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

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 182260

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Montavilla47:
> > 
> > A minor quibble, Magpie.  It's logical to think that the Horcruxes
> > acted like the lives of a cat, so that if Voldemort had made six
> > of them, you simply had to kill him seven times.  But it doesn't
> > actually seem to work like that.  When Voldemort was killed
> > the first time (by the rebounding AK), it didn't seem to affect
> > the Horcruxes then in existence.  None of them became less 
> > evil or powerful or... went dead like a broken lightbulb.  
> > 
> > So, I don't think it just a matter of killing him. As long as he
> > had any Horcruxes working, he'd come back. 
> 
> Magpie:
> Right--I didn't mean that the Horcruxes went dead. They weren't dead 
> in DH, but they were still taken out. You just needed to have the 
> right weapon. What you're describing is exactly what we have in DH--
> Voldemort himself is alive in his body, and then he's got six 
> powerful Horcruxes lying around that have to be destroyed and are 
> destroyed by regular Wizards. 
> 
> Montavilla: 
> > Also, both time Voldemort died, it was his own AK that did it.  I 
> > wonder, although there's absolutely no canon to back it up, 
> > whether an AK fired by just anybody, James Potter say, would 
> > have been able to stop Voldemort.  Maybe it would have just
> > bounced off, and it was only the self-inflicted AK that could
> > get through the protection of the Horcruxes.
> 
> Magpie:
> I can't see why it wouldn't have worked if the Horcruxes were 
> destroyed too. It was the Horcruxes that kept him alive the first 
> time, but I don't see any reason he'd have to kill himself with an 
> AK to die. I think that just happened because JKR didn't want Harry 
> to actually cast the AK at him, and because of the specific 
> situation there Voldemort's curse would rebound. 

Montavilla47:

I wasn't clear enough.  I didn't mean the AK bouncing off him in
the final confrontation.  I think you're correct that at that point,
anyone who got past his dueling skills could have AK'd him.  
(Although, if there's no blocking the AK, what do dueling skills
have to do with anything?  He would have to dance around and 
dodge it like Ginny with Amycus.)

I meant before the Horcruxes were destroyed.  Again, it's never
stated.  In fact, it's avoided in the book.  But isn't the whole 
point of the Horcruxes that you don't die?  I'm thinking that 
Voldemort, being oh so powerful and evil, vaporized himself
because his AK is just that much more so than someone else's
AK.  

But, if James had AKed LV that night in GH, it wouldn't have
hurt him.  Certainly, no one would have blamed James--or
anyone else--for using that curse on Voldemort, right?  So
why not try it (other than the lack of a wand)?  

Again, pure speculation.  There's nothing in the books to
indicate that anyone ever tried *any* spell to stop Voldemort.


> 
> Philip:
> Dumbledore here reveals that the great power of Harry is to resist 
> the power of Voldemort. In DH we see Ron attempting to kill a 
> Hocrux. Without Harry, who has no trouble facing one on his own in 
> CoS, I doubt he would have managed to stab it. We aren't 
> discussing `Gryff-ness', more purity and selflessness.
> 
> Magpie:
> Yes, but first all the stuff about Harry being so incredibly full of 
> love or more pure or selfless than everybody else is frankly just 
> bs. He's a great kid at 11, but so are other kids, who could also be 
> more selfless. (I'm not sure what "pure" means in this context, but 
> I'm sure they could be that too). I would say Neville Longbottom, 
> for instance, has him beat in all those areas.
> 

Montavilla47:

This is only tangentially related, but it seemed to me that JKR was
trying to say that evil overlords such as Voldemort (and their real
life counterparts) inevitably sow the seeds of their nemesis by 
oppressing others.  Like, although you can't really point to a single
evil overlord in the Old South, the oppression of slavery created
Nat Turner. 

In which case, if Voldemort hadn't chosen Harry, then it the 
Prophecy Boy might well have been Neville.  I actually think it 
would have been cool if the Prophecy had turned out to be 
Neville all along.  JKR *almost* went there and that's one of the 
things I actually liked about the books.  (I have yet to hear 
seriously anyone diss on Neville as he was in the last book.
The one thing that people seem to agree on is that he was
awesome.)

Another cool thing is that, when you do a count of the 
Horcruxes and their destruction, it wasn't all Harry's doing.

1. Diary: Harry, in the chamber, with the basilisk fang.
2. Ring: Dumbledore, in the office, with the sword of Gryffindor
3. Locket: Ron, in the woods, with the sword of Gryffindor
4. Cup: Hermione, in the chamber, with the basilisk fang.
5. Tiara: Crabbe, in the Room of Requirement, with fiend fyre.
6: Nagini: Neville, in the courtyard, with the sword of Gryffindor.
7: Harry: Voldemort, in the woods, with the Elder Wand.

We ought to create a Horcrux Clue game....

Which of these could *only* have been destroyed by Harry?
Which of these could *only* have been found by Harry?

None really.  After all, a Dumbledore who put more trust
in his followers, might have inspired enough trust in Slughorn
to reveal the vital information about Horcruxes.  After 
reading DH, can we really blame Slughorn for not confiding
in Dumbledore?