That damn blood protection thing

[fishinginthemud.livejournal.com]

My sincere apologies if this has been addressed before, but I haven't found anything on it yet.

We are told that Harry survives the Killing Curse from Voldemort because Voldemort is now a "blood relative" and Harry can't be harmed in the presence of his "blood relatives." But at that point, hasn't the "blood protection" spell already ended, since Harry is now 17 and no longer lives with the Dursleys? Have I missed something?

Comments

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

The whole issue of the protections on Harry is badly handled in the books, and never explained satisfactorily IMHO.

That said, my best attempt at understanding what's going on wrt Voldemort there is like this. There are two separate protections on child-Harry, both based on Lily's death. One is a sort of fundamental protection against Voldemort (and only Voldemort) that somehow adheres in Harry's skin and blood. This is what kills Quirrel, for example.

Then there is another layer of protection of some kind (never clearly defined) that DUMBLEDORE created by casting a spell drawing on the power of Lily's sacrifice. This is what Petunia "sealed" by accepting Harry into her house, and this is the additional protection that is only working when Harry is 'at' 4 Privet Drive (again, it's never clearly defined what this means in practice, and whether it works against DEs or again just Voldie).

The spell that ended with Harry's 17th birthday is this second protection. He still has his fundamental mother's-love protection in his skin and blood, because that is not the result of a spell that ends but is just somehow part of him. The reason he survives the AK is not because of the Dumbledore-created 'blood relative' protection, but because Voldemort took HIS blood specifically (meaning, not just having a partial blood link like Petunia, but actually having Harry's blood and nobody else's), and Lily's protection itself inheres in that blood. Like it was a substance. Which somehow means that Harry is protected from death because the actual blood with Lily's protection is still there, alive - regardless of the fact that this protection was never set up to work the same way as the blood relative thing before, and that none of it makes sense anyway.

Of course, this could be wrong, and JKR just forgot that the blood relative protection thing ended. (Also, why would a spell based on fundamental ties of blood and ancient mystical powers of love stop working in accordance with a civil legal statute that is arbitrary and could theoretically be changed at any time, instead of in accordance with some sort of essential biological or magical development, like puberty, etc.?)

[fishinginthemud.livejournal.com]

The reason he survives the AK is not because of the Dumbledore-created 'blood relative' protection, but because Voldemort took HIS blood specifically (meaning, not just having a partial blood link like Petunia, but actually having Harry's blood and nobody else's), and Lily's protection itself inheres in that blood.

But before Voldemort took Harry's blood, he still couldn't hurt Harry. He couldn't even touch him while possessing someone else. In Voldemort's understanding, taking Harry's blood gives Voldemort an advantage because he's now overridden the blood protection. Which seems to be correct, as he can now safely touch Harry. Why shouldn't he now be able to kill him as well?

If the logic were that Voldemort had tricked himself into becoming Harry's "blood relative," and subjected himself to Dumbledore's protection, I could appreciate the ironic twist. But as we've established, Dumbledore's protection is no longer in effect.

He still has his fundamental mother's-love protection in his skin and blood, because that is not the result of a spell that ends but is just somehow part of him...Like it was a substance.

So now Voldemort also has that anti-Voldemort substance in his blood. If Voldemort now couldn't touch or kill himself, that would make some kind of sense. As it is, he couldn't hurt Harry before, and he can't hurt him now.

...

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Yes, but like I said, it's badly handled and it's a new twist to what we had already seen of how Lily's protection worked. I don't think JKR thought it through very well at all, but this is the best I've been able to make of it so far. *shrugs*

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

So now Voldemort also has that anti-Voldemort substance in his blood. If Voldemort now couldn't touch or kill himself, that would make some kind of sense. As it is, he couldn't hurt Harry before, and he can't hurt him now.

This was a really weird feature. Especially since it had no payoff - before DH I read a theory that having pure love running through his veins would mean Voldemort had become capable of remorse and would surrender himself to justice or commit suicide by Chosen One. As it was, pure sacrificial protective love is just a bigger weapon.

[oryx_leucoryx]

But before Voldemort took Harry's blood, he still couldn't hurt Harry. He couldn't even touch him while possessing someone else. In Voldemort's understanding, taking Harry's blood gives Voldemort an advantage because he's now overridden the blood protection. Which seems to be correct, as he can now safely touch Harry. Why shouldn't he now be able to kill him as well?


Because while he overcame one protection, he unwittingly installed a different one in its stead.

Before the protection was against any direct physical and magical contact originating in Voldie himself. Quirrell can touch Harry, QuirrellMort can't. QuirrellMort can curse Harry's broom, but not Harry himself. (Other people can hurt Harry, probably even kill him. The bit about protecting Harry from DEs can't possibly work. And in fact, if you read very carefully what he says in OOTP, you see Albus never actually says Harry was protected from DEs. It is a tricky bit of misdirection.)

After the cemetery resurrection Voldie can touch Harry, he can torture him, he can bring Harry almost to the point of death, but he can't kill him all the way, as long as Harry's body is intact and available for his soul to return from limbo. But not just Voldie - nobody can kill Harry all the way now - as long as Voldie retains the body made with Harry's blood and Harry's body is intact. Which means that from the moment Voldie resurrected the only time Harry was really in danger of dying was with Crabbe's Fiendfyre. That was the only time Harry was in danger of losing his body. If Voldie had any brains he wouldn't have AKed Harry, he would have set Nagini on him. And told her to eat enough of him.

