The place I originally read that was actually the original post of this thread, some time ago. He explains it better than I can.

 

I'm working on the assumption that if an object has enough mass, it can also absorb the AK - such as that stray Killing Curse that hit and blew up a desk during Dumbledore and Voldemort's fight in the Ministry.

 

HP would have been a far more interesting series if people simply exploded when hit with AK.

Harry Potter & The Philosopher's Stone
By Dan Abnett
​

God I want to live in the universe where that happened...

EDIT: 5 years, 700 posts, wooo.
EDIT2: Just for Taure

 

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, directed by Michael Bay.

 

Hmm, to me I always had the mental image of it being and extension, like the reason that it won't work on dragons, or a basilisk, the dragons will to live far outstripped the casters will to kill it, and tat would be why love saved Harry, his mothers will to keep her child was so great that it overwhelmed voldemorts will to kill him.

but meh, I could be completely wrong.

---------- Post automerged at 10:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------

Well in the books it kinda did sound like the Imperious may have done something along those lines, it makes you feel like your floating on a happy cloud with a friendly voice telling you what to do, so yeah. this post of mine sorta
:fire

 

Such a long debate. Not sure I can make it though 6 pages of reading on a topic that, though it makes complete sense to bring up, will have little to no answer.

The killing curse that makes no mark upon killing, apparently blows things up. But somehow it also can kill a person without burning their clothes.

The only thing that makes sense that that if something has enough mass and magic tied to it, it blows up. The gravestones and a magical gold statue.

You could argue that most of the time things have blown up, the curse was cast by either A) a really powerful dark wizard or B) Members of the Order. But still doesn't make sense that it just avoids destroying the persons personal items.

 

To what end would you argue that? It seems to have no relevance to anything.

 

I don't recall it being started anywhere in the books that the Killing Curse wouldn't work on either a dragon or a Basilisk. I think that is fanon. I mean, eight or so wizards working together are able to stun the Hungarian Horntail in GoF when Hagrid has Harry follow him under the Invisibility Cloak, if memory serves. So while dragons are obviously resistant to magic, they aren't immune. I think a Killing Curse would work on a dragon. And while I assume a basilisk also has resistance to magic, again, I think that is a far cry from immunity to the Killing Curse.

As for the idea that Lily's will for Harry to live exceeded Voldemort's will to kill Harry, and that's why he survived? That doesn't seem very logical to me. No one has ever survived a Killing Curse, except Harry. No one. Hell, Lily herself died. What did her will have to do with it after she was dead? It seems like it would be a non-issue at that point. The simple fact of the matter is that if this was the case, somewhere, sometime, someone else would have wanted to live more than their opponent wanted to kill them. But no, Harry is the sole exception to the rule.