Posts
Comments
The silver outline blasted back into the world, and said in the strange outside version of Harry's own voice, "Hermione Granger says," the blazing figure's voice became higher-pitched, "AHHHHHHHHH!"
Do Hermoine's parents even have the right to withdraw her? Harry's parents apparently do not have such a right:
Muggles had around the same legal standing as children or kittens: they were cute, so if you tortured them in public you could get arrested, but they weren’t people. Some reluctant provision had been made for recognizing the parents of Muggleborns as human in a limited sense, but Harry’s adoptive parents did not fall into that legal category (Chapter 26).
We know that LL loves his mother, but does she love her son? Does she love anyone but Voldemort?
Saved by the Wayback Machine. Thanks. I should have checked the talk page.
WPDR Harry could at least drink HPJEV under the table.
This is the quote I had in mind, from Chapter 23 of HBP:
‘He [Voldemort] seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths. You would certainly have been that. He believed that in killing you, he was destroying the danger the prophecy had outlined. He believed he was making himself invincible. I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death.
‘As we know, he failed. After an interval of some years, however, he used Nagini to kill an old Muggle man, and it might then have occurred to him to turn her into his last Horcrux.
If Dumbledore is right, then Bertha Jorkins could not have been murdered to make that Horcrux, because she was already dead. Is there an interview where Rowling says otherwise? I don't see anything on the wiki page (a citation, or other reference) that backs up their claim.
I thought that the Nagini horcrux was made via the killing of Frank Bryce. Don't have the book with me to check, though.
I'm assuming the 'past-Quirrell' that Quirrell tells Hermoine about in Chapter 84 is the 'young man' that Amelia Bones believes is now Quirrell. (Is this reasonable?)
If that's the case, then one way of understanding the situation is this: Riddle assumed two personas---Voldemort and Light Riddle---in order to experiment with different ways of acquiring power. He found that the Voldemort-path was much more preferable on account of the loyalty he could obtain via the Dark Mark. The Dark Mark was so effective that the loyalty he earned as Light Riddle seemed negligible by comparison; thus he complains that he got no help from his 'allies'.
So Riddle retired his Light persona by faking his own death and continued only as Voldemort. Now that he sees Harry as a potential puppet, he wants to ensure that he/Harry have loyalty comparable to that secured with a Dark Mark. He therefore calls for a 'Light Mark' in his speech before Christmas.
EDIT: Of course 'Light Riddle' (if he existed) and Voldemort would have looked different; Minerva remembers Voldemort as snake-like. If the above is right, then Voldemort's disfiguration would have to be a disguise rather than real damage from Dark Rituals.
It can't be blocked by raw magic (Protego and similar) but what prevents Actio, Wingdarium Leviosa or Free Transfiguration to be used to create a physical barrier to block the spell?
Nothing. Indeed, Dumbledore blocks the killing curse in canon (Order of the Phoenix) by animating a statue to jump in front of it.
So if AK is in any way unblockable, it is unblockable only by magical means.
The most promising option that remains, by my reading, is that there's nothing separate about the Horcrux contents for the Hat to key off of -- they effectively are Harry, or part of him.
That seems to be supported by this passage from Chapter 85:
Maybe because his dark side wasn't an imaginary voice like Hufflepuff; Harry might imagine his Hufflepuff part as wanting different things from himself, but his dark side wasn't like that. His "dark side", so far as Harry could tell, was a different way that Harry sometimes was. Right now, Harry wasn't angry; and trying to ask what "dark Harry" wanted was a phone ringing unanswered.
The idea is, crudely, that if Harry is a Horcrux, it is not because he has some distinct thing inside him, but because some part of Voldemort (part of his soul?) has "merged" with Harry.
Va gur Nhgube'f Abgrf sbe Puncgref 39--40 (Cergraqvat gb Or Jvfr), Ryvrmre nccrnef gb or qryvorengryl inthr nf gb jurgure gur UCZBE havirefr unf na nsgreyvsr. Ng yrnfg, gung'f ubj V ernq guvf:
Vg'f na vagrerfgvat dhrfgvba nf gb jurgure Uneel vf orunivat nf n Syng Rnegu Ngurvfg jvgu erfcrpg gb uvf fxrcgvpvfz nobhg na nsgreyvsr. Gb or engvbany, lbh jnag gb unir gur fbeg bs zvaq gung, vs vg svaqf vgfrys va n jbeyq jvgu ab nsgreyvsr, qbrfa'g oryvrir va na nsgreyvsr, naq vs vg svaqf vgfrys va n jbeyq jvgu na nsgreyvsr, qbrf oryvrir va na nsgreyvsr. W. X. Ebjyvat pyrneyl oryvrirq gung gur Cbggreirefr unq na nsgreyvsr, naq jebgr vg nppbeqvatyl; vs Uneel svaqf uvzfrys va gung havirefr, naq ur fgvyy qbrfa'g oryvrir va na nsgreyvsr, gung'f abg arprffnevyl n tbbq fvta sbe uvf engvbanyvgl.