[fishinginthemud.livejournal.com]

I guess that works well enough. It would have been nice if we actually had an understanding of blood-Horcruxes as well as the soul-Horcruxes that Voldemort uses. But I can just about accept that explanation.

[fishinginthemud.livejournal.com]

Wait, except for the part where Dumbledore says Voldemort has to be the one to AK Harry. If no one can kill Harry anyway, why should that matter? Wouldn't the soul fragment still get destroyed if someone else AK'd Harry instead?

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Yes, it would. Except for the Prophecy. "Either must die at the hands of the other" (did Voldemort know that part or was it just Dumbledore?) As far as I can tell there was no physical reason why no one else could kill Voldemort, but destiny (or a clumsy author) would contrive it so that no one else ever managed it.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I'd always thought the 'protection' was just one single artifice until someone in an online debate pointed out to me, just as you say here, that there were two components to it.

One of the reasons it's so confusing is that Rowling's characters - and Rowling herself, no doubt - got confused by the whole thing. For example, in book 7 Moody says this:

"We can't wait for the Trace to break, because the moment you turn seventeen you'll lose all the protection your mother gave you."

But this is wrong; as you've said, it is the protection that *Dumbledore* gave Harry - the 'blood wards', whatever - which will break when he's seventeen.

At the end of OotP Dumbledore tells us that he added the second, extra 'layer' of protection:

"She gave you a lingering protection he never expected, a protection that flows in your veins to this day. I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative."

"She doesn't love me," said Harry at once. "She doesn't give a damn ‐”

"But she took you," Dumbledore cut across him. "She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you."

"I still don't -”

"While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in you and her sister. Her blood became your refuge. You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, whilst you are there he cannot hurt you.”

And then in HBP the whole 'until he's seventeen' thing is mentioned:

"The magic I evoked fifteen years ago means that Harry has powerful protection while he can still call this house `home.' However miserable he has been here, however unwelcome, however badly treated, you have at least, grudgingly, allowed him houseroom. This magic will cease to operate the moment that Harry turns seventeen; in other words, at the moment he becomes a man. I ask only this: that you allow Harry to return, once more, to this house, before his seventeenth birthday, which will ensure that the protection continues until that time."

I'm not sure if the 'of age' time limit on Dumbledore's protection is mentioned in any of the earlier books? It seems to be another thing that Rowling was just making up - or defining - as she went along.

The whole thing is very hand-wavey airie-fairy, but it does seem that there are two components to Harry's protection, with just the Dumbledore-added charm(s) expiring when Harry comes of age. But it's so muddled and confusing Rowling herself - who admitted she never re-read her books - got it wrong when she had Moody say that Harry will lose his mother's protection upon his seventeenth birthday.

A pro-Jo apologist would probably say that Moody was deliberately written as not understanding the situation, but since there's absolutely no reason for Rowling to have intended this - there's no payoff for the mistake, there's no acknowledgement of it, Moody would be expected to know the details of the situation, etc - I know what I'd put my money on. Yet another Rowling boo-boo.

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

Actually, if we go by what we've been told elsewhere, in another context, the 2nd-string protection which Albus tied to Lily's sacrifice (and seemed designed to refresh it every summer) ought to have ended at Albus's death. There was no good and sufficient reason for Harry to have returned to Privet Dr after Albus died. Whatever was left of the original protection that Lily died for didn't need refreshing by a spell whose caster was dead.

Of course Rowling had Harry still under Petrificus until some time after Albus was dead, too. So evidently Albus was just all that, and his spells lived after him... (as did Moody's apparantly. Dustledore, anyone?)

[oryx_leucoryx]

Well, the spells of the founders of Hogwarts still live after them. The protections Orion Black put on his home lived after him. Albus added Fidelius to the existing protections on the house, not instead of them. It's canon that at least some spells do not require their caster to still be alive to work.

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

Actually, what we are shown in canon is that once a spell is cast, it might as well be cast in stone. But Rowling started jerking us around with that nonsense that once Albus was dead, Harry could move again, and floating the theory that once a wizard is dead his spells no longer hold.

Except that Harry couldn't move. He couldn't move. He couldn't even scream. He had to stand there and watch Albus go floating over the parapet and out of sight. He wasn't able to move again until Snape herded the DEs off the tower and back down the stairs. So does a dead wizard's spells only *gradually* fade out, or is Harry simply a fool and assumes something that isn't the truth.

We saw Snape use a spell that canceled all the spells in the area in the Dueling Club chapter of CoS. It would be much easier to believe that he knew that Harry was there, somewhere, and turned him loose on his way out. But Rowling didn't even think of that.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

I just assumed Harry was in shock and psychosomatically paralysed for a while. But yes - this is definitely a contradiction, unless there's some bit of magical theory that Harry didn't pay attention to defining which spells hang around and which don't. (Or, as you say, that Snape knew Harry might be there and released him non-verbally).