GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 182253

> > Alla:
> > Yeah, I do. I also understand that all it takes to destroy him 
is 
> to destroy his horcruxes one by one and teenagers seem to do quite 
> well. 
> snip
> 
> Potioncat:
> Well, no. All the Horcruxes had to be destroyed, then he had to be 
> killed, even without an intact Horcrux, he was a powerful wizard. 
> And, not just anyone could have let LV AK them with the same 
results 
> Harry achieved.  

Magpie:
But not just anybody would have to allow themselves be killed by an 
AK. Harry had to do that because he was a sort-of Horcrux. If 
Voldemort hadn't had his explosion at Godric's Hollow we'd just be 
talking about a powerful Wizard who had to be killed seven times--
and each one of those killings could be done by anybody as long as 
they had the right weapon, be it Ron Weasley with basilisk venom or 
Vincent Crabbe with Fiend Fire. After that he'd just be a mortal 
Wizard who could be killed. A powerful Wizard, but not an invincible 
one. I don't see anything about Voldemort that makes him 
unbeatable.  
 
> > Alla:
> snip
> > And nothing convinces me that horcruxes cannot be destroyed by 
> > somebody else. I say Several people would destroy horcruxes, no 
> > matter how  many years it takes and then somebody finish off 
> Voldemort - without  Harry battling him. 
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Oh! Oh! Your yahoo name fits you! You are Dumbledore! What is it 
to 
> you if countless others suffer so long as Harry is happy and safe? 
> <eg> 

Magpie:
I know you're not really serious here, but just to counter that 
anyway, what Alla is suggesting doesn't fit that idea unless you 
suggest that killing the Potters in this manner was a plan in 
itself. But she's not talking about making any plan that requires 
people to die, just challenging the idea that without Snape 
repeating the Prophecy and setting up this particular version of 
events Voldemort could not have been destroyed. 

Potioncat: 
> 
> DD seems to have believed the prophecy himself, because many of 
the 
> actions he took seemed to be to help it along. I think his actions-
-
> separate from Snape's or in addition to Snape's--nudged it into 
> fruition.

Magpie:
He certainly did seem to believe it--he practically forced everyone 
to follow it by keeping the Horcruxes secret for some reason, and 
insisting that Harry and his friends destroy them all. He acted 
exactly like Voldemort with his fetish about killing Harry himself. 
Both of them seemed to be unnecessarily stretching out the 
destruction to make it center on Harry in ways it really didn't have 
to do.


Potioncat: 
> So, even if you and I agree this much---I don't think changing the 
> one thing will give Harry a happy life. More than that has to 
change 
> or to be different. You gave examples of being happy in war, but 
in 
> all fairness, you offered people who are not in the war. They live 
> out of the war zone, and their children are not soldiers.

Magpie:
I think one of the problems here is what one means by "a happy 
life." I have no problem believing that Harry would indeed have had 
a far happier life without the Prophecy since after all it was a 
response to the Prophecy that Dumbledore stuck him with people who 
made it their purpose in life to make Harry unhappy. Harry could 
certainly have had a happier life with a different family even 
without his parents, but the Dursleys were connected to the Prophecy 
(he's with them according to Dumbledore because they were the only 
way to keep him safe, so he couldn't have a happy life with somebody 
else). 

Without the Prophecy we don't know what might have happened. Harry 
could have had happy times with his parents even if they were 
involved in the war, or at least happier times. He wouldn't enjoy 
the war, but if given the chance might still choose that life with 
his parents over one without Voldemort but also without them and 
with the Dursleys. We don't know what would have happened if things 
didn't happen this way. Maybe Harry would have wound up dead as a 
small child and Voldemort would have taken over the WW, maybe 
Voldemort still would have been defeated but much later, maybe he 
would have been defeated earlier. We'll never know. It's not set in 
stone either way. (Also there's the fact that Gryffindors seem to 
thrive in situations where they're in mortal danger--having an 
actual evil overlord sometimes seems the best way to channel their 
impulses towards something positive, at least.;-))


Potioncat:
> As angry as Harry is at Snape-justifiably so--he blames LV for his 
> situation.  So do I.

Magpie:
Me too--Voldemort's the one who killed them for reasons of his own. 
But one can see how Snape focuses on his own responsibility and 
making it right. He's one of the only people in canon to do 
something like that.

-m