Book 7: The end of Voldemort

[Goddlefrood]

No: HPFGUIDX 169813

> Pickle Jimmy:

> An AK reflected off of a child protected with his mother's 
> love has already "nearly" finished him off (if not for 
> horcruxes, maybe it would have)

Goddlefrood:

That was rather my point. Harry is an animate being, the curse 
rebounding off an animate being would not be terribly outrageous, 
a curse rebounding off an inanimate object, especially a Mirror, 
while it has been shown to happen for certain spells, has not 
been shown to happen for a Killing Curse.

JKR generally shows something to we readers in a way that when 
it later becomes significant, as would be an AK reflecting off 
the Mirror of Erised, we are not completely taken aback, akin 
to an "Oh yeah, I remember that" type moment. The times that 
has happened are several in the series so far, just not with 
regard to an AK.

> Pickel Jimmy:

> If you believe that Dumbledore is dead, then you already 
> note that while one AK can leave people perfectly "untouched" 
> (Riddle's family), another can have a totally uplifting 
> (Dumbledore over the tower wall) effect - not all AKs have 
> physical destruction in mind.

Goddlefrood:

It's not that *I* believe it, it's that I believe JKR. She has 
said Dumbledore is dead during the Evening with Harry, Carrie 
and Garp in 2006. Unless she was referencing Aberforth or an 
as yet unmet Dumbledore then there is no reason at all to cling 
to the notion that he will somehow be alive. He's not. In any 
event I always thought he was dead without wholly writing off 
the possibility that he was not, even before it was confirmed 
by the lady herself that he had shuffled off this mortal coil. 
Sorry if you are a member of www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com, but 
there it is.

> Pickle Jimmy:

> And while the Mirror of Erised doesn't move, it *is* a 
> magical object.

Goddlefrood:

Indeed it is, if it makes an appearance in some capacity then 
fine, but in the manner described in the original theory is 
not terribly likely, no more nor less than that.

> Pickle Jimmy:

>  A. sending out a curse isnt like pulling the trigger on a gun, 
> you cant accidentally AK someone, "you have to mean it" - which 
> means you have to want to kill. I think it is hard to say Harry 
> still good if he has successfully AKed someone.

Goddlefrood:

The blond Death Eater during the hootananny at Hogwarts may not 
have meant to kill Gibbon, but he did. Naturally an AK has to be 
meant and I agree that it is almost beyond thinking that Harry 
will use an AK on LV. That he may use another spell, based on 
love, which has been foreshadowed from the beginning, IMO, is 
not so easily written off.

There are things worse than death anyway, as the late lamented 
Albus would have told us. That piece of foreshadowing may well 
turn out to be what awaits LV. Why not just have him turn back 
into less than the meanest ghost? That was certainly a condition 
that gave LV little pleasure. If we presume that the Horcruxes 
will have been destroyed by the time LV and Harry have their 
final confrontation then LV would not be anchored, as he had 
been previously, and thus less able, particularly if, as I 
expect the WW is united against him at the end, to return.

Here's where I say that the reanimated LV has a soul piece in 
him from another of his Horcruxes, leaving only 3 more for 
Harry to find. Now wouldn't that be a nice surprise for our 
hero?

That may well explain why there is to be a mystery left at the 
end. Either that or we will be left wondering if LV had another 
Horcrux that Harry never accounts for before the end of book 7.

> Pickle Jimmy:

> A. The prophecy says "and either must die at the hand of the 
> other for neither can live while the other survives"
> It does say "at the hand" not "by the hand" which may only 
> mean that they are both in close proximaty when one dies - 
> Harry was "close at hand" when Voldy bites the dust...

Goddlefrood:

A nice thought, but unlikely IMO. at the hand and close at hand 
are hardly synonymous. Again I refer to JKR, she has said that 
the Prophecy was worded very carefully by both her and Sybil 
Trelawney. Additionally there is this:

'But Voldemort continues to set store by the prophecy. He will 
continue to hunt you ... which makes it certain, really, that -'
'That one of us is going to end up killing the other,' said 
Harry. 'Yes.'

p. 479 - HBP Bloomsbury Hardback Edition.

The entire sequence that precedes this makes it clear enough 
that either Harry, but especially Dumbledore, are wrong about 
what will happen should the above 'close at hand' have merit. 
While Dumbledore admits to making some huge mistakes, for this 
matter, IMO, he did not make an error.

For what it's worth I do have a theory about where the events 
that lead to Voldemort's neutralising will take place. I have 
sketched it here before. Basically it is that the final showdown 
will take place at Godric's Hollow. The beginning of Harry's 
involvement with LV and its end would be then a full circle. 

If it involves something we have seen in a different context 
before then it may be of interest to start inquiring what is 
it we have seen, that has appeared innocuous, that could lead 
to LV's demise. That's where the gong to sound him out comes 
in, as briefly alluded to in my previous post on this thread. 

Once again I say Dumbledore will have a part to play, but not 
as a living entity. Yet again JKR has referred to this, albeit 
in a snippet of hearsay from an actor who shall remain nameless. 
Dumbledore was giving her trouble during the writing of DH as 
he who is not being named said, and I suspect it is DD's turn for 
a little backstory, which may be contained in reminiscences from 
those who knew him, and probably from Aberforth largely. I doubt 
if it will be as extensive as the backstory provided by JKR in 
HBP for Tom Riddle, but I predict it will be there.

That is, however, the subject of a rather substantial post that 
is currently under preparation by self so I'll leave it here 
for now.

Goddlefrood