Did anyone archive the April Fool's chapter from ff.net?
Your name is your name, and no piece of paper can grant it or take it away.
If the world of HPMOR is some sort of simulation, as you claim, then this is true and significant; your name exists as a fixed value that can be referenced by a program like the Map. But if the world of HPMOR is more like our own, then to say "your name is your name" is pretty empty; like most everything else, there is an explanation of why your name is your name. In our world, what makes it true that we bear the names we do is not that we all have own values for the variable $name. Rather, what makes it true is some other fact; one possibility (one that I don't believe myself) is that what makes it true that my name is Alex is the fact that my birth certificate reads 'Alex'.
So I think our disagreement arises from what we think the world of HPMOR is like.
It's not clear. When Crouch is confessing everything under Veritaserum, he says that he saw his father entering the grounds on the Map, and so headed into the grounds to intercept him. He says something along the lines of "Then Potter came, and Krum", and it's ambiguous as to whether he sees them appear on the Map or if he sees them him person.
Well, someone already did do it; now the question is whether we need part 13 before tomorrow night.
That's just not how the Hogwarts founders would have thought about the problem.
That doesn't mean the Founders could do the impossible. Saying that "it just uses your name" might be true, but it doesn't tell us how it can use your name. There must be a way that it works (although it may very well be that there is no consistent way-that-it-works that can be extracted from the text). Compare this to another example in which the creator of an artifact "thought about the problem" differently:
Broomsticks had been invented during what a Muggle would have called the Dark Ages, supposedly by a legendary witch named Celestria Relevo, allegedly the great-great-granddaughter of Merlin.
Celestria Relevo, or whichever person or group had really invented those enchantments, hadn't known a darned thing about Newtonian mechanics.
Broomsticks, therefore, worked by Aristotelian physics.
They went where you pointed them (ch 59).
Broomsticks don't work the way we would expect them to work, because that's not how Celestria Relevo thought about the problem, but that doesn't meant there isn't a way that they work.
This feels implausible, but, given that Lucius seems to think that Harry is Voldemort, it would be tempting.
So no foreign professors!
This theory, unlike the birth certificate one, can easily explain how the Map matches people with names. During the Sorting, McGonagall reads aloud a name, and the next person who puts on the Sorting Hat is assigned that name. (Assuming the Hat is hooked up to the security system, or vice versa.)
Is it possible to obliviate yourself selectively so that you lose all knowledge of your own name?
In Quirrell's case, he may be a powerful enough Occulumens to prevent the Map from reading his mind and so learning his name (if your theory is correct).
Quite right, I completely overlooked that.
However, this does raise an interesting and completely tangential question about the Map. How does it know everybody's name? What 'database' does it---or rather the enchantment that it is an interface for---make reference to?
An obvious answer would be birth certificates. It is not (too) unreasonable to suppose that wizards have them too, and that the Map is clever enough to map people to their birth certificates. I have no idea how it would do this, but in any case I don't think this can be how the Map works.
First, what if my birth certificate is destroyed? Of course I can get a replacement, but there will be a period in which there is nothing the Map can refer to in order to determine my name. It could 'cache' my information, I suppose. But what if a baby is born in Hogwarts? What does the Map say before the baby is named?
This leads into the second, larger, problem. The enchantment that the Map is an interface for is supposed to be part of the Hogwarts security system. I've gotten the impression that Hogwarts was raised all at once by the Founders; the enchantment in question would have been cast then. 'Then' is the 9th or 10th century, according to canon. "Civil registration" of births didn't begin in the United Kingdom until 1837. Prior to that I think births were often registered with churches, but surely there were many whose names had no official status; they had 'common-law' designations (this still must occur often).
So how does the Map work?
Edit: I am wrong.
What will Quirrell display as on the Map? One would think that, if the Map read "VOLDEMORT", the Weasley twins would have figured it out. (There's an analogous, hilarious, inconsistency in canon; how did the twins never see Peter Pettigrew sleeping in Ron's bed?)
If Voldemort did steal Quirrell's body rather than use Polyjuice, he might just appear on the map as "Quirrell".
