Now I'm just imagining Voldemort going around wearing a gerbil-robe.

"Wormtail! One of them crapped on me again! Clean it up!"

 

Would be hilarious if some Wizard did wear double layered fishnet clothing that held hundreds of hamsters in between.

I can imagine now...

"Avada Kedavra" said Voldemort, and a sickly, green, beam of light shot from his wand, hitting his opponent in the chest. But nothing happened...

And the process continued, with Voldemort sending forth the Killing Curse many times, but to no effect, as his opponent did not die.

"What are you?" said Voldemort, in undisguised horror and awe.

His opponent, short and plump, raised his chin in an imperious manner, and said "I am the Hamster Man!"

 

Amour is French for love. Probably because French is my first language.

 

I seem to remember a fic where Harry got Dumbledore to stuff a stunned Nagini down his robe (Is that Nagini in your robes or are you happy to see me?) when it came time for him to be killed by Snape.

I've always considered magic to work on a much more conceptual level while a lot of fanfiction has fallen in love with the 'science' of magic.

'What is the penetration, in inches, of the Killing Curse?' Is, to me, a stupid question. It's like asking how many legs a seat has. That's not at all important. It sounds like it might be important but it's just not.

The Killing Curse simply kills the person it hits. If, when asked, your instinctive reaction would be that the spell hit a person, then that person is now dead. Wearing armour, clothes or gerbils makes no difference. Harry only survived the Killing Curse the second time because he had a kinda-sorta almost horcrux thing going on with his blood (and his mother's protection) running in Voldemort's veins, combined with the Elder Wand mastery thing. It's not because the Killing Curse has some kind of stupid guarantee that it will only kill one soul. It still did kill Harry, in a magical sense, only it was weakened just enough to give him the choice to return.

 

Personally I think it comes down to concepts. If you are wearing armour, it is part of you. Thus it has no effect on the Killing Curse. But if you were to summon/conjure/throw the same item into the path of the spell then you would be fine.

The question of the item exploding is another matter. Just looking at the fight between Dumbledore and Voldemort in OotP, the curse striking inanimate objects has different effects at different times. It causes the centaur statue to shatter into a hundred pieces (if we take this literally, 100 pieces isn't that many for a full sized centaur statue, so the bits must have been reasonably sized). However, the curse caused the security guards desk to burst into flames. So it doesn't always cause the object to explode. Does it depend on the material of the object?

If we get a bit conceptual, it occurs to me that perhaps the spell causes what the caster would consider to be the most absolute form of destruction for the object it hits. If you want to destroy something made of stone, you shatter it. If you want to destroy something made of wood, you burn it. If you want to destroy someone, you kill them. Maybe thats what the curse does.

 

I don't think this argument works, because strapping a block of stone to your body does not make it clothing. Without getting into an argument about what constitutes clothing (and magical theory presumably has such a definition which is argued over by theorists), I think it's fair to say that a huge block of stone is not it.

So it's not the thickness of the stone that means you don't die in the scenario. It's the fact that the block is not clothing, and is therefore an external object in the Killing Curse's path. And since it's not the thickness of the stone that's relevant, you can't haggle down. It's not a matter of degrees, it's a matter of sets.

For example, if you take a suit of armour and put it in front of you, I think it would block the Killing Curse (though you might get hit by flaming shrapnel). If you take the same suit or armour and put it on, I think it would do nothing to protect you from the Killing Curse. It's not a matter of the suit's physical properties, it's a matter of whether it's classed as clothing or an external object.

A Killing Curse also bounces off a statute on the same fight.

 

The only thing I can see that you might be taking that from is:

"The statue of the witch ran at Bellatrix, who screamed and sent spells streaming uselessly off its chest."

No indication that the killing curse was used. JKR, in that scene at least, is always clear when the killing curse is used. Either it is described as such, or the incantation is said, or a 'jet of green' is mentioned.

 

Yeah, I think Mordecai and Taure have the right of it.

The difference is in the act. You are redefining the intrinsic nature of an object by accepting it into your umbrella definition of "person". A person can wear armor or clothing, but until they do, the armor or clothing can still retain its original nature as a distinct "object" and not a part of your "person". In essence a folded up t-shirt held so many inches in front of you via magic should be enough to stop the killing curse, but once you put that shirt on you have adapted it to your "person" and it has lost the aloof nature it held as an "object".

 

Armor wouldn't work, because of this.

 

Yeah, that makes sense. Taking it on a shield would work. Personally I'd say there's no conceptual difference between having a shield on your arm and summoning/conjuring the same object a foot in front of you. Probably best to avoid a wooden shield though, if wood catches fire after it gets hit by the curse.

 

I would generally presume the Killing curse wouldn't have been used and she's have gone for more efficient spells such as Reducto, primarily because it's a statue, and it's not 'alive'. You'd lack the instincts that you'd associate with combat with live opponents.

 

We already know a shield works against the Killing Curse: Voldemort conjured a silver shield when he thought Dumbledore was going to cast the Killing Curse.

 

For the point of it hitting clothes instead of the person I'd say it would have to hit the person to kill. Like say you have baggy robes and someone casts the Killing Curse at you, you avoid it hitting your person but it hits your robes. In this case I'd say that it doesn't affect you, it needs to hit you. If it hits any part of you (Finger, foot, ect..) then you die. I kinda view the spell as something that casts itself as form-fitting or...like really strong fluid? I can't think of the term, I apologize, but I see it as like holding up a shirt and putting water on it. Depending on the thread count and the like water could take its time to seep through or take none. But it's pretty likely that eventually it'll drip. Something like a plate of iron though wouldn't, at least not for...I have no idea. It comes down to different materials basically.

As for armor...I dunno. I agree with both the point of view that even hitting a person with armor would still kill them and that wearing armor could put a one use barrier to the Killing Curse. I guess it comes down to how it's applied and/or how an author uses it in ones story.

 

The relevant passage does nothing to suggest that that is the case:

My read of it is that Dumbledore cast the spell, then Voldemort cast his shield - after he recognised it as a spell he could shield against.

 

I disagree: Voldemort's statement is an expression of surprise. When he conjured the shield he was expecting a killing curse. The order of description is just an artefact of linear narration.

 

I read that as Voldemort reacting to Dumbledore casting what was a very powerful and presumably lethal curse. The casting of which was sufficiently different from Dumbledore's usual style and philosophy that Voldemort's remark was both surprised and mocking. A sort of 'we're not so different you and I'. Plus I think in the passage Voldemort had enough time to identify Dumbledore's spell as something other than the Killing curse before he conjured his shield.

 

Eh, two different ways of reading it I suppose. Agree to disagree then.

 

This is how I read it too. But combine that with Voldemort specifically conjuring a physical rather than magical shield, and that for Voldemort, lethal = Killing Curse, and you have Voldemort expecting a Killing Curse.