Apparate to Possess

[Lyn J. Mangiameli]

Responding to Neri's reply with interspersals below:

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

Lyn now:
Ah Neri, I was hoping you would invite more discussion on the Edinburgh interview.

You appear to have a much more benevolent view of JKR's motivations than I do. I believe 
JKR's first loyalty with respect to the HP story is to protect the integrity of her works, for 
herself, her fans and those who have financially invested in her works (like WB and the 
publishers). This, includes, along with less lofty tasks such as enforcing copyrights,etc., 
ensuring that it is her version of the story that is the final one, that it cannot be seen as 
plagiarized from some fan site, and that it is not revealed until the last volume is 
published and in the hands of the readers. On the important matters that relate to how the 
story will end and the mysteries that underlie the individual events, I believe she will go to 
some trouble to distract if not deceive the theorizing fans if they get too close to 
discerning that which she needs to keep secret.

Sure she is happy to toss out little inconsequential things like birthdays and middle 
names, if for no reason than it keeps the level of fervor high. But no, I am very skeptical of 
her statements when it comes to the big themes and future events, if for no other reason 
that that she cares about her fan's enjoyment of each and every book and chapter (not to 
mention the little matter that if the ending were to be discerned in advance, it might well 
reduce the sales of the final book by millions of dollars/pounds). 

Thus, whenever she cares to say the most about the underlying mysteries, I am the most 
cautious and skeptical, and the Edinburgh interview may well have been a high point for 
such discussion. Thus I don't share your view that her statements there were made to 
"help us." Quite the contrary, I think it quite likely they very deliberately were made to 
distract us. And though I think her interview is a big obstacle to possesion theory (and I 
think I would have put it better if I had stated it was a PROMINENT obstacle), it don't 
necessarily perceive that obstacle as either valid or insurmountable.

So, let's look at the pertinent portion of that interview. Here it is"

\\\There are two questions that I have never been asked but that I should have been 
asked, if you know what I mean. If you want to speculate on anything, you should 
speculate on these two things, which will point you in the right direction. The first 
question that I have never been asked—it has probably been asked in a chatroom but no 
one has ever asked me—is, "Why didn't Voldemort die?" Not, "Why did Harry live?" but, 
"Why didn't Voldemort die?" The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why 
didn't he? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps that he took 
enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he did to make sure that he did not 
die—I will put it that way. I don't think that it is guessable. It may be—someone could 
guess it—but you should be asking yourself that question, particularly now that you know 
about the prophesy. I'd better stop there or I will really incriminate myself. The other 
question that I am surprised no one has asked me since Phoenix came out—I thought that 
people would—is why Dumbledore did not kill or try to kill Voldemort in the scene in the 
ministry. I know that I am giving a lot away to people who have not read the book. 
Although Dumbledore gives a kind of reason to Voldemort, it is not the real reason. When I 
mentioned that question to my husband—I told Neil that I was going to mention it to you
—he said that it was because Dumbledore knows that there are two more books to come. 
As you can see, we are on the same literary wavelength. [Laughter]. That is not the answer; 
Dumbledore knows something slightly more profound than that. If you want to wonder 
about anything, I would advise you to concentrate on those two questions. That might 
take you a little bit further.///

Now the statements around the first question seem fairly clear, basically coming down to 
why didn't he die since the killing curse rebounded? The specific section of most interest 
to me is "The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn't he? At the end 
of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps that he took enabled him to 
survive. You should be wondering what he did to make sure that he did not die—I will put 
it that way." Read on the face of things, this does seem to clearly indicate that a killing 
curse was delivered, but I'm not so confident that the truth is conveyed at this level. Three 
alternate possibilites come to mind that are still conguent with the PI scene at the 
graveyard. 