This came up in one of the previous threads:
"Indeed," said Professor Quirrell. "So while there's no point in asking any of you, it would not surprise me in the slightest if there were a student or two in my classes who harbored ambitions of being the next Dark Lord. After all, I wanted to be the next Dark Lord when I was a young Slytherin" (ch 19).
But during the interrogation we get this:
After some further leafing through parchments, carried out in silence, the Auror spoke again. "Born the 26th of September, 1955, to Quondia Quirrell, of an acknowledged tryst with Lirinus Lumblung..." intoned the Auror. "Sorted into Ravenclaw... (ch 79)
Naq gurer'f gur snpg gung Ryvrmre fnlf fb. (Edit: as pedanterrific says below.)
Well, considering Quirrell is in custody, it can't hurt to look elsewhere. If Dumbledore doesn't bring Quirrell under heavy interrogation of his own after he is released, then I will be confused.
I think you're right that Hypothesis 2 is more likely than H1. However, both assume that some tale (true or false) about Voldemort visiting the school has been circulated in wizard Britain. But as far as we know, that tale is told for the first time in Quirrell's class. As always, Quirrell is our only source:
"The Dark Lord was foolish to wish that story retold. It did not show his strength, but rather an exploitable weakness" (ch 19).
Of course, if this is the first time the story is told, people may wonder how Quirrell knows. But this is the same chapter in which Quirrell rather blatantly lies and claims to have been a Slytherin, when he (Quirrell, not Voldemort) in fact wasn't.
I think that's fully compatible with either possibility. If Voldemort studied there, then he would have reason to destroy it; to not "leave the source of his power lying around". But if, on the other hand, he didn't study there (because he was refused), then he would again have a reason to not leave a source of power lying around. (If I can't have it, no one can.)
You're forgetting that Tom Riddle actually did study at the monastery before he destroyed it to deny that training to his enemies.
Do we know this? If I recall correctly, all we know is that Quirrelmort says that Quirrel learned there and Voldemort didn't. So as far as I can tell it's an open question whether it was pre-possessed Quirrel who studied there, or Voldemort (or neither).
A current theory is that it contains the Philosophers stone, its certainly more important than just a rock.
It's certainly not the Philosopher's Stone. The only reason the stone isn't at the Ministry (or Gringotts) is that Hogwarts provides the absolutely best protection:
"I do not own it, that thing which Voldemort desires. It belongs to another, and is held here by his consent! I asked if it could be kept in the Department of Mysteries. But he would not permit that—he said it must be within the wards of Hogwarts, in the place of the Founders' protection—" Dumbledore passed his hand across his forehead. "No," the old wizard said in a quieter voice. "I cannot pass this blame to him. He is right. There is too much power in that thing, too much that men desire. I agreed that the trap should be laid behind the wards of Hogwarts, in the place of my own power" (Ch 79).
I can't see Dumbledore going and giving it to Harry to wear on his finger.
That was actually called the Caterwauling Charm, though. There's another detection spell in DH: Hominem Revelio. The only known effects of this spell are (i) the 'swooping sensation' experienced by a detected person and (ii) the lack of any alarm when nobody is detected. It's likely, however, that there is no alarm even when persons are detected; when it's used against Harry, Ron, and Hermoine by Death Eaters there is no alarm mentioned in the text.
You're right. I was thinking in terms of the difference between murder and attempted murder, when the important difference here is between murderous killing and non-murderous killing.
It still seems true that one's soul will only split in the case of successful murder.
edited in response to the below
It's not only the intent behind attempted murder, but the successful execution of that intention:
“But how do you [create a Horcrux]?”
“By an act of evil — the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion —” (HBP Ch 23)
It's possible that Snape's soul did split. When Snape and Dumbledore are discussing the plot to have Dumbledore killed, there's this exchange:
“If you don’t mind dying,” said Snape roughly, “why not let Draco do it?”
“That boy’s soul is not yet so damaged,” said Dumbledore. “I would not have it ripped apart on my account.
"And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?"
"You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation." (DH Ch 33)
In canon, at least, the Fudge/Umbridge faction of the Ministry embrace the alliance pretty wholeheartedly:
"Voldemort has returned," Dumbledore repeated. "If you accept that fact straightaway, Fudge, and take the necessary measures, we may still be able to save the situation. The first and most essential step is to remove Azkaban from the control of the dementors—"
"Preposterous!" shouted Fudge again. "Remove the dementors? I'd be kicked out of office for suggesting it! Half of us only feel safe in our beds at night because we know the dementors are standing guard at Azkaban!" (GoF Ch 36)
I assumed Voldemort's soul was split because the Killing Curse hit him. How that caused his soul to split is a bit mysterious, I'll admit.
