Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: BamaHP Jan 16 2006, 03:23 AM

Throughout the books blood has become an important theme and device.  Blood is used in a physical sense, it is used to describe one's genetic background, and it is used as a magical substance.

Book 1:

LV/Quirrell drinks the blood of a unicorn for a cursed rejuvination of life.
Lily's blood in Harry protects him from being touched by LV.

Book 2:

Blood is used to write the messages on the walls of Hogwarts.
Hermione is called a mudblood, and we learn about pure-bloods, half-bloods, and mudbloods. This theme runs throughout the books.

Book 3:

Lupin's blood has been cursed (or tainted) since he is a werewolf.
More references to mudbloods and such.

Book 4:

Harry's blood is used to bring LV back, and now Harry's protection from his mother is gone.

 

Book 5:

Thestrals are attracted to blood.
Aunt Petunia's blood gives Harry protection at the Dursley's.

Book 6:

The title of the book is Half-Blood Prince.
Snape and LV are half-bloods.
Harry and Dumbledore give their blood to LV's secret door.
The sectumsempra curse on Malfoy in the bathroom.
Slughorn's fake blood in his attempt to hide from Dumbledore.
Dumbledore's blood from his fall off the tower.

If you have any other mentions of blood or comments please discuss, or refer me to the forum where this is already being discussed.  What about blood in book 7?

Posted by: hpaddict Jan 16 2006, 12:03 PM

This is certainly an interesting topic and we'll see how the discussion goes and decide if it stays here or moves on to another forum.  My guess is it is a (potential) candidate for Magical Theory (How does magic work? What are the home lives and social habits of wizards and witches like? Any discussion of the magical world not related to the plot of the series go here.) but it could have an interesting life here in Obscurus (Lit Crit, academic analysis) so let's give it a shot.

Right now there is a thread open in Magical Theory called http://www.leakylounge.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=90;t=17618;st=20;&#entry603100 so all discussion about how magical genes are acquired/passed belong in that thread.

As the discussion goes, we'll make sure it has its proper home.

hpaddict - LL Mod

Posted by: MonieLou Jan 16 2006, 02:30 PM

Blood seems to be a bonding tool for most magical spells. It's what helped creat Voldemort's body and allowed him to touch Harry once again. It also protected Harry from LV all those years. Lily, without knowing it, created a blood protection for Harry.

Is there any symbolism of blood that we know of???

Posted by: Weasle Diva Jan 16 2006, 03:43 PM

Also the blood-replenishing potion for Arthur Weasley and the many refernces to Dragon Blood.

In other discussions, many have wondered about an anti-horcrux.  The blood protection seems to be this opposite...  The soul-splitting vs. bodily life-force.

Posted by: BamaHP Jan 16 2006, 03:53 PM

Oh I totally forgot about Arthurs snake bite.  What about Book 3?  I had trouble remembering references to blood in POA.

Posted by: Pat_Rorrythe Jan 16 2006, 05:50 PM

There is also the scenes in book V when Harry has to write, in the office of Dolores Umbridge, with a special pen : he is loosing blood and getting a scar on the hand.

Posted by: ~Mokey Jan 16 2006, 06:25 PM

Interesting that you say that, just found this on Weikipedia (I put the most interesting parts in bold-face)

QUOTE

Indo-European paganism
Among the Germanic tribes (such as the Anglo-Saxons and the Vikings), blood was used during the sacrifices, the Blóts. The blood was considered to have the power of its originator and after the butchering the blood was sprinkled on the walls, on the statues of the gods and on the participants themselves. This act of sprinkling blood was called bleodsian in Old English and the terminology was borrowed by the Roman Catholic Church becoming to bless and blessing. The Hittite word for blood, ishar was a cognate to words for "oath" and "bond", see Ishara.

BTW don't forget the bloody baron.

Edited to add:  I think also in some ancient S.American civilizations and tribes winners in battle would eat the heart and drink the blood of their conquered enemies because that was where the power came from, and you would gain your enemies power by doing this.  (there may still be tribes who do this I don't know, it's been a long time since those Anthropology classes.)  This sort of reminds me of LV getting Harry's protection when he took his blood.

Posted by: fluffy333 Jan 16 2006, 07:30 PM

there is a saying in Germany which translates to 'blood is thicker than water' ie. the bond through blood (relatives) is stronger than friendship etc.

i guess in the sense of when it comes down to chosing between, say, your brother who's got a nasty character and a very good friend, you'd still find yourself chosing your brother cos he's family.

Posted by: cloudpic Jan 17 2006, 12:38 AM

Then there is the whole thing with blood in religions.  Even in fairly modern Christian churches the wine represents the blood of the Christ.

Sacrifices were linked with blood.  Power being transferred from one being to another was linked with blood.  The blood was the focus of a lot of early medical theories too.  And also early psychological theories.  

We still say things like someone is "hot blooded" or that someone did something in "cold blood."

Clearly blood has long been an important symbol to human culture.  I doubt we could find a culture that doesn't some ancient ritual associated with blood.

Another thought, maybe unrelated:  usually we associate the color of blood, red, with danger.  But in the wizarding world most of the associations with danger are green (this was discussed in another thread - the light with avada cadavra, Harry's eye color [he's always in danger], etc.).  

Is that, maybe, because the theme of acceptance/tolerence and non-prejudice (and unity) is connected with "blood prejudice" in the books??  It's not the blood which is a danger. . . but something else?

Posted by: *~Avada_Kedavra~* Jan 17 2006, 05:21 AM

I think it just symbolises for goriness or something like that to make the stories spine-chilling or something. Yeah, because like everyone's said, blood is everywhere!

Posted by: actaeon Jan 17 2006, 08:55 AM

Blood Magic is particularly powerful.  Any self-respecting wizard would know that!  Also makes for some intense reading - the Umbridge quill was particularly unpleasant.

Makes you wonder if some hideously upsetting form of blood magic might be involved in Book 7; maybe even in the destruction of LV himself.  

Of course, Voldy was only able to complete his regeneration with a bit of Harry's blood.  That's got to be imporant later on.

Posted by: ExplodingSnap Jan 17 2006, 06:06 PM

I seem to remember that in the ancient Middle Eastern cultures, blood was almost synonymous for "life". Blood was supposed to be the driving force for living beings, because, obviously, if you lose a lot of blood, you may lose your life. The "Blood of Christ" can be understood in this sense: It's a "pars pro toto", meaning that when you drink it, your heart is filled with the life of Christ.

There's an interesting connection to sexuality. In some early medieval Christian beliefs (and before), semen was supposed to be "white blood", so spilling it meant destroying life - therefore the often negative view of sexuality (though there are other reasons for this, too, like the adoption of gnostic philosophies).

Speaking of HP, what still gives me a headache is the "gleam of triumph" in Dumbledore's face when Harry tells him that Voldemort has overcome Harry's blood protection by rebirthing from his blood in the cauldron. Could it be that this blood holds the power of unspoilt life, which is quite the opposite of Voldemort's miserable, soul-splitted existence? And that somehow the "good power" of the blood will diminish the dark power of Voldemort? Just an idea.

Posted by: halfakneazle Jan 17 2006, 11:38 PM

The power of an unspoilt life...very interesting.  Makes sense.  I always knew that the infamous gleam of triumph had something to do with V. having Harry's blood.  

I think that the reason blood is often used is because it is associated with either violence, or a deep pact, beyond any other, as in why Harry has to stay with the Dursley's.

Posted by: joann1971 Jan 19 2006, 09:10 PM

I guess you could say Blood has always had magical properties through out the history of the world. I think it only means alot to purebloods in the Harry Potter story though, all others could care less who you are related to. I don't remember most of the other houses going around asking who are you related to or are you a pureblood or muggle born. Most like eachother for their characters, that is other then alot of slytherin. But Salazar Slytherin was facinated with pure blood also.

Posted by: hpaddict Jan 20 2006, 01:12 AM

I think that JKR has used blood as a symbol of the circle of life.  Birth, death, and regeneration.  I like the idea of ancient cultures using blood to purify, ritual sacrifice

We've touched on Harry's blood used as an essential ingredient to LVs rebirth.  Cutting of Harry was certainly part of a ritual and was an unwilling sacrifice on his part.  People have also mentioned the death of the basilisk and the use of the fang, mixed with Harry's blood to detstroy the diarycrux.

At the beginning of OoTP, Vernon grabs Harry and then lets go as if hurt by touching him - it so reminded me of Quirrelmort who could not touch Harry without suffering mortal pain.  Add to what we have discussed about what went on CoS what if it is not the poison of the basilisk that defeats LV but Harry's blood instead.  We can then guess that the "gleam of triumph" might be that the blood that now runs thorugh LV will be the death of him after his final horcrux is destroyed.  

Well - that started out better before I posted, hope the gist got across!

Posted by: BamaHP Jan 20 2006, 10:07 AM

You could say that both Harry and LV have used blood to their advantage.  LV used unicorn blood in Book 1 and Harry's blood in Book 4.  Harry had his mother's protection in his blood in Book 1 and his Aunts protection until Book 7.  

I think this may well indead be Harry's 'weapon' against LV.  Love is often symbolized by a heart, the blood pumping organ of the human body.  Maybe Harry's heart and blood will defeat LV.

Posted by: hck Jan 20 2006, 10:40 AM

Here are some other points/apssages where blood is mentioned (Quotations alsways go to the Bloomsbury versions):

(Hagrid speaking, CoS, p. 72)

QUOTE

yeh don' have ter be pure-blood ter do it.

(Hagrid speaking, GoF, p. 498)

QUOTE

Family ... Whatever yeh say, blood's important ...

(Hagrid speaking, OotP, p. 498)

QUOTE

It all comes dcown to blood.

(Aunt Marge speaking, PoA, p. 36)

QUOTE

I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood

(DD speaking, OotP, p. 736; andf he goes on talking about blood.)

And of course the cave scene, HBP p. 522s, espec. p. 523:

QUOTE

'Blood?'
'I said it was crude,' said Dumbledore, who sounded disdainful, even disappointed, as though Voldemort had fallen short of the standards Dumbledore expected.

---

So: to me it seems:

• Magic involving blood can be effective.
• Magic involving blood  is not in itself evil (at least not in all cases).
• Magic involving blood is (at least sometimes) not exactly the most sophisticated sort of magic existing.
• Whosover consisders blood from a breeder's perspectikve (be it Aunt Marge, be it Hagrid, be it the wizards putting importance on the \"purity\" of blood) may very well find himself victim of some sort of disception.  
• I have no idea how important blood will turn out to be in volume 7.

Posted by: BamaHP Jan 20 2006, 04:22 PM

From Wikipedia

In Harry Potter, we might say ones magical ability or power resides in their blood (and probably distrubutes their power throughout their body).    It also has symbolic meanings, like family, love, bond or oath, and power.

