Apparate to Possess

[Lyn J. Mangiameli]

Ah, I know this is getting a bit dense, but I'm afraid the context is significant in the 
following interspersed replies to previously interspersed replies, so there is very minimal 
snipping to follow. So, for the patient and strong, below:

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
> 
> > Lyn wrote:
> snip<  
> > 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:

New response:
Neri, I very much agree with your concerns. I think it is very desirable to consider alternate 
theories and readings, as well as disconfirming evidence. It's good practice in a multitude 
of settings, and of course keeps groups like this quite active. My personal sensibilities are 
quite in accord with your comments and I'd like to think they guide my professional 
reports, but I'm not sure I can totally follow them when considering some fictional works. 
If we take SS/PS as an example, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and events 
in canon would have indicated that Snape was the prinicpal villain, but of course JKR 
deliberately chose to lead us astray, as she has in many of the other books. So simply 
comparing one theory against another theory based primarily on the preponderance of 
consistency with and quantity of canon evidence is, at least IMO, a shaky endeavor. I know 
you know this, but feel the need to review it in light of your comments above.

I want to also directly disuss you comment that if one digs deeply enough one will find 
things that are logically inconsistent and don't fit because most fiction (and perhaps 
especially JKR's fiction) is imperfect in the world it both mimicks and creates. I couldn't 
agree more, yet I do have an expectatation that the logic of those worlds should be most 
consitent and well though out with respect to the major and pivotal events in the story. 
Few aspects of the HP story are more significant than those surrounding the events at GH, 
and few have been more revisited (however breifly) than those. JKR has surely give a lot of 
though to them, and of course has actually gone so far as to have later editions of 
volumes changed (specifically the wand order) to make the GH incident cohesive. So while I 
agree with what I understand to be the thrust of your argument, I would suggest that it 
may not be most applicable in the events under consideration here.  Nonetheless, I think it 
great you offer possible evidence which would disconfirm that offered my me earlier, but 
let me now consider how they may not be so disconfirming as you believe.   
> 
> > 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. 

Lyn now:
Yes, the evidence at the MoM does indicate this, but that is not our only model for 
possession. We have two extended examples of the possession of others that seem to 
indicate that possession can have differing effects on the possessed. Quirell is obviously 
one, and while LV could cause him pain, it certainly didn't seem that Quirell was always in 
some trauma from being possessed. But more importantly we have the words of Ginny 
(Page 500 from the American Scholastic hardbound): "Well, can you remember everything 
you've been doing?" Ginny asked. "Are there big blank periods where you don't know what 
you've been up to?"  ---We can see that possession can be experienced very differently, 
and have at least one model for having no recollection of the event of possession, so I 
don't think we can use the MoM incident as disconfirming or even the dominant model of 
how Harry is affected. Thus I find it quite likely that within JKR's world HP would have no 
recall of possession at GH [I say in JKR's world, to be liberal, for if held against out 
scientific understanding of episodic memory, there is even more to suggest HP would not 
be able to recall any of the events}
> 
> > 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. 

Lyn now. I think much of the answer to this is present in my reply to the question above. 
Given the instances of possession we are aware of,  there appears to be no necessity for 
eye contact. Consider LV's first possession of an animals when he had no corporial form, 
Riddles possession of Ginny when he was but a memory without true corporial form, and 
most of all consider the MoM possession (page 815 of the Scholstic HB) when LV was no 
where to be seen (i.e., likely not even corporially present, let alone developing eye contact) 
when the possession to place. Now one might explain away the latter by a pre-existing 
conduit, but then one has to believe an AK scar serves as a conduit--which I find to be a 
great stretch than simply to go with the evidence that possession can occur in many forms 
and by several means. 
> 
> 
> > 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". 
> 
Lyn now:
Yes, the PI graveyard scene has been problematic, but more so for the AK explanation than 
for possession. It is one a time where we have clear evidence that JKR has gone back and 
changed the text (canon) to correct it with respect to true intentions. It is hard for me to 
accept that  in her revisting and revising of this text (and the public admission of error it 
represented), she did not focus great attention on that scene, and would not have made 
other necessary corrections. There are few other places in the entire series that I suspect 
JKR gave more attention to, than that which she felt necessary to publicly revise. And what 
do we find, even in the revised text, there is no evidence that the wand of LV was used 
against HP. If that be the case, then it throws much of the charaters' believes and 
statements into doubt. Take for example Ollivander who unequivocally states that it was 
the "brother" wand of LV which gave Harry the scar. Here we have the stated 
understanding of a wand expert (who presumably wasn't there at GH) against direct 
evidence from the wand itself. In the real world, one would have to go with the direct 
evidence vs the supposition, even if such supposition was widely held.