Even if that test is performed and it is proven that Hermoine's wand was not used to cast the Blood-Cooling/Chilling Charm, Lucius et al. will simply claim that Hermoine stole another student's wand before the duel.
all Harry needs is one clear contradiction or impossibility.
Except that the Wizengamot is stupid. They might not care that Hermoine's testimony is inconsistent, or they might put it down to bad memory.
But nobody thinks Hermoine actually committed murder; the charge is attempted murder.
Indeed:
Slowly, Harry Potter sat back down again as Professor McGonagall pulled down with her grip on his wrist.
But by then he'd already declared war on the country of magical Britain, and the idea of other people calling him a Dark Lord no longer seemed important one way or another.
While Dumbledore and Lucius and other major figures might be sane, I'm not sure if we're supposed to take the majority of the Wizengamot to be anything other than, in Harry's words, "stupid, corrupt, and evil."
Yeah, that's a good idea.
c) The Ministry generally seems to be portrayed as fairly competent...
But I'm reminded of this exchange in Chapter 61:
Madam Bones's voice continued. "We brought in Arthur Weasley from Misuse of Muggle Artifacts—he knows more about Muggle artifacts than any wizard alive—and gave him the descriptions from the Aurors on the scene, and he cracked it. It was a Muggle artifact called a rocker, and they call it that because you'd have to be off your rocker to ride one. Just six years ago one of their rockers blew up, killed hundreds of Muggles in a flash and almost set fire to the Moon. Weasley says that rockers use a special kind of science called opposite reaction, so the plan is to develop a jinx which will prevent that science from working around Azkaban."
And there's the fact that interrogation under Veritaserum seems to constitute the entirety of serious criminal investigations.
But since the audience's (extended) reaction includes voting to send Hermoine to Azkaban, how will changing her testimony help?
If a new thread was necessary, it should have been created before the new chapter was posted. As it is there are already dozens of posts about Chapter 80 here; a new thread would split the discussion.
Maybe Hogsmeade kids are too poor to afford to go to Howgarts.
In canon, nobody is too poor to attend Hogwarts. When Riddle (Voldemort) is offered admission to Hogwarts, he tells Dumbledore that he has no money:
“That is easily remedied,” said Dumbledore, drawing a leather money-pouch from his pocket. “There is a fund at Hogwarts for those who require assistance to buy books and robes. You might have to buy some of your spellbooks and so on secondhand, but —” (274).
There's no mention of tuition, so I'm guessing that's free.
Maybe just part of the animal?
I'm not sure if the surrounding dialogue supports this:
Automatically, the mask of the innocent Harry said exactly what it would have said: “Are my parents in danger? Do they need to be moved here?”
“No,” said the old wizard’s voice. “I do not think so. The Death Eaters learned, toward the end of the war, not to attack the Order’s families. And if Voldemort is now acting without his former companions, he still knows that it is I who make the decisions for now, and he knows that I would give him nothing for any threat to your family. I have taught him that I do not give in to blackmail, and so he will not try.”
I think the last sentence makes it clear that what the Death Eaters learned was that attacking or threatening the Order's families was ineffective because Dumbledore would not give in to such threats, not because he would retaliate on a massive scale.
Third clue: in the original canon, Harry had a piece of Voldemort's soul in him, an accidentally created Horcrux, and the reunion of that piece with Voldemort was a critical step in Voldemort's death.
The destruction of that piece was crucial. I don't believe that it ever reunited with the rest of Voldemort's soul.
I propose that Dumbledore helped to fake Narcissa's death so she could join the light-side.
I'm not sure if Eliezer has read the sixth book, but Dumbledore makes this very offer to Draco:
"I can help you, Draco."
"No, you can't," said Malfoy, his wand shaking very badly indeed. "Nobody can. He told me to do it or he'd kill me. I've got no choice."
"He cannot kill you if you are already dead. Come over to the right side, Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine." (HBP, 591)
Dumbledore proceeds to offer protection to all of Malfoy's family.
Daniel_Starr mentions below that Narcissa might be unwilling to leave her son with Lucius if she's defecting. So there would have to be some pressing need to disappear in order for this theory to hold water; her life would have to be in danger, or something similar.
This was addressed in the previous thread:
The movie 'Groundhog Day' is about a man who relives the same day over and over again repeatedly. Because the day is reset, he is able to re-play each interaction with any person repeatedly until he can convince them of whatever he wants or work around them ...
In chapter 77, H&C performs a similar hack. He tries to convince her, then obliviates her memory and uses his gained information to convince her even more, etc. Instead of resetting the day, he is resetting her mind back again and again.