What was known about Quirrell's death and Tom's status in PS?

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Lynn_waterfall, in an exchange we were having below in the spork of GoF 36, assumed that Fudge thought that Harry had said, back at the end of book one, that Voldemort was dead but somehow not completely dead.

But what Harry actually knew was that Voldemort, riding the back of Quirrell's head, said that he was, "Mere shadow and vapor... I have form only when I can share another's body... but there have have always been those willing to let me into their hearts and minds.... Unicorn blood has strengthened me, these past weeks... and once I have the Elixir of Life, I will be able to create a body of my own."

Now, we readers, being logical, might infer that the once-a-normal-living-human Voldemort, who is now "shadow and vapor... [without] a body of [his] own" might be legally classed as "dead but not as gone as we might wish."

A) Did Harry ever work that out? and

B) Did he ever communicate that to others? To anyone?

WE all know that Harry faced a dead Voldemort possessing his living servant Quirrell in an attempt to secure the Philosopher's Stone and kill Harry.

And we know that everyone in Hogwarts (and therefore, all their relatives at the Ministry) know that SOMETHING happened down there. See the congratulatory sweets by Harry's bedside.

But as oryx points out, in OotP only Neville seemed quite sure that the incident involved "the Sorcerous Stone".

What was "known" by the rest of the WW?

The only facts we know Twinkles probably could not have hidden were: Quirrell's death (or at least disappearance), and the destruction/disappearance of the Philosopher's Stone, leading eventually to the Flamel's deaths of old age.

Does everyone/anyone but US even know these two incidents were connected? That Quirrel died in attempting to steal the Stone? And is it generally known that Quirrell was the Dark Lord's agent in that attempt (Severus's alibi to Bellatrix--which presumably is the same as he gave Riddle--was that Snape had never known that), much less physically possessed by him?

And among those who know that Quirrell was physically possessed--would they have any reason to assume that the Dark Lord had been discorporate himself when he took Quirrel over?

Tom had previously possessed animals/humans while retaining control of his own body--was this known?


Final question: when Tommy abandoned Quirinus's dying body, did Quirrell's head restore itself to normal? Or did Albus show everyone a corpse with Lord V on the back or his head?

Comments

[detritius.livejournal.com]

While making Harry more heroic might have been one of the reasons the moviemakers made the change (and Harry certainly does need the help), I think they also may have done it to keep the rating down. Having a villain turn to stone is acceptably cartoony, and probably a lot more appropriate for the younger audience the earlier films were marketed to than showing Harry burning Quirrel's face and hands (I believe the book describes his skin blistering from the heat). Depictions of more realistic injuries tend to cause visceral negative reactions, especially for kids, so that may be part of the reason they chose to have him crumble to dust rather than sticking more closely to the book.

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

Oh, interesting theory. I do think you've hit the nail on the head. It is a lot easier for little kids to roll with villains turning to stone and crumbling than yeah, showing graphic images of his skin being scorched and developing blisters and all. *wince*

I do wonder why they went that route with Voldy and Bella, though- the cartoony 'deaths' were a bit ridic. And at that stage, they showed people dying and being tortured, so hmm.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Probably because it was the "good guys" doing it - if they left bodies behind, the fact that they were killing people would feel a lot more real.