Posted by: Paultunes Jan 23 2006, 11:15 PM

i think  JK shows that blood is important, it is the primordial tie which binds you to others past, present and with luck the future. the Weasley's are the best example of healthy blood ties. they are connected to one another in a special way so even "the Worlds Biggest Git" feels it.  i just know  that Ron, Fred and George would not let Percy face four Death Eaters alone. after all is said and done he's still their brother.  blood ties are not everything  as Harry shows. there is no blood relation between Harry and the Weasleys but he becomes a member of the family in everything BUT name .  the connection and affection he gets from Ron's family is something he's never had from the Dursleys who ARE in fact blood relatives. blood is not the only tie that binds. race, religion, class, nationality and of course friendship and bravery and love . as in the real world blood doesn't seem to be a reliable means of passing along abilities/ magical power i.e. Neville and Hermione.  the blood from Harry that was used to bring back Voldemort in bodily form had to be taken from him unwillingly leading one to wonder had Harry known and said "sure how many pints do ya need?" would Voldy just be bubbling in a pot somewhere? what then does this say about the power of his blood? i also wonder when does the curse for the one who drinks the blood of the unicorn kick in?[B]

Posted by: fluffy333 Jan 26 2006, 05:49 PM

one thing that just popped up in my mind was that the good ol' Indians (feathers not dots) used to cut each other to become 'blood brothers'... i wonder, if that will play any significance for Harry and LV  :ponder:

Posted by: memyslfnI Jan 30 2006, 10:03 AM

I found this and thought it was interesting

Thoughts?

It was chilling to think that this had caused LV and Harry to have much more of a bond then the "transfer of powers" via the AK curse.  It makes me believe that when Harry reaches perfection (quintessence) of the soul It will somehow be the factor that finally distroys LV.  He will feel the same pain like he felt while posessing Harry in the MoM but ten fold.  Why is Harry not effected by this?  Why is Harry not tempted to evil?  Because he is a pure soul and is immune to the contamination of LV's torn and damaged soul perhaps?

Posted by: queserasera Feb 4 2006, 12:36 PM

It's really interesting how blood signifies both pain and death, and then love and life.  It seems to show a tie between these two opposites, and that is a theme that presents itself in Harry Potter.

Posted by: mlwl Feb 4 2006, 03:07 PM

Question: Did Harry ever receive any of LV's blood?  I didn't think that he did, but I may be wrong.  That could help explain his lack of temptation to do wrong, even if he received some of LV's powers at the yung age.  However, LV now has that little sliver of good in him whether he wants it or not.
I agree that it is far more chilling, because it was intented.  Voldemort is literally made of Harry now.  
And, from that passage, even if Harry is not a horcrux, it could bode badly for our hero...

Posted by: BamaHP Feb 5 2006, 10:27 PM

LV's blood may not have entered Harry's body from the curse but Harry's blood could have been affected by the curse.

Posted by: atschpe Feb 11 2006, 07:09 AM

Very interesting discussion here and alot to think about.

First off I'd like to add a few other instances where blood is mentioned in the novels:

• Dumbledore's studies in the twelve uses of dragon blood. Something the first years were also learning by heart for their exams (PS)
• the renewed emphasis on blood connection by the Balck family tree "toujour pur" (OotP)
• Boggart lesson: the severed hand (PoA)
• Mrs Wealsey's boggart posing as her husband with a trickle of blood coming from his lips (OotP)
• the green dragon blood mingling with Hagrid's blood on his face when he is treating his injuries with the dragon steak (OotP)
• the trickle of blood coming from dead-Dumbledore's mouth after falling from the tower (HBP)

I find it rather interesting that the blood of magical creatures has different colours, even more that it differs with one type:

Slughorn uses dragonblood to stage an attack when Dumbledore and Harry arrive (HBP), so one would presume it to be red; yet in OotP the blood coming from Hagrid's dragon steak is green. Perhaps a different breed?

Furthermore, there is the silver colour of the unicorn blood.

Hmmmm, does anyone know more about colour symbolism to understand these differences?[/color]

Posted by: towerdweller Sep 19 2006, 11:01 PM

Rather than start a new topic, I thought I would post an observation about blood in this dormant thread. While re-reading in PoA, I noticed that before Harry and Hermione enter the passageway beneath the Whomping Willow, it draws both their blood:

This reference to blood was subtle, but as I read this I couldn’t help but recall the cave in HBP where DD and Harry each offer up some blood to pass (DD on the way in and Harry on the way out). In PoA, it seems that blood is the price that Harry and Hermione pay to enter the tree and to learn the truth about the Marauders. Ron paid too; Scabbers bites him before entering the tree and later we see:

If the Whomping Willow represents the Tree of Knowledge, it appears that blood the price for knowledge.

As some have said already, blood is a key, overall symbol in the series. PS/SS begins with the thin cut on Harry’s forehead (I presume it bled). As Harry emerges from the Chamber of Secrets, he is covered in the basilisk’s blood. In PoA, he is bleeding his own blood because of the tree. In GoF, Wormtail cuts Harry and takes his blood as part of LV’s rebirthing solution. In OotP, Harry writes “I will not tell lies” in his own blood. Finally, in HPB we see Harry offer up his blood to the wall in the cave. Blood seems an integral element to Harry’s journey. Does this mean that Harry will have to give up even more blood before the story is over?

Posted by: Saint_Helga Sep 20 2006, 02:29 AM

Waw! great topic. I never thought about it this way. Is blood being used as a symbol of one's characteristics? I mean good-blood bad-blood? I don't see blood being used to mean just blood as a substance as one of the main topics of the book. It must symbolize something crucial about a person, condensed qualities and vistues (lack of those).

Could you elaborate a little about the tree of knowledge? Why would WW be a tree of knowledge? Lupin and Snape were able to enter without any blood since they knew about he knot on the trunk.

Posted by: towerdweller Sep 20 2006, 10:39 AM

I consider the Whomping Willow to be a type of "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" like the one that Adam and Eve partook the fruit of in the Garden of Eden. Just as Adam and Eve's world view changed after partaking of the proverbial apple, Harry and Hermione's views change. For Harry, it's understanding more about his father's life at school and what really happened with his friends; Harry learns that Sirius Black is his godfather and that Wormtail betrayed Lily and James. For Hermione, she learns more about herself; she attacks a teacher, which she never would have done before. Hermione begins to see that there can be more to truth than just the facts. For example, it may have never crossed her mind before that there would be unregistered animagi, but this knowledge is put to use when she encounters Rita Skeeter in book 4.

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. Lupin entered the tree as a student after he had been bitten as a child--blood was definitely part of the reason why Lupin is a werewolf and has to spend each full moon as a student in the Shrieking Shack. Snape's blood-letting may have happened earlier too. At the very least, Snape's blood is drawn inside:

Part of the Adam and Eve story is that before taking of the fruit of the tree, they were innocent and child like. Both Lupin and Snape are adults (no longer innocent) when they enter the tree, whereas Harry, Ron and Hermione are innocent youth. After leaving the tree, some of that innocence is lost.

There is even a theory that blood is what makes man mortal. Before Adam and Even took of the fruit, they were immortal; by taking of the fruit, they took on knowledge and death. In a sense their blood was changed by the fruit.

Likewise, Harry, Ron and Hermione exit the tree with not only a loss of blood, but a loss of innocence. They've gained knowledge and experience but must leave behind the paradise of childhood, just as Adam and Eve had to leave the paradisiacal Garden of Eden.

Posted by: Pat_Rorrythe Sep 29 2006, 02:41 PM

I have never heard the theory which says that blood makes mortal. Any source ?
As far as I read about magic, blood and soul are connected : same color, and same power of life. Both are the most essential elements of the human. And Harry is protected by the blood of his mother, and Voldemort's horcruxes contains a part of his soul to be protected against death. And Voldemort has blood of Harry while Harry migth have a piece of soul of Voldemort.
As blood is supposed to keep cohesion and unity to the spirit+soul+body, I would presume that Voldemort migth die because the blood of Lilly will destroy the cohesion of his new body.

Posted by: Shard Sep 29 2006, 02:43 PM

I think the point Pat, is that the precense of Blood means life, that blood is required to make the body warm and move. The lack of blood but bodly movement and function certainly points to an unlife state, like those of Inferi and Vampires. Blood pumping through your viens requires a heart, does Voldemort have one?

Posted by: S.u.n.n.y Oct 7 2006, 03:55 AM

Good question, does Voldemort have a heart?

Well, I guess so. Otherwise he wouldn't really be alive, would he? But this is really interesting. He has Horcruxes which make him immortal so does he need a heart?

When he was a young boy he definitely had a heart seeing as he was still a normal boy and hadn't created any Horcruxes yet. But did his heart "vanish" as he turned evil and created his first Horcrux?

Posted by: Shard Oct 7 2006, 09:55 AM

Well Hagrid did say it himself in OOTP. "Whatever you say, Bloods important" It almost seems an ironic statment coming from an author who is trying to show Choice over Destiny and Ability over Birth. Angel from Buffy seems under the impression that a heartbeat is what would make him alive, human. That Voldemort has a heart but it doesn't beat.

Posted by: Pat_Rorrythe Oct 8 2006, 09:02 AM

it's not because people do have a heart that they felle compassion or love. It has to be a pure heart, but so many sadistic people had a heart and could torture other people.
What is estonishing is the sentence of Dumledore HBP, the scene in the tower when he is facing Draco : he said that Draco did not try to kill DD with all his heart. it means that, even to kill, the strength of the heart is required. So, defintly, Voldemort too has a heart.

Posted by: merrythought Oct 8 2006, 09:24 AM

I think when Hagrid says blood is important, he's thinking about Grawp, and the responsibility, and joy, that comes from family bonds. He's looking for that in his relationship with Grawp.

Posted by: towerdweller Oct 9 2006, 07:01 PM

Yes, Hagrid is referring to Grawp, but it also sounds familiar: like a chord in the bond of blood protection that Harry has because Lily and Petunia are related by blood. As much as James and Sirius were like brothers, they weren’t truly brothers in blood. However, Sirius and Regulus were. I’m curious how much more we’ll learn about that blood relationship.

Posted by: BamaHP Oct 9 2006, 10:15 PM

I totally forgot about this thread. Thanks for reviving it towerdweller, and this is definitely something that I had not pieced together while reading the books (brilliant!). I also remember that in OOtP, Grawp's blood is what drew the thestrals to Harry and Hermione and catapulted their trip to the MoM, and ultimately to the Department of Mysteries. Here is the place where the attainment of knowledge seems to be the main goal; the study of the basic elements of humanity and magic takes place here. Harry undergoes his own study of almost all of these (time, memories, death, prophocy, etc...) in the rooms of the DoM while they search for Sirius and fight the death eaters.

Posted by: towerdweller Oct 10 2006, 02:45 PM

When I first read about the Thestrals coming because they smelled the blood covering Harry and Hermione, I thought it was because they smelled food. After all, Hagrid calls them with a piece of meet earlier in the book. However, what if they came, not only because they smelled food, but because they could identify something of Hagrid (their keeper) in Grawp’s blood?

Posted by: BamaHP Oct 10 2006, 03:44 PM

I wouldn't doubt it at all. They have great senses of direction and they are connected with something otherworldly. But what would be the significance of them identifying Hagrid in Grawp's blood rather than just smelling blood for food?

Posted by: towerdweller Oct 10 2006, 03:50 PM

I’m thinking the Thestrals could have come because they mistook the smell of Grawp’s blood for Hagrid blood. If Hagrid were bleeding, he could be in trouble and the Thestrals might come to his aid.