1. That an AK was delivered without a wand and rebounded.  The problem here is that 
there has been no other instance of an AK being performed without a wand, and there is 
no good explanation why any of Voldy would end up in Harry from an AK, rebounded or 
not.
2. That the reason why LV did not die from a rebounded AK is that he never delivered one. 
All the rest of JKR's comments about what it was that prevented his death is distraction. 
Now I grant you, this is a tortured reading of her words, but no less tortured than some of 
the prophecy readings I've encountered.
3. That a killing curse (AK or another) was delivered, not external to Harry, but from within 
Harry during his possession and by LV without a wand. This has some plausibility for me 
in that it might be a reasonable reaction of a frustrated LV that could not achieve a full 
possession, may even have happend because he was having difficulties extricating himself 
from the failed possession, wanted to get rid of the kid, and, just maybe, may have been 
what he did to Quirrel at the end of PS/SS. 

Now none of these are an easy fit for JKR's words at Edinburgh, but then a surface reading 
of her words at Edinburgh doesn't coincide very well with the text she has already given us 
(the discussion of which is present in my earlier posts in this thread).

But the really striking thing in that Edinburgh interview was this "why Dumbledore did not 
kill or try to kill Voldemort in the scene in the ministry. .... Although Dumbledore gives a 
kind of reason to Voldemort, it is not the real reason..... That is not the answer; 
Dumbledore knows something slightly more profound than that." WOW!  JKR has just 
admitted that DD has lied, and thus, that even her supposedly most trustworthy characters 
might not tell the truth (or the whole truth) in the novels. Now for Kneasy and others to 
speculate about that is not surprising, but for JKR to admit that came as a surprise to me. 
But, it points to the fact that both JKR and her most "noble" characters are not about being 
deceitful. Sure makes it hard, then, to be certain of statements, and leaves me again to 
take a skeptical view towards any JKR "hints" as you label them. Anyway, there is nothing 
new in these hints. These have been questions that have been with us from the begining 
and she did nothing to aid us in discerning an answer. Again, I will say that it is not in 
JKR's interests, nor even the interests of the bulk of her fans, to have people concentrate 
on questions that might successfully reveal the mysteries of the series. 

Neri, I don't see myself insisting on sticking to my theory no matter what. First of all, I 
don't see possession theory as being mine. I generated some speculations along these 
lines, shared them with Barry who had some other speculations along these lines, and 
Barry offered a theory. If any possession theory is owned by anyone, it is owned by Kneasy 
(Barry). I just have fun with this, and right now the possession theory explains more to me 
(including SS, TR Diary, Chamber of Secrets, inter alia) than anything else. I don't have any 
emotional investment in any possession theory as mine.

Now let me toss out something unrelated just for fun. What if the thing LV did to keep 
himself alive is to distribute himself over several locations? What if there is a distributed LV 
some of whom remains in the Chamber of Secrets, some of whom was in the TR diary, 
some of whom is in the newly corporial LV, some of whom is in the snake, and some of 
whom is in HP, amongst other possible places. Thus there is no single LV (or perhaps SS) 
to kill. Not clones, but a distributed "soul" so to speak.  Just something for others to chew 
on if they amused by it, but not an idea I'm going to try to defend.
> 
> 
> 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.

Lyn again:

Neri, I don't see that any HP theory that I have encountered has been without some area 
where it did a good job explaining some events and a lesser job explaining others. As you 
have often noted, there is a lot of (at least apparent) inconsistency if not error in the HP 
story, and so it might be impossible for any theory with any specificity to be congruent 
with every event and statement in the story.  Somehow I suspect that when the HP story 
ends, there will be multiple inconsistencies and inadequate explanations that will remain, 
but I hope we won't see JKR being considered intransigent in asserting her story line even 
when it is explanatory of some events but less compatible with others she has written. I 
think many, if not most theoreticians have been fairly open about the limitations of their 
theories, and I have tried to be quite open about the pitfalls and weaknesses of possession 
theory.  That said, it offers to my mind a more complete explanation of events in the 
novels, and is more congruent with my conceptualization of the characters personalities, 
than any other explanation I have encountered. Of course others will have differing 
perceptions, but then isn't the sharing of these different perceptions part of the fun of 
groups like this.
> 
> 
> 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. 

Lyn Again:
You very much view things as JKR attempting to "help"  us. I must re-assert that not all of 
us have such confidence in her motives.

> 
> 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.

Lyn at the end:
Neri, and I don't mean this confrontationally, but aren't you just exhibiting what you have 
been accusing others of doing? :-) Not that this isn't just fine with me.