Apparate to Possess

[nkafkafi]

> Lyn wrote:
> 
> I believe JKR never deliberately lies, and generally doesn't attempt
to deceive. But I don't 
> feel I can always accept her statements as factual. The above, of
course being more 
> difficult  not to accept as an accurate recounting of her intentions
as to what happened 
> and will be revealed. 
> 
> Still, I do have troubles reconciling her interview statements with
the rest of the 
> information she has given us. 

Neri:
Lyn, I'd certainly like to accept that Voldy didn't use an AK against
Harry in GH, because then my own theory (VASSAL) becomes so easy it's
practically obvious. My problem is that I've seen this style of
argument many times, and its logic has always disturbed me. It
typically goes like this: "X couldn't have happened like the books/JKR
say it happened because..." and here comes a list of things that don't
fit nicely with X happening. Of course, if you dig deep enough you'll
find many things that doesn't logically fit with any X, since after
all HP isn't realty, but fiction, and JKR had never thought things all
the way down to the level of every single action, and even if she did
she doesn't have the room to tell us each tiny detail in a way that
EVERYTHING would fit. So the question is not really if X fits or
doesn't fit with canon. The question is, if you consider explanation X
against the alternative explanation Y, which of the two fits better
with the canon. In our case X is the explanation that Voldy used an AK
on Harry, and Y is the explanation that Voldy used only used
possession against Harry. Now lets look at your arguments:

> Lyn:
Now I know that some of the below can be explained away, 
> but when taken as in total, they all make it difficult for me not to
question JKR's statement:
> 
> 1. Harry hears his (presumably) father's words, his mother's words
and LV words to his 
> mother, but never hears the words AK, though presumably he is within
a few feet of their 
> utterance. So is JKR saying LV did not mouth the words?
> 

Neri:
Harry also doesn't have any recollection of a being possessed,
although according to his experience in the MoM this should be quite
traumatic. 

> 2. Harry sees only a single flash of green light, again taking place
within a few feet of him. 
> One gets the impression it was dark or an area of low lighting, so
even a light directed 
> elsewhere would likely have resulted so ambient changes in light for
detection.
> 

Neri:
Harry also doesn't remember seeing Voldy's face, but according to
Snape explanation regarding Legilimency, possession of someone who
does not yet have a connection with you probably requires eye contact
or something similar. In fact, is there a single detail in Harry's GH
memory that even remotely suggests a possession attempt? The case for
an AK is indeed problematic, but the case for possession (if relying
only on Harry's memory of the event) is practically non-existent. 


> 3. In the Grave Yard,  the PI only regurgitates the spells against
his mother and father, but 
> nothing against Harry.  So is JKR saying LV did not use his wand?
> 

Neri:
This is true, but the PI case is kind of problematic already. OTOH
Voldy, DD, Harry, Hagrid, the narrator (in the beginnings of both PoA
and GoF) and JKR herself in her website all repeat the words "curse"
and "rebounded" to describe what happened to Harry and Voldy in GH.
Possession isn't described well as a "curse" and it is difficult to
imagine it "rebounding". 

> 4. We have reason to believe the AK leaves no marks, yet Harry has a
scar that is attributed 
> to an AK, and it is repeatedly said that LV gave him that mark (but
not always that it came 
> from an AK). Is JKR now saying this was a unique feature of this
particular AK?

Neri:
We have also seen possession with Quirrell, Ginny, Nagini and Harry
himself (in the MoM), and never seen it leaving a scar. Of course you
can find reasons why this particular possession did produce a scar.

> 
> 5. We have no evidence that in any other use of an AK that an entire
house was blown to 
> smitherines.  Again, is JKR now saying that this was an unique
result of this particular AK?

Neri:
We certainly don't have any evidence that possession can blow an
entire house to smithereens, or in fact cause any physical change in
the environment. OTOH we do have cases of AK blowing statues (in the
MoM battle).

> 
> 6. No one other than Harry has ever been know to survive an AK. Yes,
we know,the text 
> has suggested that Harry is unique in this respect.

Neri:
So are you saying that Lily's sacrifice was strong enough to turn the
greatest dark wizard into vapor for years, but was not strong enough
to protect Harry from AK?   

> 
> 
> 7. The scar is a locus of pain which is associated with contact with
LV and there really isn't 
> any reason to believe any residual from an AK should result in such
an effect. Granted no 
> one else has ever "survived" an AK, but has there anything about an
AK that would 
> truly suggest a greater linkage between the giver and receiver in
the moments before the 
> receivers death?

Neri:
No. OTOH, was there anything about a failed possession attempt killing
the possessor ot turning him into vapor?

> 
> So again, I know alternate explanations for each of these can be
presented, but that is an 
> awful lot of alternatives to have to take in one lump, so to speak.
I don't like the seeming 
> inconsistencies between all of the above and JKR's inteview comments
(as well as some 
> character's statements as well), but as it stands now, I see her an
AK explanation for the 
> events at GH to be at odds with many of the other "facts" she has
given us.


Neri:
More at odds than the possession explanation? Almost anything in the
books is at odds with anything else if you dig deep enough.

The thing is, JKR's words in the Edinburgh Book Festival ring like a
sincere attempt to point the readers in the right direction. She
points out that Voldemort did "experiments" in order to avoid death,
and this indeed fits with the whole theme of "Voldemort" (=flight from
death), "Death Eaters" and Voldy saying "there's NOTHING worse than
death". So are you saying that when JKR asked this question, she knew
that the REAL reason Voldy didn't die is simply because it was not an
AK at all? Wouldn't it make this whole question by JKR a one big and
well-planned trick? She couldn't have done it just by mistake. And yet
in this very question she chose to use the words "the killing curse
rebounded".

Just think of it that way: if the possession thing wasn't your
favorite theory, and someone would have suggested to you the AK
explanation and the possession explanation side-by-side, which would
have sounded more problematic to you?

Neri