Posted by: BamaHP Oct 10 2006, 03:59 PM

And they would already know the smell of Hagrid's blood because he's been beaten to a pulp by Grawp all year.

Posted by: towerdweller Oct 10 2006, 06:39 PM

Exactly! In this case Grawp's size allows him to safely lose an amount of blood that would be fatal for smaller creatures--perhaps even Hagrid.

Posted by: BamaHP Oct 10 2006, 06:55 PM

But if they thought it was Hagrid's blood, why would they lick the blood off of Harry and Hermione's sleeves? What would that say about the thestrals?

Posted by: towerdweller Oct 10 2006, 07:12 PM

They are still animals and behave like some Muggle pets. Growing up my dog would try and lick my cuts and scratches but would never try to bite or eat me. If they were truly wild and ferocious, they would have attacked. This reminds me of a shark that senses blood in the water and is drawn to a wounded animal. While a shark is more likely to attack in such a situation, here the Thestrals seem to understand the situation and are highly intelligent.

Posted by: BamaHP Oct 10 2006, 07:39 PM

I don't know. I think they licked it because it tasted good. lol But you may be completely right about why they were attracted to it.

"Mmm...tastes like Hagrid!" the thestral exclaimed.

Posted by: towerdweller Oct 10 2006, 11:03 PM

As long as Hagrid doesn't taste like chicken!

I'm reminded of the blood offerings that DD and Harry have to give to the cave by the sea to get in and out. Is there a way for LV to know whose blood was offered? And why is Harry's blood "worth more than" DD's?

Posted by: Shard Oct 11 2006, 06:59 AM

lol Yeah they never bit into Harry or Hermione, so they know the difference between the things they can eat and such.

I don't think there is a way, not unless LV goes there immeadity otherwise the blood will have dried off and flaked away. Either that or the Magic door asorbs the blood. I think it's the bigger sense of why Harry's blood is more important, that Harry's LIFE is more important as we are to see in "Lightining Struck Tower".

Is there a stronger connection with Harry and Voldemort now that LV has Harry's blood? (Harry does not have LV's blood so no Mr. Blood here thank you :-P)

Posted by: BamaHP Oct 11 2006, 09:17 AM

I think that DD is remarking that he values Harry's life more than his own.....buuuuuuttttt I think Jo is telling us that Harry's blood will be important in book 7. And I think that the fact that LV has Harry's blood will be important.

I think the door could definitely be the way LV identifies who has been through the door. I'm sure he would want to know that information and blood would seem to be a very identifiable feature...like a DNA test! lol

Posted by: towerdweller Oct 11 2006, 02:26 PM

It almost makes them "blood brothers" doesn't it?

I think this is exactly what is happening in this scene. There are too many hints about LV using Harry's blood being a crucial ingredient in the potion and possibly a fatal mistake too (i.e. DD's "gleam of triumph").

Do you think the blood offering can be used to track the person down? Do wizards use bloodhounds or something similar?

Posted by: Narya Oct 12 2006, 01:36 AM

I might be alone in thinking this, but I don't think LV ever had a heart in the truest sense of the word. Obviously he had one to pump the blood and oxygen around his body, but IMO his heart literally "switched off" the moment he hung that defenceless rabbit from the rafters, so he was evil as a small child and long before he created his first Horcrux with the murder of another human being.



The bond of blood is a question which has been bandied about in several very interesting threads. I think that it's incredibly important both in terms of being blood brothers for real and in allegory and metaphor. Regulus could just be the vital key to the whole mystery of how blood works and the magical doors it opens - did he also have to give LV a token in terms of blood to enter the cave and steal the Horcrux? If he did, then clearly he knew as much about the workings of LV's mind and his style as DD did. If he didn't, how else did he get into the cave - was it someone else's sacrifice of blood which literally unlocked the cave's secrets?



BamaHP, you've just given me a whole new perspective on the Thestrals! towerdweller, I'm pretty sure that LV would know which type of blood was offered as "payment" - for instance, the cave would never reveal its secrets to someone who wasn't a wizard, so that would rule out Muggles and magical creatures unless they accompanied a wizard into the cave.



Almost, but very different in everything that truly matters - love, loyalty, selflessness for instance.



Exactly! I've just remembered that LV has some of Peter's blood too, because Peter cut off his own hand to help complete the rebirthing potion in the graveyard. Obviously his blood isn't as vital as Harry's, but it would be impossible, IMO, to cut off his hand without bleeding. Does that make LV more vulnerable in any way, or more virulent?



Interesting possibility, and the only two creatures I can think of which might fulfil the role of a bloodhound here are a Crup and a Kneazle - maybe FB would reveal more clues. I know that Kneazles aren't dogs, but they definitely seem to have some kind of sixth sense which tunes them into what someone really is - Crookshanks was able to work out exactly what Sirius represented back in PoA.

Posted by: BamaHP Oct 12 2006, 11:11 AM

I don't think LV would use a creature as a bloodhound although I think the thestral would be the most likely candidate. I think LV would be able to extract the blood from the stone door and perform another spell to identify the giver.

Posted by: towerdweller Oct 12 2006, 11:58 AM

This sounds reasonable. I also wouldn't be surprised if Harry has to give up more of this precious blood in order to collect the other Horcruxes.

I doubt it would make LV more vulnerable unless it passes some of Peter’s life debt to Harry onto LV. But I can’t see that happening. Still, this brings up the other ingredients to the rebirthing potion; they should give us some clues about the blood connection.

The bone of the father, would still have traces of marrow, which is essential to building blood cells in the human body. The marrow could help produce blood cells similar and related to those of LV’s original body. The connection here to the father is intriguing.

Like Narya says, the hand of the servant would have had blood but also flesh and bone. The hand is a symbol for strength and power. It also represents the dedication of LV’s followers and Peter’s sacrifice in particular.

Finally, blood of the enemy is the key ingredient, which LV specifically waited for and wanted badly. Harry’s blood had provided a level of protection to Harry through his mother. By using that blood, it either cancelled out the Lily’s protection or transferred it to LV. (I think the former.) Moreover, Harry’s blood is also innocent blood, because Harry is pure and innocent. It is youthful blood too, which probably factors in somehow.

I’m curious about what other ingredients would have been in the caldron before Harry sees it. Could it contain unicorn blood too? Or was that part of another ritual that happened between books that the reader doesn’t see?

Posted by: Shard Oct 12 2006, 06:00 PM

So if Lilly's protection has been broken since GoF why hasn't LV attacked Privet Drive sooner? Lucius certainly seems to know where it is if Dobby and the Weasley's can find it. Not to mention Umbridge sending Dementors there as well. So is the blood protection through Lily and Petunia really gone? If LV can touch Harry and theoreticaly AK him, why is there still protection on Privet Drive? Is it becase Petunia's blood is more closer to the source?

Posted by: towerdweller Oct 12 2006, 06:40 PM

Personally, I think that there were two, separate protections: 1) Lily’s protection from willingly giving up her life that caused LV’s AK curse to rebound and prevented Quirrell from touching Harry and 2) DD’s protective charm that gives refuge to Harry as long as he can call Privet Drive home. The former would have been cancelled out by LV using Harry’s blood in rebirth, while the latter would remain in effect until Harry turns 17 and becomes an adult. In the case of #2, Petunia’s blood link to Lily and Harry is but a part of the magic. Petunia’s actions “sealed” DD’s spell, so there has to be more to it than just blood-relatedness. For a while now I’ve thought that DD’s letters to Petunia hold the answers to this question.

Posted by: BamaHP Oct 12 2006, 07:16 PM

I agree with all of this. We know that Petunia's blood is important, so will we see Petunia make a blood offering? Hmmmm...the possibilities!

Posted by: towerdweller Oct 12 2006, 10:31 PM

The thing is, I think Petunia has already made a sort of blood offering. Not to go too much into it here, but I think her blood “sealed” DD’s charm in a literal, physical sense. (My whole wild theory is in the Dumbledore’s Letters thread in GWE. (Here is a http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=20781&view=getnewpost, if anyone is interested.)

What's interesting is that Harry also has a blood link to Dudley. And as much as Harry dislikes his cousin, he saves him from the dementors.

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Oct 13 2006, 07:08 AM

Way back in this thread, towerdweller, you mentioned the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. There were two trees in the Garden--the Tree of Life is the other. In Kabbalic thought, the Tree of Knowledge represents Good tainted with selfishness, while the Tree of Life respresents true, unadulterated Good. I believe that this would be the mystical reason Dumbledore did not allow Harry to give blood at the cave. Dumbledore assigned himself as the Tree of Knowledge and Harry as the Tree of Life. Both were required to achieve the stone bowl--the "grail", and the prize within.

Knowledge, however, has its limits. Wise as Dumbledore is, he did not foresee the locket being a replacement and the trip unnecessary. Like Dante's Virgil, Dumbledore 's Knowledge must give pride of place to the Good--Harry.

PP:stag:

Posted by: memyslfnI Oct 13 2006, 07:56 AM

Interesting PP! can we look at the fact that DD kept vital information from harry as selfish knowledge?

You speak of the "Grail" which interestingly held the "blood" of christ from the last supper and its value is linked to that purpose.

Do we need to look at this act in the cave more closely as a symbol of blood as sacrifice?

Posted by: Arianhrod Oct 13 2006, 11:03 AM

I agree with this 100%. There were 2 protections, not one. And DD's charm wears off the minute Harry turns 17. This is why LV hasn't tried to kill Harry there. He can't, and he knows it. (He's said as much in GOF, in the graveyard scene.)

Posted by: towerdweller Oct 13 2006, 12:06 PM

I’ve wondered why DD’s protection must end when Harry turns 17. Regardless of how old Harry becomes, he is still related by blood to Petunia. While the blood connection doesn’t end, Harry’s relation to Privet Drive changes when he becomes an adult. He could go on living there as a guest, but it would no longer be his home. The passage from childhood to adulthood changes the placement of the burden for Harry’s protection from his aunt and uncle to Harry himself.

Posted by: Arianhrod Oct 13 2006, 12:50 PM

I agree with that, too. Once he turns 17, he is no longer a child. He's a man, and no one is responsible for him but himself.

Posted by: Narya Oct 13 2006, 04:05 PM

Sounds reasonable to me too – unless of course there’s a way of circumventing that by using another type of blood – dragon, maybe? It’s rare, it’s expensive … only a select few seem to know how to use it (Slughorn being one; DD may also have left a clue) and there just might be something in it which allows it to be used as subterfuge. At least if Harry has to bleed, he has no fears about it – he’s been there too many times already.



It definitely contains unicorn blood:

(GoF)

I wasn’t thinking about Peter’s life debt so much as the fact that – to me - Peter’s blood is tainted - and that’s got more to do with a wild theory of mine that Peter didn’t give his hand willingly. Don’t know if it’s appropriate for this thread though.

towerdweller, you expressed neatly what I was trying to get at. That hand had all three elements when it went into the cauldron … I can’t help but think that LV’s rebirthing potion wasn’t quite what he would have wished for, somehow. Yes, he’s back and in full cry, but I think he has made a key miscalculation somewhere. Harry’s blood isn’t as vital as he thinks, and I agree with your theory that Lily’s protection which holds true for Harry was cancelled the instant that Harry’s blood helped unwillingly to re-blood LV. I’m also fairly sure that LV used unicorn blood too … and if he did, then of course that explains why he lives a half-life, operating in the shadows. He can’t escape the fact that the unicorn has its own mysticism and that he’s basically cursed himself by using its blood for purposes for which it was never meant.





