Harry Potter: The protection on HP's house (OotP)

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2003-09-02 05:56pm

In The Order Of The Phoenix (OotP) Dubledore states that:

"While you (Harry Potter) can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort."
"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."

1) How far does this protection extend? Does it cover just magic from Voldemort or is it protection against any wizard?

2) Does this interfere with the connection between Harry and Voldemot?

3) Does this protection extend to everyone in the house or just Harry?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-02 05:57pm

Why is that his "home" when his parents never lived there?

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2003-09-02 06:17pm

His aunt shares his mothers blood (not literally, but family like sharing blood).
It is his home also because it is the only place he has lived in for some length of time. IIRC he wasn't even a year old when Voldemort killed his parents.

It is also a possibility that his mother may have lived there with his aunt for a bit though.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2003-09-02 06:43pm

I wouldn't have thought so.

But I would expect the protection to be a general area affect thing. After all, it wouldn't be much good if any of Voldemort's minions could waltz in and squish Harry.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2003-09-02 06:55pm

Vendetta wrote:I wouldn't have thought so.

But I would expect the protection to be a general area affect thing. After all, it wouldn't be much good if any of Voldemort's minions could waltz in and squish Harry.

I assume that's answering just question 1.

My interpretation is that it protects Harry from magic, but doesn't protect anyone else in the house and doesn't interfere with the connection, as in Goblet of Fire, Harry sees Voldemort kill that groundskeeper guy while he's still at home.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-09-03 02:25am

2000AD wrote:
Vendetta wrote:I wouldn't have thought so.

But I would expect the protection to be a general area affect thing. After all, it wouldn't be much good if any of Voldemort's minions could waltz in and squish Harry.
I assume that's answering just question 1.

My interpretation is that it protects Harry from magic, but doesn't protect anyone else in the house and doesn't interfere with the connection, as in Goblet of Fire, Harry sees Voldemort kill that groundskeeper guy while he's still at home.

It wouldn't interfere with the connection, they also share blood now remember, which brings me to ask if Voldemorte can now touch Harry, because he shares the blood, than wouldn't he be able to enter Harry's Aunts house and just strangle him to death?

The answer would have to be no, since Dumbledore is aware that Voldemort can now touch Harry, and yet still insists that he stays at the Dursleys.

I would speculate that it would be an area - effect thing, after all why would Petunia take Harry in, if he would be safe (but the centre of attraction), but she, Vernon and Dudley would be a target. There would have to be protections for all of them in the house, while in the house, otherwise Voldemort could kill Petunia (in the house), and then Harry would be fare game.

Did I just make sense?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-09-03 07:00am

It certainly must protect Petunia and Dudley (rapist bastard that he is)
But Vernon - that's another question entirely.

Also - the magic it protects against has to be a direct curse - Dobby and the Weasleys can still perform magic in the house. A cunning Death Eater should be able to sidstep this loophole

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-09-03 07:29am

innerbrat wrote:It certainly must protect Petunia and Dudley (rapist bastard that he is)
But Vernon - that's another question entirely.

Errrr, rapist?

Also - the magic it protects against has to be a direct curse - Dobby and the Weasleys can still perform magic in the house. A cunning Death Eater should be able to sidstep this loophole

Could it be a blanket spell to protect Harry from anyone who intends to cause him (or the Dursleys) harm? Sort of if you like Asimov's 3 rules?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-09-03 07:59am

Crown wrote:
innerbrat wrote:It certainly must protect Petunia and Dudley (rapist bastard that he is)
But Vernon - that's another question entirely.
Errrr, rapist?

Order of the Phoenix, page two.
It helps if you've seen Deliverance

Could it be a blanket spell to protect Harry from anyone who intends to cause him (or the Dursleys) harm? Sort of if you like Asimov's 3 rules?

In which case, it has to be carefully defined. Technically, Dobby intended to cause Harry harm. (having him expelled)

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-09-03 08:12am

innerbrat wrote:
Crown wrote:Could it be a blanket spell to protect Harry from anyone who intends to cause him (or the Dursleys) harm? Sort of if you like Asimov's 3 rules?
In which case, it has to be carefully defined. Technically, Dobby intended to cause Harry harm. (having him expelled)

I was thinking more along the lines of grevious bodily harm ...

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-09-03 08:20am

Crown wrote:I was thinking more along the lines of grevious bodily harm ...

But there's all sorts of ways an intelligent Death Eater could bypass that.

