Further thoughts

[pippin_999]

> 
> Kneasy:
> None of which I'd consider particularly significant in terms of
"what it's all about". Snape's double/triple dealing has been the
object of heated discussion ever since I joined an HP board - 
and *still* there is no agreement as to which side he's on. 

The mere mechanics of  his operations may be interesting but 
they don't definitively tell us good or bad, nor is it a revelation 
that both sides think he's working  for them. 

Added to which, I don't really trust *ANYTHING* DD has
told  Harry about Snape. IMO what he says is shaded or emphasised 
in ways  that will get Harry to think or react in the way DD wants
him to.

It's manipulation pure and simple, and one usually finds a few
weasel words like "I wouldn't be surprised if.."  in there. 
 But Harry never hears those.

Pippin:
Trouble is, I don't think Jo is any more interested in Puppetmaster!DD
than she was in H/H. It's a distraction. You could've taken DD at face
value all along, and ended up in the same place. Destroy all
horcruxes, then take out the big guy, and no matter how it looks 
Snape is on your side.

Kneasy: 
> The Lupin explanation falls into the same class of plot business as
Hagrid  and the Giants - but with less detail. Again, unless he comes
across with something more than "the werewolves are on Voldy's side" 
it's no more  than background filler, explaining the absence of a
major character without adding anything to the main story threads. 


Pippin:
Unless Lupin is ESE!, then it's elegant. She can't give us  detail
on Lupin's missions  because it would give him away, so she 
shows us through Hagrid. 


> Kneasy:
> Sort of - but it's messy and there are holes all over the place.
This is partly why I don't like this hersclix stuff; it's the subject
of what seems  to be special pleading in the plot construction. Or 
possibly there's more to it all than has yet been revealed, in which 
case what we think we know doesn't mean much.
> 
> If,  as DD speculates, the soul fragments are not connected or aware
> of each other, why would the soul-part in a destroyed Voldy not do
the decent thing and slip to 'the other side'? That part in the Diary
didn't  hang around - and it wasn't even attacked by 'magic' but by
Basilisk  venom. Why didn't the other soul fragments ensure it's
survival? 

On the other hand Voldy at GH is assumed by most to have been zapped 
by an  AK - and you can't get a more magical death than that. Yet that
fragment is still around.
> Why the difference - except for exingencies of plot?


Pippin:


Consider the  belief that the self is not naturally of this world, but
is bound here by its material container -- usually a body, but in 
Voldemort's case, not only his body but the various horcruxes. That
only one fragment contains the self could be made to fit with the
idea that humans actually have several types of soul within them. 
I think in some  metaphysics there can be as many as seven -- 
and only one of these is the vehicle of the self. 

For example there's an idea that all humanity shares one soul.
Now it could be bits of this human oversoul that Voldemort is losing,
which fits the idea that his self has remained intact but his
humanity has diminished.

Horcruxes bind the torn fragments of the murderer's soul to other 
material objects,  so that when  the body which contains  the self 
dies, the self  cannot leave the world but lingers.

 If the horcruxes are destroyed, liberating the fragments within, 
then when Voldemort's current body is destroyed, the self/soul
within it will have no anchor and will depart.

The separated bits would not have an identity of their own.
The Diary, however, was not only a horcrux, but   an image of the
self, not
unlike the wand shadows or the Sorting Hat. 

Anyway, we saw that the memory of Riddle, though strong enough to 
steal the life from Ginny, was not strong enough to keep that life 
if the diary was destroyed, which suggests that what soul Diary!Riddle
had remained bound to it.

"Destroyed" , then, does not have to be "physically obliterated", only
disrupted enough so that the soul fragment within can escape
 
 
> Kneasy:
> Not new. We knew that when Jo blew the gaff about Diary!Tom lying
in  saying that Hagrid reared werewolf cubs under his bed. She said
then that  his words weren't to be trusted.

Pippin:
As you say, there was reason to think that Voldemort had less reason
to lie than Riddle, so it's important to establish that Voldemort is
(still) a compulsive liar. Haven't you ever met one? They don't need
a reason.
 
> Kneasy: (re the reason for Harry's failure at occlumency)
> Hardly anything new; just another skirmish in the on-going
Harry/Sevvy  relationship, only this time the consequencies were a 
bit Bangier than  previously.

Pippin:
But it's  relevant that this is not something Harry could've learned
if he'd had a more interested or forgiving teacher, which is 
relevant to  the theory  that Snape failed through malice or 
indifference, or that he gave up despite Dumbledore's orders.

More relevant still, I'm afraid the on-going Harry/Sevvy relationship
*is* what it's all about. That it's reached its lowest point ever,
just before the climax, ought to tell you something. 

Pippin