Is Canon Harry truly incorruptible?

 

Yes, that's the way he was written.

 

I consider it a wizarding thing similar to their prescient names.

Sirius was named after the dog star and then became a dog animagus. Remus Lupin becomes a werewolf. Did their parents know that Horace Slughorn would take after the Roman poet, or that Narcissa would be vain and elitist, or that Dolores Umbridge was be as foul as her name indicates?

There's something about being a wizard that often either leads you to being granted a name that suits your pre-determined future nature, or else your name dictates your future nature.

I wouldn't be surprised if the way that some wizard's appearances complements their future spouses is caused by the same unknown mechanism as the prescient names. It's magic. Whatchagonnado?

 

So in other words, blame it on Rowling's stupidity.

 

Why didn't Malfoy try to take revenge on Harry for nearly murdering him?

Was Romilda reprimanded for using love potions?

Why are most of the wizarding a bunch of pussies? Expecting a 16 year old to save them ffs.

 

Guilt over what he was trying to do and having bigger fish to fry, such as breaking into Hogwarts so his family isnt murdred.

Never proved it was her. Hearsay.

Fuck off.

The Order of the Phoenix existed before Harry was born, Mollys twin brothers died fighting like heroes, another member was said to be cleaned up with a sponge because he fought so hard and the wizarding world was on the brink of collapse because so many people were fighting and dying. Remus Lupins Mum and Dad managed to drive off Greyback after he attacked Remus, Madeye filled most the cells in Azkaban, Amelia Bones supposedly fought and died fighting Voldemort himself.

Stop reading shitty Fanfic where Harry rages about the world wanting him to save it.

The Wizarding world, very rightly assumed Harry had a big part to play in it, logical considering the amount of times Voldemort went after him.

They werent sitting and crying about him not doing anything, Neville lead a resistance movement in the middle of fucking Hogwarts with no fucking input from Harry at all and got tortured for it, AND STILL KEPT FIGHTING!

So kindly STFU and read the fucking books again.

 

To be honest the "Hogwarts Resistance" in DH is a bit weird situation. Neither side took decisive action: Voldemort and co. just let known Dumbledore supporters stay in the castle with very little oversight, while the known Dumbledore supporters did very little to throw the few overseers out of the castle, or even to escape the situation where they were tortured.

It would make some sense if it was widely known that Harry just needed time to finish his quest and that it was a good idea to just take what abuse the Carrows and the Slytherins heaped on the resistance in order to be in position for the final battle, but it wasn't.

 

Open and obvious resistance would have meant death, what they did was create an aura of rebellion while still being in a position to maybe do something. More effective than being fugitives or dead.

 

Remember that Voldemort's regime was still very much trying to maintain an image, where the only ones in real danger are the mudbloods infesting the wizarding world. Hogwarts was kept open not only as a Dark Arts school, but as an indoctrination tool. That's why the let the DA members and blood traitors remain, to try to twist them into Death Eaters. At the Battle of Hogwarts, Voldemort attempts to recruit Neville Longbottom personally, and views Neville's open rebellion during the Hogwarts term as basically shenanigans that prove his worth. He doesn't see Neville as an enemy until far too late.

 

Not sure how true that is about Hogwarts being an indoctrination tool - or if it was, they weren't trying to convert any of the DA members, pureblood or otherwise. Torturing someone repeatedly generally isn't conducive to endearing someone to your cause.

If anything Hogwarts was just a training ground for future Death Eaters and they kept the other students around to use for practice. If Voldemort really wanted to spread propaganda to Hogwarts students he wouldn't have placed the Carrows there.

 

No one ever said it was an effective indoctrination tool, but the revised, mandatory Muggle Studies class is clearly attempted indoctrination. And it wasn't just the DA they were torturing. At one point, I believe it is mentioned that they used the Cruciatus on first years.

Voldemort has never really been successful at turning anyone to his cause who is not already sympathetic or weak. This is not a fault he acknowledges, and it frequently leads him to trouble.

 

Why did Harry think that the Elder wand's power would be broken with his death? We all know how fickle that wand is when it comes to owners - does Harry really think he'll never be disarmed or worse before his end?

 

Planning fallacy, overconfidence, neglect of the tail end, etc.

 

Thanks for the response T3t, I thought that was likely the case.



I have another:

Is it confirmed anywhere in canon that magic is genetic? I've seen a lot of fics try to explain which allele combination causes a person to have magic, but I'm pretty sure this is only a fanon concept. With the existence of a soul being canon, would it be plausible for the possession of magic to be through some sort of soul related inheritance mechanism? (If I ever get to writing a fic, I will probably use this unless someone pokes a ton of holes in it.)

 

JKR said in an interview that magic is genetic, books don't mention this.

 

I'm not sure if she said it's genetic, but it's definitely inherited. Even muggleborns like Hermione actually have wizarding ancestry.

edit: JKR says it's genetic.

 

She did say it's genetic. Specifically a dominant gene, as illogical as that is.

Gee, I sure do love edits.

 

I think it's fairly clear that JKR didn't mean dominant in the technical biological sense. If I remember correctly she said "very dominant". Very. She's ascribing character to the gene and saying it's an assertive one.

I lean towards saying magic is a gene but that it is a magical gene - the gene itself is magical, and does not follow the rules of genetics as Muggles know them.

 

Thanks for the replies.




Anyway, I think I'm going to go and revise my theory using Taure's answer, probably because it fits my idea of magical inheritance the best.

If it's a magical gene, that could mean that muggle means would be unlikely to be able to replicate it, at least in accordance to my assumptions. I guess I'm trying to force my own ideas to work, but the notion that a muggle scientist could genetically engineer a wizard or witch just cheapens magic for me. Which is pretty much the whole reason I tried to get away from the "magic is genetic" thing.