Apparate to Possess

[nkafkafi]

Lyn wrote:
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.


Neri:
Why aren't you sure? Because some things don't fit together? But this
is also true for the books. This specific question by JKR was
obviously intended to help us. It is only an obstacle if you insist on
sticking with your theory no matter what. If you are ready to modify
or even abandon your theory according to new hints, then this question
of JKR is a wonderful thing. It tells us what is one of the real
mysteries in the series: why is Voldy death-proof?


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


Neri:
Oh sure. I agree. It is more what's frequently comes after that I
disagree with:
4. Stick with your theory no matter what.
5. Explain away or simply ignore whatever doesn't fit.

Which does make for some interesting threads in the beginning, but
after some time tends to dissolve into boring back-and-forth arguments
in which no one changes his/her mind.


Kneasy wrote:
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.


Neri:
Only C!M says the words AK. But he also calls it, the first time he
introduces it, "the Killing Curse" (capitals in the original, GoF,
ch.14, p. 215). This is obviously another name for the AK. This name
repeats once more, this time used by the narrator: in the MoM battle,
immediately after Voldy shoots an AK at Harry, we are told that "he
sent another killing curse at Dumbledore but missed, instead hitting
the security guard's desk, which burst into flame" (OotP,ch. 36, p.
813 US). Then JKR says in the Edinburgh talk: "the killing curse
rebounded, so he [Voldy] should have died". IMO this is a 99%
authorial guarantee that it was an AK that rebounded. If you refuse to
let JKR help you, don't blame her for sadism. 

Here is a suggestion how to keep the good parts of both the AK
explanation and the possession explanation. What if stealing someone's
powers takes more than simple possession? The possessor first has to
take over and connect himself with the victim, as if they become one
person with the sum of their powers. Then the possessor needs to kill
the victim, so at the moment of death the common powers all stay with
the possessor. Voldy indeed came to GH to steal the power that can
vanquish the Dark Lord. First he possessed Harry and created this
special connection (which like usual possession doesn't require a wand
and therefore didn't appear in the Priori Incantatem), then he shot an
AK in order to kill Harry. But because the AK rebounded from the
protection and hit Voldy, the exact opposite happened and Harry ended
up with Voldy's powers and also with a permanent connection with him.
This version would fit with JKR's words in Edinburgh, and (shoving and
pushing a bit here and there) even with DD's words that "you and he
are connected by the curse that failed" (GoF, ch.30, p.600 US). And
the reason the AK doesnt appear in the PI is indeed because it failed.

How about that? You can even say that Harry doesn't remember the light
of the second AK for the same reason he doesn't remember the
possession that happened before that: because it was a possession of
the Ginny type that you don't remember afterwards.

Neri