily clear up
problems for us, as much as she throws up ones that don't give away
too much, or are ones that she is sick of hearing people babble about :)

I think that applying this new knowledge to the first FC we ever heard
about is much more interesting than looking at it from the 12GP secret
point of view.  It confirms the idea that, if Sirius had stayed the
Secret Keeper, the Potters' would have been safe as long as Sirius
could elude (or endure) capture and torture at the hands of Voldemort.
 And if SK!Sirius had gotten himself killed, Voldemort would have
*never* found the Potters.  It really drives home the horrific
consequences of the SK Switch-up, and reinforces the recurring theme
that sometimes we do brave things for courageous reasons that end up
doing more harm than good - really adds to the irony.


> > Christina continues:
> > 
> > Where is the challenge in figuring out the identity of the
> > Secret Keeper and getting the information from him when all
> > the enemy  has to do is kill a bunch of people?  ...edited...
> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> You must remember that when the Secret Keeper dies, the secret is 
> not revealed. True, as we wrongly speculated, it may no longer be a
> secret, but the actual secret itself is not instantly revealed.

Christina:

I think you may have misunderstood me.  My point was exactly that - it
 makes sense to have the secret stay a secret when the SK dies.  Like
I said, having the secret "revealed" when the SK dies is stupid, and
it negates the entire point of the FC.  Whether or not it would be an
instant reveal is irrelevant.  If a reveal took place, Peter wouldn't
have needed to become the SK for Voldemort to get to the Potters.
Voldemort could have just gone around killing the Potters' friends,
hoping that he'd hit the right one and the secret would be open for
extraction from anybody who knows it (ie, non-SK!Peter, who Sirius let
in on the secret).  I was saying that this is *not* the case, and that
is why JKR's explanation makes sense.  Her magic tends to work in the
way that deems it the most useful - it's the argument that a lot of
people used to use when talking about pensieves.  They must show the
truth because otherwise, they're just about as useful as a diary.


> > Christina continues:
> >
> > And I still wonder what happens to a secret if the secret itself
> > dies...that is, did the charm on the Potters break when *they* 
> > died (although Harry was still alive)?  Or if the charm was more 
> > on the house, did it break when the house was destroyed?

> bboyminn:
> 
> As I said, JKR has only made things more complicated. Keep in mind
> that we don't actually know what the secret was related to the 
> Potters hiding. Was their house the secret, or were they the secret?

Christina:

Well, there is Flitwick's comment that LV would never have found the
Potters, even if "he had his nose pressed against their sitting room
window."  Now, who knows how much Flitwick knew about the Order and
the Potters, but it keys into something I still find odd about the FC
in relation to 12GP (which JKR's explanation on the death of the SK
doesn't touch on): if the secret is that "the headquarters of the
Order of the Phoenix is at 12GP," then why can't Harry see the house?
 After all, the secret isn't that "Number 12, Grimmauld Place exists."
 And what of the people that knew the location of the house before the
secret was sealed?  For example, Bellatrix.  It would seem odd to one
day know where your cousins lived as children, and the next day to
"forget" this information.

I really wish that the FAQ question had been a more general one about
the FC, but we can't always get what we want.  I think that it's
necessary to do a little fudging with the concept; otherwise, why
doesn't somebody just put Harry under the FC - the secret being "Harry
Potter exists" or "Harry Potter is in the UK" - then he could dance in
the street without anybody knowing he was there, free to track down
Voldemort's horcruxes and finally LV himself, all while being visible
to a select few.


> bboyminn:
> And as you ask, when the Potters - the Secret - died, was the house
> revealed since there no longer was a secret to keep? When Harry goes
> to Godric Hollow, will he be able to see their graves but not their
> house, or will he be able to see both or neither?

Christina:

I think Harry would be able to see everything, no matter what, because
he was in on the secret to begin with.  JKR hinted on that when she
suggested that even a captured James couldn't reveal Lily and Harry's
location.  The three people were in the secret together, so Harry was
in on it too.  In other words, as a baby, Harry must have been on the
secret because he could *see* his parents moving about the house.

> bboyminn:
> Will Hermione and Ron be able to see both or neither? 

Christina:

Well, if you by "graves" you are essentially talking about their
bodies, then I would say yes.  Just because the Potters' existance
wasn't being hidden - just their location.  As JKR said, James
couldn't have given away his family's location, even if captured,
which suggests that he *could* have been captured - by leaving the
house perhaps?

> bboyminn:
> In the case of Dumbledore, the Secret KEEPER died; in the case of 
> the Potters, the secret itself died. So where does that leave us? 
> ...other than confused.

Christina:

I wonder if perhaps there is a way for the *Secret-Keeper* to release
the secret and break the charm.  The fact that the FC doesn't seem to
have an "off" button seems strange to me...unless you are correct
about the HQ status change.  That would mean that a FC would have to
be worded extremely carefully, though.

> bboyminn:
>
> I don't see how the secret could be broken by the house being 
> destroyed.

Christina:

How come?  I think it's the most logical explanation we've got - if
the house is in ruins on the ground, it isn't really serving as
anybody's hiding place, is it?  Just like if 12GP was destroyed, it's
status as "headquarters" would be null, because a headquarters assumes
some type of structure.

Christina