The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters

 

The Unforgivables can't have been too 'unknown' as all three spells (the present forms of which were created in the middle ages) were dastardly enough to made unforgivable in 1717.

 

I'll just address this part of your post because the other part was definitely a good reason (and something interesting I hadn't really considered before) but I think enembee was referring more to the protection working in Harry's case rather than Lily's admittedly unique situation.

Yes, it would be understandable if nothing like what had happened with Lily had ever occured before due to the odd circumstances - but when Harry gave the protection to everyone at the end of DH, that was a fairly straightforward sacrifice.

Though it's possible of course that the two weren't exactly the same thing - I mean, we don't really see anyone surviving killing curses and being left with lightning bolt scars, but we're lead to believe they're the same.

 

I have to agree; there's no place for fanon explanations here.

I've had the same thoughts on all of this, and only find fault with the last bit. Voldemort had no desire to let Lily live, and only kinda-sorta planned to as a reward to Severus, and only because Snape directly asked that her life be spared. As far as Voldemort was concerned, Lily was an enemy as well, which I'm sure played into his pretty quick decision to kill her after his offer to spare her. After all, he could've just as easily Stunned her or Petrified her or any number of things, but no, he went straight from "get outta the way and I'll let you live" to "Fuck it, Avada Kedavra."

I don't think that they were all that unheard of, just that their use was/is very, very rare. I mean, there have to be about a hundred ways to kill another person with magic, but any rational person is naturally going to avoid using the one sure-fire way if getting caught was also a sure-fire life sentence in Azkaban.

For instance, once Voldemort killed Lily and invoked whatever ancient magic it is/was, would ANY spell he then attempted against baby Harry have destroyed his body, or even backfired? If Voldemort had killed Lily and then hit baby Harry with Snape's cutting curse, would that have rebounded on him and if so, would it have blasted him out of his body?

I have to think that if Voldemort had killed Lily and then stabbed baby Harry, baby Harry would've died and there'd be no story. I think that it only backfired because he tried killing the baby with magic. That's another reason why the phenomenon had never been observed before, since it isn't something that *could* happen with Muggles.

Well, they *were* different, and not just in the obvious ways. Lily was given a choice that wasn't really a choice (no loving mother would see that as any kind of 'choice'), and Harry was given an equally obvious 'choice' - go and let Voldemort kill you, or watch as the rest of your friends are killed, with the end result being you're just as dead but so are they.

The thing that makes Harry's sacrifice different is that (1) he's a quasi-Horcrux for the very person trying to kill him and (2) that person is at the same time a quasi-Horcrux for Harry due to the blood used in the resurrection ritual. Whether you believe it was really Dumbledore in the ghostly train station or just Harry's mind putting it all together, it's explained that Harry has the *new* choice of going on or returning to life only because of the unique circumstances of (1) and (2) above coupled with his willingness to die for others.

As for the "protection" this puts in place, I've often wondered to what extent it would really work, since we only see one Killing Curse from Voldemort after that, and it's another unique situation. We *do* see Voldemort's spells being ineffective to only partly effective, from the Cruciatus not working on Harry (probably the whole Master of the Elder Wand thing) to the very quick failure of the Body-Bind on Neville.

I've wondered before what might've happened if Voldemort tried a Killing Curse on someone before trying it on Harry, but I have to think that he sent a few of them out during the fight in the castle before squaring off against Harry again. Maybe they missed, but after a lot of thought, I came to the conclusion that the "protection" Harry gave was either very weak compared to that of his mother, due (I guess) to being spread over "everyone" as opposed to his mother's protection being just on him (and the Dursleys, I suppose), OR (and this is also a big "if") perhaps the protection Harry gave is actually manifested in the form of Harry himself surviving (again) and going on to defeat Voldemort once and for all.

 

Are there any canon examples of wizards apparating/disapparating from within Diagon Alley? Or do we just assume that there are protections in place that force people to enter through The Leaky Cauldron?

 

I don't remember any incident in book where apparating/disapparating from within Diagon Alley is seen.

But it may be possible that anybody disapparting to Diagon Alley is deposited to a special place within the alley, so they can walk on foot from there. (Portus above said, to stop using fanon explanation, but this theory sounds most reasonable for your query.)

 

I think that what you're saying here just strengthens the case for a set of very special circumstances.

You're right that he could have easily stunned her or petrified her. If most other wizards had the same aim - kill the child, leave the mother alive - then they probably would've.

I think the fact that it's Voldemort meant he killed her rather than do what he promised Snape. He would've thought that offering her the choice was quite the same thing because he doesn't understand love or anything being worth dying for and that's obviously pretty uncommon.