I think Lily’s protection holds for Harry – despite the fact that LV could touch him in GoF and taunted him with that. LV might have been reborn, but he is vulnerable because he has used Dark magic to accomplish his goal. Lily died, but LV didn’t get what he wanted – there is something specific about her sacrifice. He got the body to prove that she was dead, but he couldn’t get at Lily’s essence – what made her who she was. The same holds true for Harry – he has Harry’s blood, but he doesn’t have Harry. If that makes sense, then it all goes back to the idea I have about unwilling sacrifice despite the blood being available to seal the “charm”.



I don’t know if it’s as wild as you claim in the light of my own theory which I’ll describe briefly. I said that Peter didn’t give his hand willingly – yes, he cut it off himself, but there was so much fear in him (possibly revulsion too) that it could have affected the rebirthing potion in some way. Emotion in the potion, if you like! The same goes for Harry … he certainly wasn’t willing to give his blood to Harry – he had no choice, just as Peter hadn’t in a way.





If we make the contrast between DD as the Tree of Knowledge and Harry as the Tree of Life, then it’s reasonable to state that DD was a bit selfish in withholding information for Harry – although he did this for more altruistic reasons than pure selfishness. I’m talking about love, of course, because he mentions it in OotP – defying anyone not to feel the way he did. I’d be interested in exploring more about the sacrificial element of blood if it’s given willingly, rather than unwillingly … if that makes any sense.

Posted by: memyslfnI Oct 13 2006, 04:32 PM

Narya, I think you are right on..The difference between willing and unwilling is going to be hugely important. I was looking into blood symbolism and this was really interesting.

First of all, Libra and sacrifice? WOW I had no idea? Who is a Libra in the books? Anyone? (this could be a dead end but I thought it was worth a shot!)

I could not pass up the Pacival quote..Will Percy redeem himself through a blood sacrifice of some sort? I still have never believed all the Weasley's will come through unscathed.

Of course, the alchemical reference was too good to pass by. If Dumbledore indeed asked Snape to kill him then this is indeed the passing from the white to the red stage in the death of dumbledore.

Posted by: freyja Oct 13 2006, 09:01 PM

A couple things on this:
It seems logical to me that the sacrifice of blood at the door, while crude, must be useful to Voldemort in some way or other. If it does indeed leave a calling card of sorts. Perhaps that is the reason the Death Eaters knew to go after Regulus (if he is, indeed, RAB)...Voldemort told them, probably seeming omniscient or some other tosh, that he knew Regulus had betrayed him. Also, it may explain why DD was reicent to have Harry give the blood offering..."your blood is more valuable than mine" meaning 'I want to protect the knowledge that you are here.' Even in his weakened state later, he reaches for the knife to cut his arm again. BUT, he allows Harry to do it. If the beginning two parts of this argument are correct...that means DD may have deduced the blood leaves a calling card somehow. When he allows Harry to give the blood, he is relinquishing some of the control and protection he has always tried to practice over Harry. Also--speaking of DD and blood stand-ins...way way back in the thread, someone mentioned DD's involvement with the discovery of the 12 uses of dragon's blood. Which the students have to memorize in first year...so they are definitely "core knowledge." Could it stand in for human blood? Hmmm...it seems that one of the other 12 uses may come into play. Also, isn't dragon's blood another name for mercury in the alchemical process? Or am I deluded?

Back to the "blood brothers" thing...
It is interesting that the ceremony seems to have bound Voldemort and Harry in this way...but the rhetoric of 'blood brother' seems much more like a term you would use for Harry's relationship with Ron. What with the loyalty and family adoption and all that. Further...Harry and Ron have probably crossed bloods in one of the various saving episodes...and Hermione....and Neville...and Ginny...anyone's he's saved really. Why is there no weird bond there? The lack of the ceremonial/ritual spell? Or is that more in the "old magic" category like life debts? That we have shed blood together so we are now bound--"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers/For he to-day that sheds his blood with me/Shall be my brother"?? Thoughts?

Another thing brought up way way back was the link between blood and mortality. Vague memories of--something else--flowing in the veins led me to ichor.
Wikipedia says:Here is another interesting quote I found for ichor:Hmmmm...a poisonous blood that seems anti-mortal? I also found the reference of 'stained white' with the idea of purifying. Somewhere in the Bible, it refers to "washing your robes in the blood of the lamb" in order to whiten them/purify them. So--there is a link between immortality and this anti-blood? I also thought this resonated with the passage from mem...So...starting with the mortality-blood link to the ichor to the purifying to the red-white links to alchemy, there are a load of connections here. Anyone else want to tackle some of this?

Oh--and the first Libra I thought of was McGonagall. Also linked with the red symbolism through Gryffindor. And Hermione is a Virgo, but I think one could argue that she falls on the cusp between Virgo and Libra...those are the first two that pop up in my brain.

Posted by: MissJubilee Oct 14 2006, 02:01 AM

Well, I've think I've read this entire thread, and I'm way impressed by what everyone's put in. Here are my meager musings on blood, some of which line up with what's been said, and how I'd link it with the books:

I'd say blood symbolizes life, or the life force. That's pretty central to most religions, mythologies, etc... seems to be a pretty global concept, though I may be oversimplifying, as I'm no expert. Among other things (transfering power, sealing an oath or bond), it's also used as payment - everything from the ancient Hebrew sacrifice of a pure animal's blood to cover over sins, to The Green Mile where a guard was gloating over an executed prisoner, and another guard stopped him with "Leave him alone, he's paid his debt, he's square with the house now." (though admitedly he was electrocuted, not bled to death, so this relies on the blood-symbolizes-life bit to relate to this topic... is that coherent? I understand me...) As cloudpic and ExplodingSnap mentioned, the communion wine/blood of Christ is drunk to fill the drinkers with his life. It's also to seal an oath - the "new covanent." This sets up a contrast between those who drink the life-giving blood freely offered by a holy Lord to whom they are bound in a real-world religion ("life-drinkers"?) and those who take the life-giving blood by force, swear loyalty to an evil lord and mark their flesh with his mark, and are called death-eaters in the fictional world.... So, yeah, that theory on the willingness of the sacrifice being key certainly has some credence in my mind! Though it isn't always thus with blood sacrifices - some cultures managed to get willing human sacrifices, but most slaughtered animals who had no choice, and those who sacrificed humans just as often used enemies or children who didn't have much say in the matter! At least, that's how I understand it.

Anyway, to relate it to the book...
Looking at blood as symbolizing life/life force:

• Unicorn blood giving life, though a cursed one since it's taken by force from so pure a creature.
• Harry's mother's life force protecting him through her blood (in him or in Petunia).
• The sectum sempra's bleeding showing that Harry's right on the line, or crossed it, with this attack on Malfoy - he almost kills him, pretty close to an unforgivable, and I'd bet that curse doesn't work without a good deal of anger or hate behind it, but that's for a different topic....
• Dumbledore's blood - proof that he's dead?
• Also, blood apart from a body obviously speaks of death - adds a layer of threat on the walls in book 2.
• The pureblood question seeming to judge the worth of your life by the mix your blood.
• Perhaps the dragon blood on the walls hints that Slughorn is not what he seems - his life is false? Or he's willing to sacrifice another's life to hide/protect his own?(Hey, has he made a horcrux? *sigh* again, another topic...)

And as payment:

• Unbrige's twisted way of forcing Harry to make payment for his "crimes"
• The blood drawn by the whomping willow (thanks to towerdweller)
• Harry and Dumbledore paying the toll to enter the cave

About Hagrid's line that blood is important, I've always see it as a bit of an irony since he's dealing with a high inquisitor who has him in her sights purely because of his mixed blood - just as his reassurances to Hermione in book 2 that she can do really great magic in spite of her non-magical blood relatives reminds me slightly of Slughorn's protesting in book 6 that he's not prejudiced - he admits that those who aren't pure blooded can do surprisingly great magic! I think both of them are revealed as people who unknowingly harbor some stereotypes or pre-judgements about others based on blood, though perhaps it's more offensive in Slughorn because it's more prominent, or because he's so self-satisfied, or because he's more educated and should know better.... Anyway, this certainly gives it another twist, perhaps it's Jo stating a truth about the books through Hagrid.

One last thing blood symbolizes in these books is the difference between Ms. Rowling and some less-deep writers who just put it in there to give you the chills and gross you out! She could probably leave out some of it that might just be there to keep it interesting - the green dragon blood on Hagrid's face, for example - but so much of it does fit into some coherent worldview/underlying structure/whatever that she has all worked out, drawing so heavily on human mythologies and traditions. Way to go, Jo!


Beats me, but I can't wait to find out!

Posted by: Pat_Rorrythe Oct 14 2006, 05:00 AM

[quote name='freyja' date='Oct 14 2006, 04:01 AM' post='976288']
Of course, the alchemical reference was too good to pass by. If Dumbledore indeed asked Snape to kill him then this is indeed the passing from the white to the red stage in the death of dumbledore.[/quote]So...starting with the mortality-blood link to the ichor to the purifying to the red-white links to alchemy, there are a load of connections here. Anyone else want to tackle some of this?
[/quote]
Just to say again that the alchemical process is finished when the stone is united with its deadly poison. So the rebirth of Voldemort is complete by using his poison, the blood of the ennemy, Harry. And as said in the alchemical threat, the soul is said to be located in the blood. So Harry migth have more easyness to possess Voldemort through his blood because it is the same, and vainquish the the dark lord.

Posted by: Shard Oct 14 2006, 09:19 AM

I have been thinking on a Blood theory about LV having Harry's blood. How pluasible would it be for LV to AK Harry and because he used Harry's blood to ressurect himself he dies because of it? Though now that I think about it, why would LV want to immedaitly kill Harry I mean this is HIS resurrection spell, you'd think he would know if that sort of connection would make it that Harry had to live in order for him to. He wouldn't want to be that dependant ssooo nevermind lol.

Posted by: Aornis Oct 14 2006, 09:42 PM

Voldemort definetly has a physical heart, but not a metaphoric one. By the way, where did that idea come from--that the heart meant love? Is it just that if someone's heart is removed then they die immediately? Or that your heartrate speeds up when you see someone you love?

Posted by: MissJubilee Oct 15 2006, 01:11 AM

Perhaps it is because love is central and vital, and so is the heart. It isn't always the heart; some cultures have other organs as the seat of the emotions. As comedian Mark Lowrey put it, you might hear them say to a lovely girl "you make my liver quiver." I believe it is the heart in China, though - my teacher was telling me this past week that the character for 'heart' is used in other characters to show respect or that something is central; it's also in the character for home. (I didn't write all this down, so if someone here knows more Chinese, correct me if I'm wrong.) The more respectful version of "thank you" here can be roughly translated "thanks from the bottom of my heart." Maybe because the heart is so vital to life - like if you swear by it, it's swearing by what keeps you alive! ("Cross my heart").

According to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_%28symbol%29 article on the heart symbol,...

