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

[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.