 

I just discovered a cool article/essay by Orson scott(author of enders game for those who don't know) on Severus and his actions after HBP anyway it is awesome and he makes some really good observations about Snapes actions that I honestly hadn't noticed, a good example of an observation he makes, he noticed that when Harry was going after Snape and tried to use the Cruciatus and other "dark" spells Snape stops and this was more to protect Harry from going doing the path of actually harming or successfully using unforgivable curses against someone else, therefore preventing him from turning into something evil or someone he would regret into becoming.

Question is did you guys notice this stuff?

Here is the link http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=issue&vol=i5&article=_card-essay

There is also this.

"More to the point, on many of the occasions where Snape accuses Harry of having done something dire, Harry is in fact guilty of rule-breaking or worse. Harry cooperates in crimes, like hiding and helping smuggle Hagrid's illegal dragon, and he almost never calls on even the most trusted authorities to help him. We see his deeds, correctly, as heroic -- but they could also, without much twisting, be made to prove that, as Snape accuses, Harry Potter believes that he is above the law -- that he is free to pick and choose which rules to obey, depending on what seems good to him at the moment, based only on the information he has. "

Thinking back on it, it is true Harry does think he is above the law or to a lesser extent he doesn't respect the rules and laws around him.

 

Yes it is true that Harry was at fault many a times but it doesn't make Snape's action right. Remember Snape had made assumptions about Harry's character even before meeting him just due to him being James's son. Snape humiliated Harry due to this belief and regardless of Snape's points turning right, it was wrong to humiliate Harry that way.

As for the the article, the writer did put some points which we overlooked but I think he was looking into every point a bit too much.

Another point in that essay :

Good and honorable ways to cheat death?

 

Seemingly through sheer coincidence, Harry's personality traits are a well-blended mix of his mother and father. As you (and Card) say, Harry really does have a disregard toward rules, as his father must have. At the same time, he has his mother's sense of empathy.

But Snape's view of Harry is permanently colored by the fact that he has an uncanny resemblance to his father. Not only does he look like James Potter Mk II, but as Lily's son (and with Lily's eyes), he is a constant reminder that James succeeded in hitting 'dat ginger, while Snape did not.

The result: Snape sees the James side of Harry, but fails to see the Lily side of Harry. He understands that Harry breaks rules and lies about it. But he seemingly never notices that Harry doesn't do it for malicious pleasure, but rather for reasons that Lily would have respected.

 

In the fifth book, Harry voiced his desire to become an Auror.

Was it in the summer after Order of the Phoenix where he receives his grades and only gets an Exceeds Expectations in Potions, so he concludes his path to becoming an Auror is over?

 

Partly inspired by Taure's Canon+ thread, is Goblin magic innate to Goblins?

Specifically, is it a magic that can only be used by Goblins or is it a magic that they refuse to share with wizards, in the same way wizards refuse them wand lore?

I feel as if I vaguely remember Ron saying something to the effect that it was a guarded secret rather than something wizards would find impossible to replicate but I can't find it anywhere.

 

Another question. Isn't there supposed to be a barrier guarding the school air space? So how come Fred and George can just fly out Hogwarts using their brooms? Shouldn't the barrier stop them from leaving? And Harry and the thestrals as can do it too. Is this a plothole or what?

 

It was mentioned somewhere in PoA that Sirius wouldn't be able to just fly in, but that might have just been the students speculating. I think it likely that it is much easier to leave by such means than it is to enter.

 

I always thought that Schools Defences were just to keep people out of the School, not to keep them in. The way I see this, Fred & George shouldn't have had any trouble leaving the school, but if they had turned around to come back in ,then they would have been stopped from re-entering the school grounds by Hogwart's Defenses.

But now that you raised this point, I got another problem. How did Ron and Harry flew straight to Hogwarts in COS?

Maybe the wards were improved after Voldemort's rebirth.

 

They did get taken down by the whomping willow though, I might have been naive reading it as a child, but I always assumed that that was Hogwarts' defences taking them down. Whether by guiding them to the willow, or doing it with the easiest thing possible at the point that they were flying in.

No one with anything about the goblin magic?

I got this: 'Goblins can use magic without the aid of a wand, although they are insulted by the refusal of wizards to allow them to use wands. In turn, goblins conceal the secrets of their own magic from wizards. Their weaponry and armor are nearly indestructible when created and have a very particular property.' which seems to imply that it isn't innate to goblins, but there's no source to back it up, and it's from the wiki so I don't really trust it.

 

I couldn't stop myself thinking and laughing about the scene when Voldemort tries to enter Hogwarts and is bamboozled by Whomping Willow. It's absolutely hilarious.:awesome