Explain This Passage

[potioncat]

No: HPFGUIDX 180600

 
> Mike:
> First off, I wanted to correct the attribution: the above was
> written by RL, not Potioncat. PC's good, but she's not *that*
> good. So let's not put words in her mouth.


Potioncat:
Well, you're half right. I didn't write the (now snipped) post you 
mentioned.

Mike:
> 
> Now, on to your question; Someone pointed out, on a different 
thread 
> I think, that Voldemort would not have stopped with Harry if he had 
> succeeded in killing him. He would have taken out Neville, too. He 
> just picked the Potters as his *first* victims, he wasn't thinking 
> there was anything to stop him from proceeding to the Longbottoms 
> after that. I'm sure the Longbottoms were in hiding too, maybe LV 
> just hadn't found them yet.

Potioncat:
But that goes against canon. That is, if canon means anything 
anymore. A very distraught Snape says that LV believes the prophecy 
refers to Lily.


> Mike:
> But as far as the whole blood thing; I don't think Voldemort really 
> cared that much, despite what Dumbledore said.  I think the pure-
> blood mannia was for his followers consumption. He needed a hook to 
> recruit them and to keep them focused on their tasks, a reason 
d'etre
> if you will, giving them something *they* believed in to pursue 
> Voldemort's goals. Give the DEs somebody to lord over and they 
won't 
> notice how much self determination they've lost to Voldemort. 
Another
> Hitler parallel, with the DEs playing the part of the Gestapo.

Potioncat:
Makes sense to me. Otherwise, how could Snape rise so high in the 
organization? Blood seems to matter, except when it doesn't. And we 
also have---we need a name for interview-based-canon--- have JKR's 
comment somewhere that LV had invited the Potters to join him. (I'm 
sorry I don't have a reference for that.)
> 

>Mike: 
> Maybe DD didn't want to dishearten Harry any more by telling him, 
> "Sorry mate, it was the luck of the draw." Trying to, I don't know, 
> make Harry seem special, like he's not that much different from 
> Voldemort and that he can be just as great as he is? I'm 
floundering 
> here. ;) Because DD's story doesn't make sense to me either.

Potioncat:
Come to think of it, what was JKR's intention in giving Neville a 
July 30 birthday? How did that sub-plot really advance the story? 
> 
> 
> > Angel:
> > But I'm saying it now if I haven't so before, this story is not
> > Harry's it's Snape's!!!  It always was :)  Any explanation that
> > excludes the Snape factor in Riddle gunning for Harry over
> > Neville will undoubtedly fall short.

Potioncat:
Yep, Angel's got it right. The whole series was about Snape. After 
all, the hero always dies in this sort of tale.


Hmph! "Not 'that' good" indeed!

;-)