(Incidentally, the Old Testament has references to doing things whole-heartedly as well - eg, "He followed the Lord but not with his whole heart," or "You will find me when you search for me with your whole heart." That's another way we use it today, though it's hard to define what mixture of emotions, mental energy, etc, the heart symbolizes there....)

So, once it got narrowed down to being just the seat of emotion by Galen, I would that guess love, being the strongest emotion, sort of forced out the others to some extent. Not entirely, of course - we still have "hard-hearted," "with an empty heart," and such to describe un-loving feelings, but most of the ones I could think of that don't describe love itself rely on the assumption of their opposite - eg, that a heart is normally soft, or full.

Interestingly, the article also points out that the shape we call a heart is romantic and symbolizes love and emotions, while a realistic drawing of a heart is more likely to conjur thoughts of death. That of course reminded me of: Blood = life, yet blood seen outside the body more often threatens death. Part of what makes Voldemort so abhorent is his willingness to twist things from how they were created (meant/expected by society/etc) to be. This is also what makes free-flowing blood and realistic hearts so negative - they're out of their assigned places.

Posted by: BamaHP Oct 16 2006, 11:13 AM

If this is the way that LV discovers Regulus, then LV has been to the cave since the locket was replaced. If so then why doesn't LV have the fake locket and the RAB note instead of Harry?

Posted by: freyja Oct 16 2006, 06:56 PM

Possibly he does not need to be present for the "calling card" feature to work--a sort of spooky echo of DD's seeming omniscience? Or perhaps he is arrogant and believes that even those who get inside the arch may not be able to deal with the tests of the boat/Inferi/lake/potion/unfillable cup? I just cannot get over the notion that the "sacrifice" of blood is just a crude and melodramatic gesture...DD is surprised and it does seem fairly inelegant for Voldemort's tastes. So it must have a really good purpose...if not a calling card, then what?

Posted by: MissJubilee Oct 18 2006, 08:39 AM

Hm... I'm pretty sure it's established that the locket is NOT why Regulus is dead. His note indicates that he knew he was on the hit list, and I'm not talking about in Rolling Stone. He knew he was going to die before that note was read. It sounds (though of course it could be misleading) like he knew he was going down, and decided that if he was going to die, at least he could take a chunk of the Dark Lord with him. The only possible way around this - the only way for him to be killed for taking the locket, and ONLY for taking the locket, not for any earlier indiscression - would be for this calling-card blood idea to be true, and for Regulus to know that it was instantly sounding an alarm in Voldemort's hideout (or mind), bringing up his magical DNA on the caller-ID, and that he'd be AK'ed for entering the sanctum soon after he left it, without Voldemort needing to see the note to know to kill him. If that were the case, he'd also have to be willing to pay that price in order to get the locked and destroy it, seeing as he wasn't condemned before that, and then have written that note simply because his being there would put him on the list well before anyone found the actual note. Does that make sense? However, if it was that was obvious to Regulus that the blood-toll was a combination burgler-alarm and caller-ID, then Dumbledore made a seriously huge miscalculation in activating it with his blood, and even more in allowing Harry's to touch the door as well. Now the villian-formerly-known-as-Tom knows that Dd knew, and Harry knows, about his deepest, darkest secret.

*snip, snip* *cuts out off-topic paragraph on Regulus and the cave...* 'hm, where to post this....'

I like the idea that blood is not only metaphorically a link to your family and an identifier, but could be literally used to identify you, in a world where they don't use DNA tests. Kinda scary, but hey, if you can make binding oaths in it, I s'pose it would be good to be able to check whose blood that signature is in on your contract. (Now there's a forgery for you! What happens if you sign someone else's name in your own blood?... Wonder if signing in blood is part of this world. Or just tattoos of the dark mark - signing on skin and blood.... And do they spot-check important ministry officials' blood to make sure no one there is a polyjuiced infiltrator?)

(edited to clarify slightly)

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Oct 20 2006, 03:55 AM

"For the blood is the life..."

Blood magic is the oldest magic in existence. It is a form of sympathetic magic that predates history; Paleolithic peoples knew that to shed the blood of animals meant the end of their life, Neolithic humans used ochre as a stand-in for human blood in cave paintings, hunting rituals, and burials. The blood as sacred and magical echoes to us down a very, very long passage of Time.

To me, there is something really atavistic about the cave scene; the idea that one must enter a cave and sacrifice part of one's blood to enter speaks of magic older than the Wizarding World we know. This is the Old Magic--the same magic that Voldemort supposedly despises and that Lily Potter used to such advantage when Harry was in mortal peril. In a psychological sense, there are ties to Voldemort's relationship (or lack of one) with his Magical mother, Merope.

The cave has ancient ties to the Great Mother, Earth. Women did not need to shed blood for entry into the sanctum of the Mother as did men--biology has given us the obvious reason for that. Voldemort "pollutes" the cave-womb with dark magic, Inferi, and the worst abomination of all-- a Horcrux. Voldemort left a piece of his soul inside the cave-womb, a piece that can be reached only by blood sacrifice, passage over water and bodies without souls themselves. Thus, the Water of Life has been perverted into a sort of living Death, a reversal of the chain of existence and the birth process.

Only Magical blood will suffice, I think, for the enrty into Voldemort's perverted Underworld. I do not think that it is an "active" alarm bell; rather, the alarm is a passive signal--should Voldemort visit the cave, he would know who had been there by the Magic in the blood left on the rock. Dumbledore can sense Magic, as can Harry; one can suppose that the Dark Lord can do this, as well. Whether the blood has to be sampled (a job for Nagini, I think), or whether the magic in the blood has a lingering effect which can be sensed, I do not know. However, it is a useful method of discerning who might know Voldemort's awful secret.

Given these protections, it is interesting to me to relate them to the scene at Godric's Hollow and Harry's blood protection. If Voldemort's world view of the relationship between mother and child is symbolised by the Horcrux cave, it is no wonder that he would discount the use of blood sacrifice for a positive purpose, therefore discounting this application of the Old Magic to his ruin. There is naught of Love at the Horcrux cave--only horror and death. Lily's love turned Death for herself into Life for her child; a sad echo of Merope's demise is to be found at Godric's Hollow.

PP

Posted by: towerdweller Oct 21 2006, 09:49 PM

I’m still pondering Prongs Patronus’ analogy of the cave as a sort of womb. Usually at birth it’s the mother that loses some blood along with other embryonic fluids. In this case it’s Harry and DD that lose some blood. I’m also trying to reconcile this with a discussion in the Fetalmort thread about LV’s baby-like appearance in GoF prior to his “rebirth,” which also involved blood and other fluids.

In the DD’s Letters thread the topic of blood came up too:

I suppose the question how does human blood make a difference? Does using human blood automatically mean using black magic or the Dark Arts?

Posted by: BamaHP Oct 22 2006, 02:09 AM

The actual participation of blood in a spell is not always considered dark magic. The bond of blood is important in Lily's protection of Harry and in the protection at the Dursley's via Petunia's blood. However, the use of blood that has to be extracted from a person seems to be a dark use, like the use of Harry's blood in the GOF cauldron and the door in the cave of HBP. There are other examples of course.

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Oct 22 2006, 06:33 AM

Bama, I agree with you on this--my point is simply that Voldemort perverts whatever magic he uses, including the Old Magic involving blood. The similarity is that the Old Magic uses blood to protect something. In Voldemort's case it is an abomination, the Horcrux, while in Lily's case it is her child, Harry.

As for the cave, towerdweller, to me it is part and parcel that Voldemort would want to re-birth himself in his own image, even to the extent of preparing a metal womb (the cauldron) and birthing fluids that are not given freely. What interests me about that potion, though, is that he still could not repudiate his Muggle father's legacy of bone. Bone is the companion to the blood-- the "father" of blood. Notice that there is no "mother" equivalent in the fluids--Voldemort has already polluted that connection in his Horcrux cave.

For all his evil Voldemort is surprisingly infantile, isn't he?

PP

Posted by: memyslfnI Oct 23 2006, 09:49 AM

PP, as usual, you have made me think! (ouch! My head hurts!)

Again, brilliant post and I agree 100%. The womb is a place for transformation, and if we look at this alchemically even, it is the retort for Tom riddle's perverse alchemical change. Again shows us the difference between Harry's alchemical journey and Tom Riddle's. Harry's transformation is through difficult tasks. He gives his blood in ways that shape him as the "chosen one" on his alchemical path to spiritual enlightenment. Tom Riddle has taken, blood. He has never given it. he is doomed to fail because as they say, cheaters never prosper.

Posted by: Alchemist Apprentice Oct 23 2006, 02:36 PM

yes PP
ok there are several reason for my intrest in the womb analogy here... however, I have two ideas to throw out here.
First, Blood is very signifigant with birth, especially when there are problems wit the birth itself. The connection of mother to child and their blood connections are monitored all through a pregancy. Now if the cave is a womb the, the first cut or blood to enter the cave would tie into the begining of a birth(first signs of loss of fluids) Then to finish the "birth" there is blood again. As to seal the womb closed. This strikes me as odd though.
Blood not only with the cave womb analogy, but as a means to end. In death blood is an end for sure. And there are plenty of examples where blood is used to 'seal a deal' but to me the cave is not sealed.
What I mean is that the cave can be reopened at any time with another blood act. So then the cave is not sealed and ended (I hope I am making sense here) So will there be another birth here- another character or rebirth to happen again in the cave???


ok the second idea I have is...JKR how pregnant, and or did she give birth just prior to her writing this scene??? Don't know if it is sigfigant but I would find it intresting if she was very close to giving birth as she wrote this, even though she may have had the 'idea' long before she actually penned it.

Posted by: Narya Oct 23 2006, 06:55 PM

Brilliantly expressed, PP ... and very telling. LV had no qualms about shedding Lily's blood in order to fulfil his quest to destroy the little boy whom he had marked as his equal. Similarly, his twisted world view leads him to place unique protections on his "lair" - the cave - thereby forcing any who enter it to sacrifice part of themselves in order to reach what is within. Of course, there is nothing worth having - the mysterious R.A.B. took that secret of LV's long ago.



towerdweller, I think the logical answer to that question goes back to that much-quoted "gleam of triumph" in DD's eyes ... human blood is a precious commodity, not to be given lightly, and if at all, it must always be given freely and selflessly. LV has no understanding of this concept and only sees the mechanics of forcibly taking blood and using it for purposes for which it was never intended. The use of blood doesn't always mean that the wizard is steeped in the Dark Arts, but LV is morally and ethically corrupt so his use of it is very dark. By contrast, Harry has a pure heart and incorruptible nature, which reverts back to M's point about the nature of the true alchemist.



The use of human blood - forcibly taken - definitely qualifies as Dark magic, IMO. In LV's case, it has a twisted purpose. I wonder just how eager he would be to sacrifice his own blood to fulfil his ends - somehow I doubt whether he would do such a thing. He has plenty of respect for his own skin and all that entails, but little for others.



PP, that section of your post conjured up such a visceral image of LV for me. LV rebirthing himself in his own image gives a very clear insight into his world view - selfish to the last. He can never grasp the meaning of life because to him, life is a means to an end. He wants to control life to such an extent that he never wants to die ... and he fails to see that the use of blood in that potion of his is probably the key to his downfall. Blinded by arrogance, indeed.

