(#) psyco 2009-05-03
I just like to note one more thing, Voldemorts original intent was to kill Harry, rather than Lily. Most of his victims would no doubt begged for their children, but he was not there to specifically kill the children. Which explains why it could not occur in almost any other circumstance.
I do agree that JKR did not address some of the more important plot points as greatly as she could have. Such as the events before the occurrence of the books, or how magic actually works, besides the use of distorted latin and intent.
Note to other reviewers, i was arguing against the authors response to another reader, not the story itself.
Author's response
I missed a couple of your points earlier, for which I apologize. I will address them now. The only transference of ownership by right of conquest noted was for the wand. The other two, normal transference of ownership is assumed.
Nowhere does it state that one must be using the cloak in order o hide from death. It is assumed, but all canon evidence suggests that ownership is enough. James received it as a gift from his father. His father died 5 years later, while James was in school. James gave it to Albus to give to Harry, and Albus said it didn't work correctly for him, as he was not the owner.
Canon-wise, we have no evidence that Riddle went after other little kids, and mothers tried to stop him. I choose to view it as he did so, and it never stopped him before. You, obviously choose that he did not.
I choose to not take the word of a manipulative old man as proof. If anybody other than He-of-too-many-last-names had performed the actions he is guilty of - no matter the circumstances - they'd have been occupying the cell Sirius Black got stuck in. If he told me the sky was blue and the grass green, I'd be finding a color wheel to make sure he's not lying to me again. It is by his word only that we know there are supposed to be wards at that residence, and I don't think that's good enough.
What occurred in the conversation could be termed as a sacrificial ritual, or it could be termed as a target of opportunity. I somehow doubt that the words "Stand aside you silly girl" have ever been used in a ritual.
People may say they do terrible things in the name of love, religion, the greater good, or Fat Tuesday. Those acts are not necessarily borne out of love or whatever they were inspired to act in. People justify their actions to themselves and others in order to feel better about themselves. "I did it because of X." It doesn't make the actions right or acceptable. Nor does whatever their excuse is care that they did it for them. People do things to gratify themselves. They come up with what they want, figure out how they will get it, and THEN come up with the reasoning for why they did it. Usually, they will then proceed to action, but that is not always the case. Sometimes the action will precede the justification, but not always.
Taking your premise that a contract was proffered and accepted (killing Lily constituted acceptance) and broke, creating the protection, your time line is incorrect.
1) Contract Proffered. "Take me instead..."
2) Contract Accepted. AK, Thud.
3) Contract Violated. AK at Harry, immediately creating protection. (actually, the protection could be realistically be argued as soon as #2 was done)
4) Spell bounced due to contract or violation thereof.
5) Riddle mostly disassociates with material plane.
6) Portion of Riddle's soul (his very essence, that which makes him what he is) bugs out for parts unknown, while another portion burrows through established protections against contract violator to rest in contact with protect-ee.
--- Many years later ---
7) Soul in possession of other flesh attempts to follow the piece of soul and get past protection to protect-ee and goes up in flames.
#6 and #7 do not work. Either the protection is nonexistent, allowing the soul to get there, or it IS in existence, allowing Quirrill-mort to touch him. You can't have it both ways, and moving the time for the soul piece up to prior to the spell bounce can't happen. If he made him a horcrux, why would he try to kill him? If he didn't, the soul piece came after the protections were in place, and should have toasted it. A cat trap doesn't care whether it catches a cat or a skunk, it just stops them from leaving.
The only reason Harry was put in the Dursley household was for molding him into a weapon that wouldn't mind dying. The supposed blood protections may have protected the Dursley's, but they did nothing for Harry. The contract would protect Harry no matter where he was from Riddle and those acting in his name. Filial relations had nothing to do with who got Harry.
Grindelwald and Voldemort were third rate compared to Dumbledore. They tortured you for a while and killed you. Dumbles tortured people for years, wrecked their lives, and made them give up everything before sending them off to be cannon fodder for his Greater Good, and was THANKED FOR IT. His "Greater Good" reminds me more of Hell on Earth.