Apparate to Possess

[Barry Arrowsmith]

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

Kneasy:
Always look for loopholes.
1. It's fun.
2. It's annoying.
3. It makes for interesting threads.

Only Crouch!Moody claims an AK was thrown at young Potter, yet it's
also C!M that tells us repeatedly that there is no protection/shield
against an AK.

Now I may be gullible but in my half-assed way I could almost believe
that this might be a clue.

Voldy says he intended to kill Potter, DD backs him up and I'm inclined
to believe both of 'em -  or at least accept  that a touch of infanticide
was the way the evening's entertainment was due to close. But that was
the port and nuts; there were other things on the menu first IMO.

I'll admit that proof, solid canon proof is hard to come by. No problem.
There's plenty of circumstantial, inferrential or plain old sort-of logical
extrapolation to keep us going. Mind you, the really important stuff
that's not in the books (Tom and the Chamber, GH, the 24 hours and 
perhaps Grindelwald) is treated in much the same way. Tell 'em almost
nothing and let 'em stew. Sadism, that's what it is, rank sadism.

Getting everything to fit - that's verging on the impossible. Some smart
bugger will always come along with "But..".  Jo has admitted that she is/was
a fan of old Aggie Christie. Heaven help us. Some of her plots didn't make
sense even if you read the last chapter ten times. She cheated too, held
stuff back, kept it from the reader but 'gave' it to Marple, Poirot or whoever
to use as a revelation in the final showdown. Not friendly, that. Severe
disgruntlement will ensue if that happens with HP.

I've had enormous fun, spent an inordinate amount of time, chewed my 
nails down to my elbows trying to put the HP jigsaw puzzle together in 
non-obvious combinations. Perversity sometimes pays. There's a patch 
of sky over there, a dirty deed over here, and look! If you turn this bit 
upside down it becomes ESE!Sirius! Or is it upside-down? Can't really tell,
there's too many pieces still missing. Two books to go, then it's finished,
oh, not the story, or not just the story, that's less than half the fun so far
as I'm concerned -  it's what I've been able to make of the incomplete tale
that I'll really miss. Wrong? Who cares? I haven't enjoyed myself so much
since the Profumo scandal - and that was 40 years ago. Fortunately with
HP we'll probably get more answers. 

> 
> 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.
> 

Kneasy:
Interesting that.
It's another little theory of mine that Possession is not wand magic.
Tom didn't seem to have a wand and Vapour!Mort certainly couldn't
handle one, so how did he nail Quirrell? In which case...ummm. Now
that could be an explanation of sorts for why there was no Voldy body
at GH. If he touched Harry, the protection kicks in, producing the scar 
and a blow-back that caused him to crumble just as Quirrell did.... 
No corpse. Could also explain why he was so keen to prove he could
touch Harry in the graveyard. 
No evidence, but it's worth tucking it away for future reference.