My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Movie)

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 191170



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kamion53" <kersberg at ...> wrote:
>
> this is the part I have most trouble with:
> The "love" protection from Lilly protected Harry for 17 years till the day he turned 17 and much intrigue and drama happens in the first chapters of DH to get Harry under protection and from the Dursley house before the protection of love ends.

Steve replies:

Not quite, you have to remember that two related but separate things are going on here -

1.) Lily gave Harry protection in the unique way in which she died protecting him. 

2.) Dumbledore, seeing the value of Lily's protection, enhanced it with charms and spells unknown, to further protect Harry, as long as he can call the place home where his mother's blood dwells. In short, addtional, separate but related protection at the Dursley's. It is this separate protection given by Dumbledore that breaks when Harry turn 17 and leave 'home'. The breaking of this, has no effect on the protection he was given by Lily's sacrifice. 

In fact, in the very first book, we see that Lily's protection is still working for him when Quirrel can't touch him. 


> kamion53 continues:
>
> OK so far so good.
>
> Then at the end it is suggested Voldemort fails to kill Harry because of that Lily protection. 

Steve:

More so because of a combination of factors, not just Lily's protection.


> kamion53 continues:
>
> And even more weird because the fact that with his own resurrection he took Harry's blood, so Lilly's protective spell is still residing in Voldemorts veins? and still potent? 
>
> If that was the case, Dumbledore knew the fact... he was a sort of pleased, when he heard what happens when Voldemort was resurrected and used it.... then I have to concluded that the whole charade with the 7 Potters was just a smokescreen with deadly consequences.
> 

Steve replies:

Dumbledore is play a 'cat and mouse' game using Snape as a pawn. He must keep Snape in Voldemort good books right up to the very end. So, Snape must let slip the actual time when they are moving Harry, to keep Voldemort thinking that Snape is a trusted and reliable spy.

But, if Death Eaters are going to be there when Harry is moved, then they need some alternate method of protecting Harry. And that alternate method is 'The Seven Harrys'. 

As to Dumbledore being pleased with Voldemort using Harry's blood, we have the Infamous Gleam of Triumph, when he finds out, followed by a deep look of despair when he realizes what it means for Harry, and the ultimate sacrifice Harry must make. 


> kamion53 continues:
>
> it's either this or JKR contradicted her own first law that dead is dead and nobody returns from death, not do dead spells return.
> 
>...


Steve replies: 

As Geoff points out, and I agree, Harry was in a state of Limbo, neither living nor dead. So, when he comes back, he is not coming back from being truly dead. 

Plus there is an element of time distortion. That can be very much seen in the movie "Inception" with Leonardo DeCaprio and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Dream time and real time are not the same, nor is Limbo time. While a reasonable span of time occurs in Limbo, that might only be a few second in real time. 

So, from an external perspective, Harry and Voldemort are stunned for a few seconds, then Voldemort recovers, and it appears to those present that Harry does not. But of course, Harry does recover, he just doesn't reveal the fact. 

Think about the many instances of real people who appear to die, go down a long tunnel toward a bright light, then are told by a dead friend or relative that they must go back, and they do, they return to 'life'. 

Who is to say, this isn't what happened to both Voldemort and Harry, they didn't die, but they did have what is called a 'near death experience', where by some technical standard they are dead, but not really fully and truly dead. 

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn