Ah that actually makes a lot of sense. I guess fanon spoiled me into thinking it was more than that. Especially the Dresden crossovers that use the title to show how Harry is something Other.

 

Yeah, a substantive Master of Death position is probably the easiest way to beef Harry up "for free", post-DH.

 

What about if also the the Cloak of Invisibility had unique properties, instead of being pretty standard invisibility cloak apart from it's lasting power. What if it's ability to "hide from death" was about more than just invisibility, and more of a symbolic thing: the "master" of the cloak is unable to die until he passes the cloak onwards to his children.

So James Potter was basically immortal until he gave the cloak to Dumbledore (quite possibly with words like "give it to Harry if something happens to me"), and after Voldemort killed him the Harry became the owner, and immune to Death.

That would mean Harry's survival had nothing to do with Lily's death, and neither did his not dieing in the end of DH have anything to do with dubious disarmings during the year before.

 

That's sounds horrifyingly bad and undermines the entire series.

 

obviously.

 

Question.

We have an obscene amount of Time Travel fics in which Harry Post-Hogwarts is sent back to his 11 year old body (usually the Veil may or may not be involved).

When he's back in the past, he makes some actions, like capturing Wormtail, all while being somewhat OOC.

But my question is, what would CANON Harry do in such a situation? Canon, as in from the books, not the movies and most certainly not fanon.

Say that just after Voldemort is finally defeated, Harry suddenly opens his eyes and sees that he was just sorted to Gryffindor in his first year?

And no, we will be not ignoring the emotional response he may have, Harry suddenly has Sirius, Cedric and other people alive. There's no way he would just say "Cool, I can save them now! Okay, let's go to Diagon Alley."

 

Harry tells Dumbledore everything.

Dumbledore destroys all the horcruxes bar the cup and the snake (not yet created), then captures Voldemort at the end of PS.

Dumbledore uses the captured Voldemort to get the Ministry to strong-arm the Goblins into handing over Hufflepuff's cup, which is then destroyed. Seeing their master weakened and captured, and living comfortable lives, the ex-Death Eaters do nothing to interfere.

After destroying the cup, Voldemort is either killed or possibly - lacking a human body - simply dissolves into the aether.

Riding a wave of public support, Dumbledore uses his popularity to call for Sirius Black's trial, after which he is released. Fudge is sacked in the following scandal.

Can't remember if Barty Crouch has broken Junior out of Azkaban at this point. If he has, expose him and use that to help Fudge's departure along.

Harry sits back, relaxes, does nothing and lives a happy life, fulfilling his full potential without the mental strain of war. Possibly because he's been obliviated.

Edit: if the scarcrux is still in-tact, Harry is fucked. No way he can replicate the same state of affairs as got rid of it before, which seems to be the only way to survive the destruction of the horcrux.

 

Screw moral achievements. If being the Master of Death means accepting death, then I'll pass. Accepting death is just about the last thing I would ever do.

On time-travel Harry, Taure's response - wasn't the cup one of the 'older' horcruxes? I always thought the only one created post-rebirth was Nagini.

 

The "not yet created" refers only to the snake.

 

Hold on, Obliviated? Are you sure Dumbledore would do such a thing?

And yes, I was working with the assumption that the scarcrux is still present. Of course both versions of the scenario could be valid.

 

Obliviating Harry may-well be the correct thing to do in such circumstances.

1. Dumbledore will be well aware of stories of time-travel and the damage it can cause.
2. Harry with an adult mind has no hope of developing close relationships with his "peers" and will thus end up friendless for at least the next 7 years, and likely more.
3. Harry will carry the emotional scars of a war that is essentially a very detailed foretelling. A foretelling which will not come to pass, and so essentially an emotionally scarring delusion.
4. Losing Harry's memories, once he's told Dumbledore everything, causes no significant loss to the anti-Voldemort cause.

 

True, but, would Harry agree to be Obliviated or would Dumbledore have to do it without his consent?

 

It's just a title. In canon there are no benefits from being the Master of Death aside from holding all three Hallows. That's it.

EDIT: Oops, there was another page.

 

When Voldemort broke through the obliviation on Bertha Jorkins, did it break her mind because Voldemort didn't care about preserving it, or is that just a consequence of "resetting" an obliviation?

 

Unless Dumbledore is trying to rigidly maintain the original timeline, then this isn't a reason to obliviate Harry.

In your scenario, we have Dumbledore using Harry's knowledge of future events to...

1. Destroy the available horcruxes.
2. Capture Voldemort and Pettigrew.
3. Free Sirius.
4. Strong-arm the goblins into handing over the Cup.
5. Destroy the Cup horcrux.
6. Get Fudge sacked.
7. Get Crouch Sr. arrested.
8. Get Crouch Jr. returned to prison.

Those are massive changes! After that, what could Harry possibly do with his remaining future knowledge (as if he even has any of even middling relevance after the above steps are taken) that could do more supposed 'damage' than all of that?

I was about to say he could nark on Lucius for his hidden room full of Dark Artifacts, but that ship would have sailed when Dumbledore had it raided to obtain the Diary horcrux. There IS no timeline left, after all that. It's gone. Enjoy your totally new future, 'cause the old one is gone, for better or worse. The most 'damaging' information Harry has remaining is what the girls will look like in a few years, so he can start making an informed choice...

That's just my long-winded way of saying that first reason isn't a reason.


I can totally buy your other reasons, though. I can easily see Dumbledore, being the high-handed ass that he is, making a unilateral decision to obliviate Harry 'for his own good.' In Albus's mind, those are probably all spectacular reasons to steal a man's past from him.

Though, Harry may very well disagree... if he's even given the chance to do so. Harry may have some shit memories, sure, but he also has the assurance that his parents love him and are out there, waiting for him; that's a memory he'd probably want to keep.

Also, the first time Voldemort was defeated, I'm pretty sure most of his followers thought he was worm food, with nutters like Crouch and Bellatrix being exceptions. That didn't stop the 'former' death eaters from being underhanded and, in some cases, violent bigots, though. By that same token, his second defeat is even less likely to change them; if anything, it gives them proof that he came back once and, as far as they know, could do so again. Even if they don't think he could make another comeback, they're still likely to carry on being bigots who try to pass prejudicial and exclusionary laws. Bearing all of that in mind, Harry would probably count any information on the death eaters and Umbridge-types worth retaining.

Not that any of Harry's reasons negate what you said about Dumbledore's reasoning. After all, why would he choose that moment to start giving a shit about what Harry wants? I'm just rambling, as I'm wont to do.

Besides, if Harry's still a horcrux, he's going to have to have an accident... If his not being a horcrux was somehow retroactively maintained over the trip back, it would follow that he's also still Master of Death, particularly master of the Elder Wand, and Dumbledore can't allow that, so it's best Harry just forget.

After all, how could you trust a mere eleven-year-old (well... eighteen-year-old, but that won't matter soon) kid with all that power? How could you trust someone who turned out good, despite being raised under conditions just as bad as, if not worse than, Voldemort? How could you trust someone who, after all they had been through, still chose to willingly die in order to save everyone else, even those who did everything they could to shit all over him? Not to mention that he gave up the wand right after the battle - that power mad fuck.

Clearly, that's the kind of shifty bastard who's going to let power turn his head. Obliviate that little prick until he has to be potty trained again and move on, no harm, no foul.

Besides, it gives Albus more time to play with the freshly deloused Resurrection Stone, so he can hopefully assuage himself of the guilt he feels over his sister.

You know, like a real person... with agency... as opposed to, umm, Harry: An object without agency, to which things are done... by Dumbledore.

I suppose that in the HP universe we have proof of a soul and tenuous proof of an after life of some sort, and that gives everyone license to fuck with your mind, since it will be alright in the Next Great Adventure, but the fact remains that, while on earth, a person IS their memories.

Unless a Dementor is trying to cozy up to you, memories ARE what passes for a soul. To steal a person's memories is to remove that which makes one who they are.

Hmm. One would think Dumbledore's behavior, not to mention the thought of him obliviating Harry of the seven most important years of his life, rubs me the wrong way... or something.

 

Wow, interesting rant...Not agreeing with any of it though.

You've been reading different books than I have if you think DD would Obliviate or kill Harry without his permission because of him being 'Master of Death' or a horcrux.

If DD cared about being 'MoD' he wouldn't have given Harry his cloak. Nor did he kill Harry in canon, so I don't see why he would do it now if he turned out to be a Horcrux. Harry killing himself though...

 

The first reason was based on the idea that it isn't changes to the timeline per se that can fuck things up, but rather differences caused by the one who travelled. Dumbledore, as the non-timetraveller, is free to do whatever without risking the universe imploding. Harry performing the same actions, not so much.

As for the rest, from the perspective of Dumbledore his universe is the primary one, and Harry's "memories" are a kind of prophecy of a possible future. For that Dumbledore, the eleven year old Harry is the real Harry, and the extra years of "memories", however useful they may be, are an aberration. Completely aside from utilitarian arguments, one could make a strong argument that the rights of the 11 year old Harry outstrip those of the 18 year old Harry, who is essentially stealing an 11-year-old's body and "killing" his future.

As you said, the memories make the person, and 11 year old Harry and 18 year old Harry are therefore substantially different people.

@pidl: As far as I can tell from past discussions, Warlocke does not acknowledge that, in canon, Dumbledore sending Harry to what Harry believed to be his own death was the only way for Harry to survive the war. I believe this rejection is based on the idea that there's no way Dumbledore could have predicted those events would come to pass in exactly that way without being superhumanly intelligent.

Given that Dumbledore does, in fact, seem to have predicted exactly that, I guess we should just conclude that yes, Dumbledore is sufficiently intelligent to be able to predict with stunning accuracy events several years into the future.

 

You should give it another read, friend.

 

Who're you talking about? Me?

 

"Your honor, Taure is attempting to assert that a po-tay-to and po-tah-to are, in fact, two separate and distinct entities, when any rational person can tell you they are one and the same. I demand that his words be stricken from the record and the jury be instructed to disregard them."

Again, after Dumbledore has changed everything there is to be changed in the HP universe, using Harry's future knowledge, there's nothing else Harry can do with his knowledge that doesn't pale into insignificance by comparison. Obliviating him to avoid the 'dangers' is pointless after all that. It's like Dumbledore setting off a nuke in the middle of Hogsmeade, then taking Harry's wand away because he might hurt someone with it.

Changes are changes, regardless of who makes them, and once you've made one change, everything everyone does after that is also a change from the original timeline. I don't see how it matters that Harry is the one whose consciousness actually went back into the past while Albus's did not, especially if Albus's subsequent actions are affected even in part by what he learned about the future via Harry. That can't really be argued against, unless...

Let's just say that there IS somehow some quantifiable difference between what the time traveler does with firsthand future knowledge and what Albus does with that same future knowledge gleaned from the time traveler's mind... we then must accept that, given that Harry is (according to this argument) fundamentally different in some cosmic sense for having time traveled and his actions now take on some dangerous significance, even an obliviated time-traveler-Harry is still a time traveler. Any actions he takes after being obliviated still make changes to the timeline... actions that will ALL be different than they would have been, because Albus made massive, sweeping changes to what originally happened, and the causal factors that influenced what Harry's actions once were are now different.

I guess the only solution for all of that is to kill Harry so he can't make any changes, himself- but, wait, that would be an even bigger change. Of course, this is all bullshit, because your assertion that time travel somehow leaves a chrono-stink behind on Harry, thus his actions somehow gain a special significance and capacity for harm that Albus's, as a non-time traveler, don't, despite his earth-shaking and widespread use of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, i.e. the exact same future knowledge Harry possessed... is nuts.
:facepalm

Yeah, again, I'm simply going to have to call this a load of bullshit. Especially after Albus availed himself of all of Harry's future knowledge... even more so since you know it was done via observation of actual memories in a Pensieve, rather than a spotty oral retelling. At that point, Harry is no more danger to the fabric of existence than Dumbledore is - at that point, there's no difference between being the time traveler and the person with the memories of the time traveler.

Other than the thinnest veneer of semantics... which is another word for 'bullshit argument.'

Unless you insist that Harry has the "Chrono-Stink" and is somehow cosmically different from a non-time traveler who possesses the exact same future knowledge, which sounds like an ass-pull that has no basis in HP canon or, frankly, anything else.

At best, it's some sci-fi author or physicist's pet theory, and no basis on which to mind-wipe someone.

And, of course, Dumbledore and Dumbledore alone has the wisdom and authority to decide, without input from anyone, whether to, for all intents and purposes, KILL a man to preserve the childhood of a boy whose childhood he'd already ruined. Seriously, are we still arguing this? I mean, other than the fact that this is the same fallacious argument Dumbledore used to avoid telling Harry- well, any fucking thing, eleven-year-old Harry was gone the second adult Harry came back. No matter how much obliviating Dumbledore does, all that would remain would be his own handmade facsimile of that child. A fake. He would effectively kill someone in order to replace them with his vision of a dead child.

Of course, that's the same high-handed shit Dumbledore had been doing since James and Lily were murdered, so why should he even have a second thought about it. For all that the old man did his damnedest to shape Harry in the manner that best suited his plans, Dumbledore is the one who should have been named Potter, and Harry's last name should have been Clay.

I hardly think one's opinion of Dumbledore should -or even could- be made solely on one of his many, many, decisions (all of them made with only his own counsel) as to how everyone else should be handled.

I'm also not sure how that's relevant to whether Dumbledore would obliviate Harry the time traveler, or whether he'd be justified in doing so. Unless the argument is, "Well, he beat Grindelwald (a problem Albus helped create), then he beat Voldemort (a problem Albus helped create), and so there's clearly no way he could be wrong about obliviating Harry, thus solving the 'Harry problem' (which Albus helped create and, arguably, wasn't a problem)."

If that's the logic at play, here, we're talking about all the keen insight and ability to think for one's self that Hermione displays as a second year student. What a superb judge of character she was, in those halcyon days of Lockhart worship. He can't be wrong, because he's Dumbledore.

@pidl: As far as I can tell from past discussions, Taure's opinion is, Well, you can't argue with Dumbledore's results. Clearly, the end justifies the means.