> > 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.

Lyn now: 
Yes, one posit a reason for it producing a scar, one of which would be that it was 
traumatically rejected and prematurely ended. 
> 
> > 
> > 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).
> 
Lyn now:
Yes,you are quite right that we have not other evidence of a possession blowing a house 
up, yet we also have no other situation where an extremely powerful wizard attempts at 
possession were traumatically rejected. Frankly, it find the damage done by deflected or 
misdirected AKs to argue that an AK alone cannot blow up an entire house. There is no 
reason to believe that LV was engaging in anything but his most powerful AKs against DD 
and HP (indeed there is every reason to believe he would feel the need to against DD in the 
MoM scene), and yet the power of these AK's caused trivial destruction compared to the 
entire GH house being blown asunder. Now of course, perhaps the GH house was 
demolished by some other circumstance than either the rejected AK or the rejected 
possession, but that then requires positing yet other things not explained in canon. 
> > 
> > 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.

Lyn now,
Yep, and this goes to the heart of an underlying question about the character of HP. Is he 
really an everyman who makes good choices in a unique situation, or is he truly a person 
of exceptional innate power and pre-ordained destiny. Obviously any argument about 
possession vs AK won't have a lot of influence on the underlying readings. 
> 
> 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?   

Lyn now:
I don't see it as an either/or. Lilly's sacrifice (which I don't believe was by itself adequate--
as many others have discussed elsewhere) could have been protective to either or both 
situations. That his mother died to save him, can be considered as saving him from 
possession (and the possibly soul killing effects that might come from it)  as well as from 
death by AK. Nowhere am I saying that Lilly's sacrifice as a component of a larger magical 
strategy might not have been strong enought to protect Harry from an AK, I'm just 
suggesting that their is a probablility that her sacrifice was also or instead intended to 
protect Harry from possession.
 
> > 
> > 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?

Lyn now:
But Neri, until the MoM possession, we have no report of a failed possession attempt other 
that that of LV at GH. Even in the MoM possession, it was a largely voluntary withdrawal 
rather than a traumatic repulsion by magic. In contrast, we have several incidents where 
we see the aftermath of an AK (Cedric, Frank, the elder Riddles, etc.) and all are were 
notable for leaving no anatomical damage.  I actually think it is a greater leap to suggest 
that a rebounding AK would result in unique anatomical damage to LV , than to suggest 
that such damage might occur due to another cause.
> 
> > 
> > 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.

Lyn now:
With respect to your first statement, yes, I do find the AK explanation to be more at odds 
with what I find to be the most pertinent evidence within the books, and thus do feel the 
possession theory is at more consisistent with the actually evidence (as opposed to 
characters  statements) available in the canon.  I also find possession, as well as AKing, to 
be a standard modus operandi for LV and to be a very plausible explanation for his "visit" 
to GH.  

With regards to the second statement, of course the books deliberately leave open the 
opportunity for alternate explanations for almost everything. As I see it, part of both our 
fun and our frustration is this very thing.

Neri below
> 
> 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".

Lyn now:
Yes, the Edinburgh comments are a BIG obstacle to the validity of the possession theories. 
However, I'm never sure, as I began my comments, with how much I should take her 
interview and other statements as incontrovertible additions to, or explications of canon. 

> 
> 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

Lyn now:
But I didn't start  out with possession theory being my favorite. Indeed, possession theory 
didn't even exist (at least to my knowledge) when I was first troubled with the "take me" 
line of Lilly's when I first read SS many years ago. Possession hypothesis came about 
because that line haunted me and was lacking explanation. Later I read the first 
preliminary specualtions of Kneasy and began corresponding with him and developing 
more in our private correspondence and his public explications of the theory. Looking at 
them now, as dispassionately as I can, I find the possession theory most in keeping with 
not only the events at GH as we have had them presented, and the later linkages to GH 
events such as the PI in the graveyard scene, but also with what we know about the 
personality and activities of both TR (LV) and SS. I certainly understand how alternate 
readings are plausible and supportable, but yes, I find the possession theory to best 
explain the events and motivations  and likely future resolution of the HP saga.  Still open 
to change, though. :-)

Lyn