M - that's quite a startling find, and so apt! I remember discussing Harry and LV as alchemists in another thread - maybe PP will also remember that one - and we had drawn the conclusion that Harry was the true alchemist, whereas LV was no better than a charlatan. He has perverted his own life quest in his efforts to seek immortality whereas Harry has selflessly given of himself time and time again - there could be no better contrast. LV does not realise that he is already a dead man walking ... I never visualise him without seeing a husk of a wizard in my mind's eye. Blood, flesh and bone might have made him a body and yes, he is a powerful wizard - but he has nothing to commend him because he has none of the selflessness which defines Harry and Lily before him. Lily's sacrifice - literally - of her own blood transcended any of LV's "magic" - a fact which is lost on him.



AL, you bring up an interesting point ... I don't think the cave is "sealed" either but whether Harry goes back there again, or it appears in the next book remains to be seen. IMO, because it is a place of death, it has served its purpose. DD was already dying when he entered the cave because of the injury to his hand. Perhaps there is something in that too ... the cave was visited by one dying wizard (DD) and one young and healthy wizard - Harry. If it's necessary for another wizard to go back there and shed blood to uncover another of LV's secrets, then it might not be Harry this time. He is needed elsewhere.

Posted by: firephoenix Oct 23 2006, 07:53 PM

I agree. In fact at one point Arianhrod found the spell of protection that Lily may have used and to use the spell you had to mark the temple with blood.

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Oct 24 2006, 11:22 PM

This may also survive into Muggle practices--there is a ritual in hunting--"blooding" a first-time hunter, by marking him/her with blood on the forehead or cheeks.

the reason I mention this is because I wonder if the ritual to "mark" Harry as the Dark Lord's equal may have also marked Harry as his "hunter"...

PP

Posted by: firephoenix Oct 24 2006, 11:28 PM

Great point PP! I have noticed quite a bit of Native American rituals in the books too. I know one of the tribes in Wisconsin particed what you just mentioned and the hunters to this day still mark their children with the blood of their first kill.

Posted by: You_won't_know_who Oct 25 2006, 02:44 PM

Oh it was really good, Prongs Patronus, Harry the Hunter against his own instincts and will, just because the biggest enemy of his has chosen him taking out his blood and before, trying to take his life. I've written it somewhere else that it might be incredibly important that Voldemort and Harry are blood brothers and wand brothers as well. They shouldn't try to hurt each other but if they try the outcome will be impredictable, as it was during the "duel" on the graveyard.

Posted by: MissJubilee Oct 26 2006, 08:01 AM

I like your ideas, Alchemist Apprentice!

Some brain-waves of my own:

The blood to enter and to leave could be seen as the initial blood when the seed is inserted and then the blood of birth when it comes out full-formed. I don't want to get too into sexual imagery, it's not pretty when used in this way, but in a non-graphic sense the passing on is seen in this part of the book - from Dumbledore, the father, leading, and giving of himself as he enters, to Harry leaving, having taken on Dumbledore's attributes - leading, carrying him out, shedding his own blood. The mantle has been passed. In that sense, I don't think they need to come back. It could also perhaps be seen as a very short reenactment of their relationship right on the pivitol point of the relationship it represents - Dd has been teaching Harry, and Harry hasn't always been completely up to snuff (eg, not learning occlumency in the 'real' world; forgetting to use fire to repel the infiri in the cave 'miracle play'), but after his stumble he is as ready as he ever will be to take over for the dying Dumbledore.

This imagery is twisted in its use by Voldemort - the 'life' he hid within the 'womb' was not meant to be taken out into the world, has no mother, is incomplete, and it would be better if it were never born. On that level, it's all wrong, but on the other literary level, it may have come out just right.


The more powerful a substance is for good, the more potential for evil it also has. Even blood can, in the end, be used powerfully for evil by being taken by force and twisted in dark magic. I was rather disturbed by this thought, until I remembered that, important as blood is, it's not how Harry's got to defeat Voldemort. Blood can be misused, but love... love can be absent, as with apathy or hate; it can be mingled with less worthy choices and emotions, as with lust or possessiveness; but it cannot, in itself, be twisted. Evil is not the equal opposite of good, it is simply the absense of it. *sighs with relief* As someone (PP, I think?) pointed out, blood (life) cannot be allied with death. Which brings me to...:


Too true, You-won't-know-who! And you made me realize something: The wand connection is being broken by Voldemort with the help, willingly or unwillingly, of the missing Olivander. This is powerful magic, as we saw in the graveyard. Dumbledore probably understood that Voldemort would focus on trying to fix that problem - perhaps that explains the gleam of triumph, if he knew that when it comes to the battle, Harry's old wand against LV's new one, the deeper magic of the blood and its symbolic/metaphorical/magical/mythical/whatever connection with Harry's life and ability to love, will overcome Voldemort's self-centered un-life. I'd been wondering how they're going to deal with the new wand issue (though as an author, priori incantatum could only be used so importantly once in a series anyway, so he'd have to be given a new wand to battle it out with Harry properly). Now I feel a little more sure about things going the right way. I'm loving this thread!

Final thought: the importance of Aunt Petunia grudgingly, etc., but willingly taking Harry and sealing the charm. Could Dd have forced them (out of fear of his wand or whatever) to take Harry, I s'pose he wouldn't have done. Technically, they did have the choice to chuck him in an orphanage, but they didn't.

Posted by: Arianhrod Oct 26 2006, 08:39 AM

I would just like to add to this that Harry's patronus, the stag, could be thought of as Actaeon the Hunter of Greek myth. Artemis turned him into a stag because he dared to stare at her while she was bathing in a pool.

Posted by: memyslfnI Oct 26 2006, 09:02 AM

This is an interesting theory and I have never heard it before...Ollivander is missing not because of his knowledge of horcruxes but because LV will try to get a new wand from him. I am not sure I totally agree however. I think that Lord Voldemort is too vein to think he will not be able to overcome this issue. i think he might feel that since he overcame the problem of Lilly's blood protection, and he is quite proud of himself for this feat, he surely can get past this!

I am not sold on my theory either mind you, I just am not sure either way.. Its an excellent theory though!

Posted by: Arianhrod Oct 26 2006, 09:10 AM

Wait a sec...am I missing something? Did LV get a new wand? Or are you saying that he will get a new wand because of what happened with Priori Incantatem?

I think I have to go with M on that idea...LV is too vain, or, true to form, he'll underestimate the significance of what happened.

Posted by: Alchemist Apprentice Oct 26 2006, 09:58 AM

Wait new theory! *twists hands in glee*
ok LV too vein for new wand due to graveyard- check
LV very proud of defeating Lily's blood protection - check

Ollivander....to design a better wand- a wand with blood of his 'brothers'? Grindelwald? Death Eaters?

Posted by: Shard Oct 26 2006, 11:17 AM

The Ollivander Wand theory is being discussed in the following threads:

http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=14637&st=0 in the Princely Nook.

http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=31136&st=0 in Unfogging the Future.

Please discuss the theory of Voldemort getting a new wand from Ollivander in these threads.

Shard LL Moderator

Posted by: BamaHP Oct 26 2006, 02:42 PM

I really like this analogy (even though it is quite gross and I'm not happy that you guys put the imagery in my head!). I do think that Harry comes out of that cave a new man. He grows up and takes responsibilty for, not just DD, but the whole world. I think he will be the new leader of the Order. Not because he will want it, but because the other order members will come to him to find out what to do. Harry's horcrux hunt and the fight against the Death Eaters will cross paths and it will be Harry who will take charge. (just IMO of course) I don't want this to be a discussion on who will take over the order, but I think it is a very telling analogy of the rebirthing of Harry and the passing of the torch in the cave. LV and Harry's bond of blood, and Harry and DD's blood sacrifice in the cave tie them all together.

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Oct 27 2006, 12:48 PM

I find such curious parallels in the blood taken unwillingly by Voldemort from Harry, linking the two of them; the Blood given willingly by Lily, sealing the original blood protection for Harry; and the blood given willingly by Dumbledore and Harry in the cave, mingling their blood on the rock: is there something deeper here than meets the eye? Is the Headmaster of Hogwarts invoking some Old Magic of his own?



PP

Posted by: You_won't_know_who Oct 27 2006, 02:45 PM

Interesting thought about Dumbledore.In my view, he didn't want Voldemort to know that Harry was with him, that's why he offered his blood instead of Harry's. But I like your suggestion.


Blood can transmitt diseases, nutrinents and leukocytes...who knows what Voldemort has taken from Harry. He needed the blood of an enemy and it had to be forcibly taken, so I suppose, he must include a bit of "hatred" to recreate his body. What if instead fo hatred he got love?

I don't want to "unfog the future" here but I guess it was for a good reason that we weren't shown Voldemort in HBP. We will see him in the last book for sure and we will be surprised. It's only a theory of mine and it's pretty rabid. I think that the magical body of Voldemort won't serve him well and he won't be able to do anything about it. Harry's protection will destroy him better than any spell or curse. It's as if he included a hostile element or a virus into his system, something that will act against himself with unstoppable and lethal force.

Posted by: Shard Oct 27 2006, 08:52 PM

Speaking of Blood as in sacrifice... I don't have conclusive evidence for this but... Jo stated that Hogwarts WAS built on an ancient celtic ruin and that DD seems to have died not only on the tallest Tower, but also very near if not on the Summer Solstice. I wonder myself if by DD's death that he didn't invoke some ancient protective blood magic, not on Harry but on Hogwarts.

Posted by: melpotter Oct 30 2006, 06:28 PM

i never thought of it that way, we could get a repeat of book 1 now, but i doubt it. i don't think it would work in the same way because dumbledore isn't family

Posted by: memyslfnI Nov 15 2006, 09:08 AM

I found this and I thought it was interesting:

I mention this because teutonic symbolism is rampant in the books. JKR was even going to call the DE's The Knights of Walpurgis as one point (read the thread o the subject in this forum)

We have seen this over and over in HP. the sacrifice Lily made has meant life for Harry. We also see that the wizarding worlk is at war. And it is during this time that DD and Harry bot sacrifice their blood in the cave to gain entrance. We could absolutely look at this cave as a temple to voldemort. A temple to his achievement to eternal life.

Much of this was mentioned before in Prongs Patronus' enlightening post on blood but here is more evidence confirming it.

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Nov 15 2006, 11:16 AM

Great find, M!
Actually, the notion that the King or leader was a stand-in for the people, or "land", translates across cultures. This practice was known in Meso-America and there are some Arthurian tales connected with the Grail and the Wounded King that suggest the same idea.

In the Ancient Egyptian world-view, the Pharoah was the "liason" between the gods and men; he was the one who intervened on the side of Order against Chaos. We see this idea again in the Aztec world-view; blood sacrifice was thought to preserve world order, and help make the Sun rise every day.

PP

Posted by: Alchemist Apprentice Nov 15 2006, 11:20 AM

PP says

ok now I am trying to rake my brain here- doesn't the Aztec blood sacrifices involve animals or were they just human sacrifice??? I trying to connect an idea here...

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Nov 15 2006, 01:50 PM

Yes, there was animal sacrifice, too--but for the reasons I stated in my post--Keeping the Universe running--only human blood would do. In the Aztec world, human blood was the food of the gods. Without it, the gods would starve, and the Universe would end.

