HBP - Draught of Living Death Potion??

[zgirnius]

No: HPFGUIDX 153304

carol wrote:

> I don't think that the water in the lake is the Draught of Living
> Death. DD was only sprinkled with it, and perhaps a trickle went 
into
> his mouth, but I think the weakness, as well as the burning thirst,
> the mental and emotional anguish, and the physical agony that seems 
to
> have accompanied it were all the work of the potion (poisoned 
memory?)
> that DD drank. As I understand it, the potion drinker craved water,
> but only the water in the lake would quench the burning thirst--at 
the
> same time disturbing and alerting the Inferi to the presence of a
> (greatly weakened) intruder. DD fended them off with fire. Had he 
not
> done so, both he and Harry would have died a most horrible death.

zgirnius:
The one point not addressed by the idea that the drinker of the green 
goo is made thirsty just so that the Inferi would attack him is that 
this WOULD be expected to result in the relatively quick death of the 
intruder. Dumbledore states that in his opinion, Voldemort would want 
to ensure the intruder stays alive long enough to be questioned. Of 
course, this could have just been Dumbledore blowing smoke to 
distract Harry from his worry that he is feeding a deadly poison to 
Dumbledore...

But if not, and the defenses are as you suggest, Dumbledore was wrong.

On the other hand, if the theory honeykissed describes is true, the 
defenses do exactly what Dumbledore predicted. The Inferi will leave 
the comatose drinker of the lake water (Draught) alive for Voldemort 
to find and question next time he drops by. (Which is probably not 
very soon.)

 
> Carol:
> I think that LV concocted the potion in the Pnesievlike bowl, but a
> whole huge nearly bottomless lake full of potion of any kind seems
> like a tall order even for him. I think that both the lake and the
> island (which reminds me of Gollum's!) are natural. Only the boat 
and
> chain, the spells, the bowl on its column, and the potion are LV's 
doing.

zgirnius:
I agree the potion can't be the whole lake. But the same effect coudl 
be achieved with an enchantment on the lake water...that it runs away 
from a cup to allow draught from a rather smaller reserve to fill any 
receptacle with which anyone draws water from the lake. The fact that 
the potion is 'clear as water' would mean the unsuspecting person 
getting the water would miss the substitution.

Carol:
> I do find DD's words about the potion not killing the drinker
> immediately and especially the part about LV wanting to question the
> Horcrux thief afterwards suspect. I think he's simply reassuring 
Harry
> that it's okay to feed him the potion: He's not going to die, at 
least
> not immediately. 

zgirnius:
I admire the lake theory for its cleverness...but I do tend to agree 
with you. I don't really believe it.

> Carol:
> Snape would know how to counter the effects of the potion, whatever 
it
> was, but of course he could not do so on the tower surrounded by 
Death
> Eaters with no antidote ingredients at hand. (I don't think a
> countercurse can counter a potion.) Otherwise, I agree with you. 
Snape
> did what he had to do, what DD wanted him to do, and that wish was
> probably communicated through Legilimency. (I realize that several
> people on this list hold a different opinion, which I'm not going to
> argue with here. I'm just expressing my agreement with you on this 
point.)

zgirnius:
The lake theory (at least the version I have read) is at its heart an 
Aliver theory. What Dumbledore would want, surrounded by Death Eaters 
and about to fall into a deathlike sleep, would be for Snape to 
*fake* his death. An interpretation of the third clause of Snape's 
Vow which would permit this (without killing Snape) can be argued.