Just great. I'm sitting in the law library and instead of actually researching the stuff I should be doing, I'm browsing various HP websites to see if the Cruciatus was ever blocked, countered, shielded against, etc.

Just found a citation from HP wiki (not the best source I know) that says Snape managed to counter Harry's Cruciatus before he finished incanting the spell. Obviously, I don't have my book on me, but, if this is true, that would imply there is a counter for the Cruciatus (once against proving Taure correct in a canon fight )

If a counter exists, the spell can't be unblockable, and I'll revise my previous assessment of the spell. Anyone have some free time and wanna check that out for me? Should be in HBP, I think the chapter is Flight of the Prince.

Anyway, I don't think there has been a place in the story where I've definitively stated that the Cruciatus is unblockable, and I stand by the use of the spell in the duel regardless. I'll just have to look at my outline later to ensure it doesn't alter any future scene.

 

There's no specific counter as far as we know, but since it can be blocked with magic unlike the killing curse a sufficiently powerful Protego could block it.

 

I don't have the whole quote handy, though these lines happen just after Snape disrupts Harry's Cruciatus and shed light on the mechanics of spell blocking and disruption as they pertain to the Cruciatus and other curses and jinxes:

The second was apparently a silent disarming spell, but the first is a "repelling" that seems like your spell deflection or, alternatively, some kind of disruption that stops spells partway through their casting.

 

The way I saw that, Snape didn't block the curse. He just stopped Harry from casting it. It wasn't as much a counter as a prevention. That should work with any spell, even the AK.

 

Thing is, right afterwards Snape shouts "Blocked and blocked again", referring to what he had just done.

 

The whole scene:

 

He blocked Harry's attempt, not the curse.

 

It's ambiguous. There's nothing in canon saying that the curses can't be blocked, so it's reasonable to assume that they can.

 

I always thought the Cruciatus couldn't be blocked, but the language seems to explicitly state that it can: "Snape blocked the spell again". However, the first time he didn't block the spell, he prevented Harry from completing it; if he did that "again", it's reasonable to think he didn't block the completed spell any of those times. So yes, it really is ambiguous.

I've always been confused by that scene in HBP, because it's so different from any other type of fight scene we see in canon (at least prior to that, and that I can remember). Snape supposedly "blocks" and "deflects" spells that Harry hasn't completed.

Relevant to the story though are the fact that canon Harry tries to use it as an offensive spell, and the advantage legilimency gives to Snape.

 

Regardless of what Snape can and cannot do, there's absolutely no reason to think that the Cruciatus cannot be blocked.

But Snape's actions definitely fit with that.

 

I was going to say I thought the unforgivable was over the top too but it seems to have already been gone over. I was thinking that Harry threw the first curse and so they could claim to have been spying before they were attacked. I was expecting that water spell Harry was practicing. Viktor being on a broom obviously put him in a good position if Harry flooded the field.

 

Curious. Harry did not finish casting the curse. Did the curse actually leave his wand if he did not finish the incantation?
Well ...

This seems to indicate that yes, it did leave his wand. Again, curious. Does it matter that Harry did not finish the incantation if the curse was fired anyway? Was it weaker, or something?

Referring to the curse, not the incantation. So, if he did not complete it, what happened. Snape parried something. but it wasn't complete. If so, what was it?
I think Rowling did not really think this through.

 

Rosier called them the Unforgivables during a Dark Arts class though. If they were viewed differently in Durmstrang, that would have been the moment to say so.

 

Rowling not thinking things through is par for course. That said, the killing curse is singled out in book 4 as being the only one that's unblockable, if memory serves correctly.

 

I dont think there is much in canon about Nurmengard except that specific protective enchantments remain unknown and it holds Grindelwald.
With the BWL look at Nurmengard no magic would be allowed in the cells.

I guess thats where canon and BWL differ. In DH Voldemort breaks into the cell that then kills Grindelwald.

Maybe Voldemort was able to undo the enchantments of the prison?

That would make the BWL version of Voldemort alot stronger if he was able to counter Elder wand magic.
I know that by DH time the story would have taken a different path, but Voldemorts wand still wont fight Nathans and he would need a stronger wand.

 

I don't think Snape's actually blocking the spells after they've left the wand. He's blocking Harry from finishing his incantations. That's why he's telling him to shut his mouth (and mind). Apparantly, once you're a good enough Legillimens, you can actually sense what spell an opponent is going to use and parry it by preemtively stopping it. A forward defense, in a way. Ofcourse Harry being pretty damn emotional at that point made it a lot easier.

I'm guessing it would probably work for the Killing Curse as well, seeing as you're not actually blocking the curse, you're blocking the incantation. It really makes Snape one of the strongest fighters in the series, because he's got a huge advantage over anyone that doesn't know Occlumency (or isn't able to use it during a battle, anyway) and doesn't stay calm during a fight.

 

I thought Snape being a beast was common knowledge. Wasn't he the only death eater who knew how to fly like Tom?

 

You're wrong, because it clearly says that Snape "parried" the curse. Not block, not stop, not even prevent. Parry. As in, something came at him and he redirected it.