It is an indication of the way Voldemort has glorified himself, I think--first, a "temple" in the cave, now using the food of the gods-- in this context, he sets himself up as superior to mere mortals. However, the sacrificial aspects of blood and the Love inherent in such a sacrifice are beyond his pseudo-godly ken. Ironic, isn't it?

PP

Posted by: Alchemist Apprentice Nov 15 2006, 02:05 PM

Yes that was exactly what I was thinking- the arrogant Tom doesn't want glory and fame he wants to be the "god" of The wizarding world.
He has subtly taken ' sacrifices' from DD and Harry in the cave. However, since we are on the subject of blood... Harry has now given ' sacrifice to LV twice- To me three is the divine number so will a third helping of Harry's blood seal LV fate as a god- or will it be his doom

Posted by: memyslfnI Nov 15 2006, 03:01 PM

I have been saying this same thing since I put up the seven's thread many moons ago. And I mention it in my seven essay as well.(seven is the seal of solomon, the seal of god..he was trying to be come as god like as he could and seven is symbolic of this) Here is more proof! Yahoo!

Posted by: You_won't_know_who Nov 15 2006, 04:37 PM

A very interesting point. Only Harry is equal to Voldemort; Voldemort himself admitted it and made him so using Harry's blood during the rebirth. Harry is superior to mortals because his love, Voldemrot because of his unequalled hatred. They stand on the opposite ends of the spectrum but are linked by a very thin line...from hatred to love is just a step. I don't want to suggest that Voldemort will choose to make it, though. I just wonder if Harry will be able to use the link for his purposes.

Posted by: becky920 Dec 1 2006, 07:21 AM

Excellent point, Al! We know three is a significant number, anyway, with the series, so I'd be willing to bet you're right that Harry will have to spill his blood for the cause one more time. But after all the talk of how "always the innocent are the first victims" and that to kill something pure and innocent is a cursed act... I'm betting Voldemort will not be any better off for having Harry's blood no matter how many times he gets it. Blood sacrifice may have been seen in past cultures as a way to appease the gods, but there are other cultures where it is considered an abomination, not entirely unlike the way we regard anyone who drinks Unicorn blood. Example: in the "Old Testament" -- while God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, he actually stopped him from doing it. And later on, we see the Israelites punished because they have begun practicing some of the rituals of their neighboring cultures, including the sacrifice of their own children.

I wonder whether the theme of Choices will play into the theme of Blood. Lily can be considered a human sacrifice, for example, but it was her CHOICE to do so, and we see her differently than we do Cedric, who certainly didn't choose his sacrificial end. His death still pulls on the heartstrings, but we can fully blame Voldemort for it, whereas Lily obtains a level of heroism and her death isn't seen as senseless in the same way Cedric's is.

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Dec 1 2006, 09:18 AM

Well, if one counts the blood from his scar when an infant, Harry has actually shed blood in his interactions with Voldemort three times...

PP

Posted by: Alchemist Apprentice Dec 1 2006, 09:39 AM

Nice point there PP- and thanks Becky great stuff!
yet PP, I will have to debate you a tad, for me the amount of blood that may of been spilled at the moment of the scar seems really insignifigant. Yes LV only needed a few drops of Harry's blood for his rebirth. Yet I think Harry will have a ' third' blood encounter later which will seal the deal so to say.

Posted by: Firrebolt_Gal Dec 1 2006, 10:02 PM

Blood means conections . . . . .

Posted by: Better than a veela Dec 1 2006, 10:05 PM

To me blood in HP is used in two ways: the physical blood itself which seems to pass on traits and powers (i.e. Harry's mother's love is in his blood), and blood as in relations/ connections (i.e. pureblood/mudblood)

Posted by: You_won't_know_who Dec 2 2006, 01:20 PM

It's not the amount that counts the most, it's the symbolic meaning. In my opinion Harry's blood was needed in order to create a physical and mental connection (yes, Firrebolt_Gal you are perfectly right). Like with medical tests, you need just a droplet of it, nothing more, but you can read volumes from it. Voldemort wanted to be as close to Harry as it was only possible and have the closest connection possible. He's achieved his goal and he didn't need buckets of blood...If it was possible Voldemort would absorb the boy.

Posted by: Alchemist Apprentice Dec 4 2006, 04:13 PM

ok I'll be a bit clearer, sorry...
Yes in the real world we only need a few droplets- and we did see Voldemort use less than a few drops for his rebirth. However, my 'limited' knowledge of sacrifical blood rites were much more dramatic and much more blood was involved.

Posted by: You_won't_know_who Dec 7 2006, 02:18 PM

Very true, but it was mainly the blood of creatures (animals and people) that had to die in order to "feed" or "satisfy" the gods. Voldemort didn't want Harry to die this way. He wanted to channel his protection towards himself and he kept him alive deliberately in order to "duel" with him later. It reminds me more of creating a brotherhood of blood than sacrificing. In my opinion, what Voldemort got is close to a "Trojan horse" - Harry's blood in his veins will kill him somehow in the end.

Posted by: Alchemist Apprentice Dec 8 2006, 12:17 PM

hmmmmm blood brothers??
I really didn't think of LV and Harry like that until a few posts ago- would the fact that they share almost a blood pact( obvivously not through Harry's choice) make them bonded in some other spirtual way. I mean I agree with you Yow Know Who that LV will be defeated some how with Harry's blood in his veins, but I guess I can't let go of the scarifical aspect of the blood rite- maybe that is it though. Simply that there shared blood will dissolve their ying yang bond and one will prevail??

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Dec 8 2006, 05:12 PM

The Prophecy said that the Dark Lord would mark his opponent as "his equal". Let's think about the ramifications of that for a second--if they are equal, doesn't that presage a series of draws between the two antagonists as things stand? A standoff? Indeed, in the last six books, Voldemort has lost prestige but gained a body, Harry has lost loved ones but retained a continued existence. So, what would break this potential standoff?

PP

Posted by: memyslfnI Dec 8 2006, 08:58 PM

Good point PP! harry and LV, as it stands, are equally matched..one cannot defeat the other at this point! We have seen them duel in the graveyard and it is immposible. what will take Harry to "one up" Lv and defeat him?

Posted by: hpaddict Dec 9 2006, 12:19 AM

With the power that the dark lord knows not...

Although I don't think that to love requires blood or familial blood lines - it seems those familial relationships will play into the plot and ultimate destruction of LV.

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Dec 9 2006, 04:31 AM

I agree with you, hpaddict, that Love flies far beyond the boundaries of family. However, blood and love are inextricable in Harry's makeup. Lily is the first one in his life to combine the two--it is her blood and her sacrifice that invoked the Old Magic. This is a pattern that follows in Harry's life so far--- Love/Hate, blood, and Old Magic. Perhaps it is because most of the Love we have seen in the books is sacrificial in nature, whether sacred or profane, that we make the connection; it would certainly be a refreshing change to see Harry's love unbound from that cycle, and allowed free rein.


PP

Posted by: Arianhrod Dec 9 2006, 10:17 AM

Something that would tip the scales in Harry's favor...something powerful. I'm thinking either Fawkes or dragon's blood could have something to do with this. Don't ask me how--still working on that, but I wonder.

Posted by: You_won't_know_who Dec 9 2006, 10:42 AM

Isn't it strange that every time Voldemort wanted to hurt Harry, love or the protection in Harry's blood came into the way? Intelligent as he might be, Voldemort hasn't drawn any conclusions from this fact and it might contribute to his downfall later. Simply including some more protection by using Harry's blood hasn't changed much or tipped the scales though - not long afterwards, during the duel (GoF) the wands refused to fight against each other, and eventually Harry's wand prevailed, forcing Voldemort's wand to "regurgitate" the latest spells. It was just amazing.I don't see the standoff here, in my opinion Harry's won every confrontation so far by the mere fact of surviving but also by exposing some of Voldemort's weaknesses. He was simply not aware of it, but Dumbledore was, telling the boy that he's already achieved more than his parents. If Harry realizes that much he will know how to defeat his arch-enemy and their sharing of blood will be crucial here, allowing him the free access to Voldemort's weakest spot. I hope it makes sense.

Posted by: voldemort must die Dec 9 2006, 11:52 AM

Ooh I think I know another one... in HBP the vampire at slughorn's part is called sanguini. Sang is the french for blood not that that has much to do with what everyone's talking about here, but oh well.
(sorry if this has already been mentioned).

Posted by: Alchemist Apprentice Dec 10 2006, 11:14 AM

Yes Yes PP, M and hpaddict these are ideas that have been rattling around in my mind as well- well said by you all than me!
Ari- I soooo agree with you about fawkes but I think that is for another thread!

You Know Who

Yes I agree here- is blood the 'missing piece' that Harry doesn't realize and the main reason for the 'glimmer in DD's eyes"
We have seen in other thread how much Harry shares with LV(ying/yang) yet know they share the most vital of fluids- blood. soo much to consider...

Posted by: towerdweller Jan 7 2007, 06:27 PM

This morning I was reviewing HBP and came across my least favorite scene in the book: the train scene where Harry is frozen by Malfoy under the invisibility cloak. It's in this scene Draco stamps "hard, on Harry's face. Harry felt his nose break; blood spurted everywhere." Later, Hermione exclaims that Harry is "covered in blood" when he arrives in the Great Hall.

I can't help but compare this to the later bathroom scene where Draco and Harry become covered in Draco's blood. It might be worthwhile to compare and contrast those two scenes in detail.

Posted by: Alchemist Apprentice Jan 8 2007, 03:03 PM

Yeah TD I forgot all about that!
So is the signifigance of the blood in those scences,on Harry and Draco symbolic of blood brothers- or is the symbolism of the blood more ritualistic?
thoughts....

Posted by: luna_sparkle Jan 8 2007, 03:45 PM

Maybe because blood is life; we wouldn't be alive without it, and when Malfoy stamps on Harry's nose (*shudder* I'm very squeamish) and Harry's use of Septumsumpra show a disrespect for life.
Does that make sense? Or is it too much of a stretch?

Posted by: towerdweller Jan 13 2007, 12:00 AM

I don't see them as blood brothers, AL. There is neither mingling of Harry's blood with Draco's nor vice versa. Plus that blood is on the outside. People become blood brothers by a mingling of one blood with that of another. Actually LV is the closest thing to Harry's blood brother, but Harry doesn't have any of LV's blood in him, so they really aren't blood brothers either.

In HBP, first Harry is covered in his own blood, and then he is covered in Dracos. I'm trying to think of any rituals that would prescribe the bathing or sprinkling of blood.


Blood is life. But I think that Harry's accidental use of Sectumsempra shows how much he respects life and is personally shocked at what the spell did to Draco. In contrast, Malfoy is unapologetic for what he did to Harry on the train. He was even bragging about it at the beginning of term feast.

Posted by: luna_sparkle Jan 13 2007, 07:38 AM

I know, I didn't mean Harry had disrespect for life, I meant that the creator of the spell probably did.

