Petunia squib or not? WAS: Re: Random Questions from The Boy Who Liv

[va32h]

No: HPFGUIDX 165015

Whirledgirl:

It does seem like a farfetched theory by most standards, not least 
because it would seem out of the blue. But then, that wouldn't be the 
first time. If DD says "where your mother's blood" dwells, could we 
suppose a vial of her blood at all? anything along those lines? or if 
we take Harry's "mother's blood" to actually mean Harry himself? 
Could this work? If by "mother's bloody" DD means Harry, then the 
sentence would mean something along the lines of: 'where Harry 
dwells'. The whole idea of seeking/obtaining protection because of 
*blood* seems anomalous to how JKR has portrayed the importance of 
blood ties.

va32h:

I don't know why it seems odd for Dumbledore's character to be 
talking of blood ties - it is ancient magic, he didn't invent it, 
he's just using it. While JKR certainly rejects the notion that our 
destinies are limited by our blood, blood is a recurrent motif in the 
series. Notions of bad blood, blood will out,half-bloods, pure-
bloods, the uses of dragon's blood, the blood Voldemort extracts from 
Harry for his regeneration potion, the blood sacrifice that Harry and 
Dumbledore must pay to get in and out of the cave.

"Harry's mother's blood" is not Harry himself. It is another blood 
relative. I do not have a copy of OoTP handy, but perhaps if you 
reread that passage from the book, rather than relying on my 
paraphrasing, it will make more sense. 

What purpose does it serve to have Petunia adopted? How would Petunia 
being adopted enhance or illuminate any of the themes and motifs in 
the series? 

If you find the notion of Dumbledore taking Harry to a blood relative 
unappealing, what on earth is so much more appealing about having 
Lily's blood drawn and kept in a vial in the Dursley home just so we 
can say that Petunia is adopted? That is not only far-fetched, it's 
silly. 

va32h