OK, given there aren't many of those. I blame the lack of an all-round education they give them at Hogwarts.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-09-03 08:21am

innerbrat wrote:
Could it be a blanket spell to protect Harry from anyone who intends to cause him (or the Dursleys) harm? Sort of if you like Asimov's 3 rules?
In which case, it has to be carefully defined. Technically, Dobby intended to cause Harry harm. (having him expelled)

Depends on your definition of 'harm'. Harry would not have been injured, at least not bodily. The protection might be primarily or exclusively geared towards physical damage.
Another thought:the spell was not cast AT Harry, so the protection might only apply to dangers directly affecting Harry or the Dursleys.
Which would, again, leave lots of ways for the Death Eaters to work around it.
And it's 4 robot laws.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-09-03 08:59am

Actually it was originally 3 laws.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Later a fourth was added to help with paradoxical situations where both action and inaction would violate the original three laws. This led to :

Zeroth Law:
A robot may not injure a humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
Modified First Law
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where that would conflict with the Zeroth Law.

Smiling Bandit · Post by **Smiling Bandit** » 2003-09-03 11:22am

Order of the Phoenix, page two.
It helps if you've seen Deliverance

Sorry, I admit I still don't understand.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2003-09-03 02:40pm

Smiling Bandit wrote:
Order of the Phoenix, page two.
It helps if you've seen Deliverance
Sorry, I admit I still don't understand.

I don't get it either.
All the second page says about Dudley is that he lies to his parents so he can hang out with friends and that he "spent every evening vandalising the play park, smoking on street corners and throwing stones at passing cars and children".
Nothing in there about rape or being a racist in case you made a typo.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-09-03 03:32pm

2000AD wrote: Nothing in there about rape or being a racist in case you made a typo.

Well with the mention of deliverance it would be rapist....but, since I've not read a single harry potter novel, I dont get the refrence either.

Shadow WarChief · Post by **Shadow WarChief** » 2003-09-03 07:59pm

For those of you who don't want to get up and go get your copy of OotP, I'll type out all of page 2.

...way he would be spotted was if his Uncle Vernon or Aunt Petunia stuck their heads out of the livigin room window and looked straight down into the flower bed below.
On the whole, harry thought he was to be congratulated on his idea of hiding here. He was not, perhaps, very comfortable lying on the hot, hard earth, but on the other hand, nobody was glaring at him, grinding their teeth so loudly that he could not hear the news, or shooting nasy questions at him, as had ahppened every time he had tried sitting down in the living room and watching television with his aunt and uncle.
Almost as thuogh this thought had fluttered through the open window, Vernon Dursly, harry's uncle, suddenly spole. "Glad to see the boy's stopped trying to butt in. Where is he anyway?"
"I don't know," said Aunt Petunia unconcerendly. "Not in the house."
Uncle Vernon grunted.
"Watching the news..." he said scathingly. "I'd like to know what he's really up to. As if a normal boy cares what's on the news–Dudley hasn't got a clue what's gong, doubt he knows who the Prime Minister! Anyways, it's not as if there'd be anything about his lot on our news–"
"Vernon, shh!" said Aunt Petunia. "The window's open!"
"Oh–yes–sorry, dear..."
The Dursleys fell silent. harry listened to a jingle about Fruit 'N Bran breakfast cereal while he watched Mrs. Figg, a batty, cat-loving old lady from nearby Wisteria Walk, amble slowly past. She was frowning and muttering to herself. harry was very pleased that he was concealed behind the bushl Mrs. Figg had recently taken to asking him around for tea whenever she met him in the street. She had rounded to corner and vanished from view before Uncle Vernon's voice floated out of the window again.

So where the hell are yuo getting this "Dudley the rapist" bit from?

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2003-09-03 08:16pm

He means Page 16 (UK edition)

"Squealed like a pig, didn't he?"

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2003-09-03 08:21pm

What's that got to do with raping? From the context it appears that DUdley and his friends beat up some kid ("Nice right hook") not raped him. "Dark" as the HP books have got recently i doubt JK would have put in anything close to rape in them!

BlackWarMewtwo · Post by **BlackWarMewtwo** » 2003-09-03 08:28pm

2000AD wrote:What's that got to do with raping? From the context it appears that DUdley and his friends beat up some kid ("Nice right hook") not raped him. "Dark" as the HP books have got recently i doubt JK would have put in anything close to rape in them!

Well, I'm pretty sure Hagrid's parents weren't exactly consensual.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2003-09-03 08:28pm

Deliverance, 1972, has a male-rape scene in which the perpetrator warns his victim he'll make him "squeal like a pig".

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2003-09-03 08:30pm

1) What's that got to do with Dudley being a rapist?

2) Doesn't Hagrid say that his father was in love with his mother in both OotP and GoF ?

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2003-09-03 08:31pm

Vendetta wrote:Deliverance, 1972, has a male-rape scene in which the perpetrator warns his victim he'll make him "squeal like a pig".

So from one line, which is a common phrase, you extrapolate that Dudley rapes people?

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2003-09-03 08:38pm

innerbrat referenced Deliverence.

This was clearly the source of the comment.