EDIT: fixed quote coding

Posted by: becky920 Jan 13 2007, 08:33 AM

I wonder if we can see these "blood rituals" -- Draco's particularly -- as symbolic of his death and rebirth. Blood-letting was also a medicinal practice -- I'm not suggesting Harry was doing anything for Draco's health, mind you, just thinking "out loud" about what was going on. Germanic tribes would also sprinkle the blood of someone who had been sacrificed on walls, idols and even people as it was believed to still carry the power of the person it came from.

In Harry's situation, there's not as much blood, but one thing we do have is that he can feel it going down his throat. Drinking blood is definitely something you see in a number of ancient rituals for various cultures. It could also be foreshadowing, a bit -- he meets a real-life vampire named Sanguini (name derived from the latin for blood) later on in the book. But drinking blood is also a taboo; it could just merely be a signal to the reader that this year is not exactly going to be happy and light-hearted.

Draco's name may have a dark pun in it; in the sense that the legendary Count Dracula was based on a real man, Vlad the Impaler, whose surname was Draculea, literally "son of Dracul," and his father Vlad II was a member of the Order of the Dragon. Members of the order protected the royal family of the Holy Roman Empire, which encompassed that region of the world. The order was reformed later to defend the Cross from the Ottomans. Anyway, I only bring that up to suggest Draco could have some kind of a connection to Count Dracula in addition to snakes and dragons proper.

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Jan 13 2007, 12:49 PM

Towerdweller, lovely post! Half-Blood Prince is bookended by Harry in the Invisibility Cloak, isn't it? Each time, blood is spilled--first Harry's, by Draco, then Dumbledore's, by Snape (because Draco could not do it himself). Each time, Harry is rendered impotent to stop events from unfolding--and is left alone afterward. The first blood-letting is a punishment--Harry is not detecting, Harry is snooping, stooping to behaviour beneath him. One could argue that the Sectumsempra scene is an example of Draco living up to his nasty character, and Harry understanding a nastier piece of his own character--his shadow side. At the end of the book, Harry, having already let his own blood with Dumbledore at the cave, is again in the shadow of the Invisibility Cloak when more blood is demanded--this time, from Harry's partner in the Great Work of discovering the secrets of Voldemort's power. There is a real symmetry in these three scenes, I think. I wonder if Draco would have hesitated on the Astronomy Tower if he had not felt the "always cutting" knives of the Sectumsempra in his aborted duel with Harry. I think it worth mentioning here that Draco was using the Avada Kedavra spell--once again, Harry circumnavigates the parameters of this paricular Unforgivable Curse. No bloodless killing for Harry...

PP

Posted by: memyslfnI Jan 13 2007, 07:32 PM

I agree TD. harry and voldemort are more akin to blood brothers than Draco/Harry. This could be echoed in the fact that they also have brother wands. (We spoke of this Al, remember..blood feathers in the alchemy thread'?) Was there blood lost when pulling out the feathers? ("I worked in a pet store in HS and college and used to rear the hand feed the exotic birds and trim their feathers) "pin" feathers in birds are also called "blood" feathers since much blood is pumped through the feather stem to grow the feathers . Once they are fully formed they are "closed" and the feather can be shed ot trimmed without pain. I wonder if this is why they cannot be used against themselves. the wands share not only the same characteristics, but at one time..the same blood. (this would also hold true for dragon heart strings of even at the "cortex" of the unicorn hair follicle or any hair follicle. At one time it must have been exposed to blood cells as it formed)

Prongs Patronus! As always, an excellent post that leaves me scratching my head as there is always much to ponder from them!

Posted by: Alchemist Apprentice Jan 14 2007, 05:27 PM

Yes I do remember the convo on the blood feather- cool stuff!!!
TD- sorry I used the term "blood brothers" a bit too flippent... I did not mean to suggest that Draco and Harry were contected through a choice ritual to remain bonded as friends/ family.
Yes PP again you always strech the mind in brillnat ways - so here is my question how does the fact Harry is left alone after a blood scene signifigant? Is it a literary choice by JKR to mark the signifigance of the blood or is it the act of isolation being compared to the rites where Native American's boys being tested for manhood are given a "time" to go out and have the spirit visit them- in order to recieve their destiny- kinda??? I believe the rites included a blood letting as well???

Posted by: Pat_Rorrythe Jan 14 2007, 05:48 PM

About the scene with Draco and the sectumsempra, can I evoque alchimy here ? This is similar to the case of Bill being injured by Greyback. The idea is to evoque the personnality before starting a process of enligthment : there is vulgar gold (personnality before) and real gold (personnality after the process). The fake gold has to be killed and then has to be reborn to be real gold. (the symbolism of red is similar : the false red appears before the black-white-red stages, like the Christ during the passion wearing a red cloth and a spine crown-the real red appears at the pentecost in the tongues of fire).
So we could say that Harry kills the fake gold of Draco, (and later Draco will not kill Dumbledore).
Another similar symbol is the castration (Saturn), and in the case of Bill, it is not his sex which is cutted but his nose which is injured, and both are often linked in symbolism.

Above all, the sword (which is the invisible weapon acting in the sectumsempra) is linked to the rose : when the rose appears in the process (late), the sword is there too. It is evoquing the qualities of the knigth, bravery, courage, like when Harry speaks to Ginny (at the end of HBP) how to preserve her from Voldemort dangers.

Posted by: firephoenix Jan 15 2007, 12:10 PM

PP- Your right that Harry and DD mixed their blood on the wall of the cave. I wonder if that has meaning.

M- I to have worked with birds and if you clip the blood feather to close to shaft the bird can bleed to death. The feather acts as a funnel. A blood feather can be pulled. I have done it by mistake. There is little blood when you do pull a blood feather. My guess is that Fawkes gave two young, blood feathers. I think anything close to burning day may spontaneous combust.

I, too, thought that the sectumsempra sene effected Draco, Harry and Snape in their own way. We see Snape who invented the spell save Draco's life and he did so at a time when he needed to gain Draco's trust.

Harry was soaked in Draco's blood. Dragon slood was the last ingredient Harry needed to become the living Sorcerer's Stone.

Posted by: Pat_Rorrythe Feb 3 2007, 04:32 PM

I have just read a article about vampires (http://www.archimagie.com/_LV.htm...) which makes echoes to the horcruxes :
vampires are said to drink blood, but mostly they swallow the vital substances of living creatures also at distance, without contact. And this to bring energy to their dead bodies. (they look white...). Some vampires can live out of their bodies too, and their bodies are kept safely hidden somewhere, guarded by dogs or monsters or anything like inferis...So I was wondering if the presence of Sanguini in book VI would not give a clue to the book VII, and the hunt for horcruxes looks like a hunt for vampires...

Posted by: Alchemist Apprentice Feb 5 2007, 12:49 PM

well there have been plenty of 'vampire like images' in the series the question for me is how does blood- and vampires equate to a horocrux??

Posted by: Pat_Rorrythe Feb 5 2007, 02:01 PM

For a vampire, his body is like an horcrux : he can travel out of it, and be called like a spirit. Some magicians books are said to contain some rituals which lead the reader to be linked to a kind of invisible demon which is going to absorb his vitality, like the book of Tom Jedusor. That's why it is said to be so difficult to kill the body of a vampire, especially old ones ! There is only a similarity of principe beetween the two.
So the dead body of vampires are kept more or less alive thanks to blood and vital substance, and Voldemort can face death by putting parts of his vital substance into dead bodies (objects).

Posted by: firephoenix Feb 5 2007, 09:17 PM

Pat - This is a creepy yet intriguing idea. So the Harry will need something like the stake on his quest.

If this is really the case then it explains the gleam of triumph in DD's eyes. Harry has the same blood as LV so in away they share the same "vampire" body. This could be why only Harry can kill LV.

Posted by: Alchemist Apprentice Feb 6 2007, 01:18 PM

ok my mind is reeling now!!!!
So let me get this- Harry is 'like' a vampire in body if you are of the Harry as pseduo horocrux?
and if that is true then LV is maintaining another horocrux as vampire body- within himself? or are you talking of the half soul which was being maintained by unicorn blood???

Posted by: memyslfnI Feb 6 2007, 02:09 PM

Vampires are also able to connect somehow to their hosts telepathically aren't they? They can "call " them? (I am by no means a vamp expert, I remember this from all those B rated movies!) I wonder if this is because they share the same blood. Harry and LV are also able to connect telepatically. Harry (and LV) can see into each others thoughts just as a Vampire can reach the mind of the host.

Posted by: Alchemist Apprentice Feb 7 2007, 12:51 PM

to the b movies because I saw it in my head as I read it in yout post!!!
hmmmmm I would agree with you but- wasn't there a connection between harry and LV before GoF? I mean through dreams and telepathic like things? And if that is the case then I don't think we can classify it as a vampire like theory...oh well? what do I know??

Posted by: Lost Centaur Feb 7 2007, 09:29 PM

How about this:

From the Alchemy thread we've learned that the Philosopher's Stone is made from Basilisk venom, Phoenix tears, and Dragon's blood.

Harry has been exposed to the Basilisk venom and the Phoenix's tears in CoS...they are now chemically part of his blood.

In PS/SS, Voldemort killed and drank Unicorn's blood to live...a cursed act.

Later, in GoF, Voldemort uses Harry's blood to resurrect...mixing it with his own blood chemistry.

Think of chemistry...changing one ingredient usually has drastically different results.

We do not know what would happen to someone who mixed Basilisk venom, Phoenix's tears and Unicorn blood in his body. But perhaps Dumbledore did..."Gleam of Triumph". Considering the curse of the Unicorn's blood, VD's fate could be sealed by it.

On the other hand, if Harry is exposed to Dragon's Blood (remember DD's fame for discovering the 12 uses of it) he would at least chemically be similar to the Philosopher's Stone. There are possibilities with this, no?

whaddya think?

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Feb 8 2007, 01:54 AM

I think that you have some very fine ideas there, Lost Centaur! There is the fact tha Harry was covered with Draco's blood, as well--and this might stand in for dragon's blood in some sense. I think, however, that dragon's blood will become very important in The Deathly Hallows--and that, to me, means Charlie Weasley.

I do believe that Dumbledore will have made provision in his will; Harry will inherit, as the child of his heart, something important from him. Dragon's blood may well be included in this inheritance, in some form. Dumbledore was an alchemist himself--he partnered with Nicholas Flamel. He knows what is in Harry's blood, and what might be needed to make him the perfect weapon against Voldemort. After all, that is what he has been doing since Harry was born.

PP

Posted by: becky920 Feb 8 2007, 05:18 AM

The child of Dumbledore's heart! I seriously just about had tears in my eyes thinking about that. You have such a way with words, PP.

Another possibility, though -- I don't think we've seen the end of Slughorn yet. Maybe there's some use of dragon's blood that Harry needs and Slughorn will provide (possibly after Harry gets him drunk again). Though I admit, I like your way better!

Lost Centaur, brilliant thoughts about the combination of unicorn's blood, basilisk venom and phoenix's tears inside of Voldemort. That would be a great explanation for the Gleam of Triumph.

Posted by: Lost Centaur Feb 9 2007, 11:14 AM

It just struck me that the last wand that Ollivander sold before he disappeared (his "swan song" so to speak) was to Neville! ...and it was of Cherry wood with Unicorn hairs inside.

If Voldemort carries the curse of Unicorn's blood inside his body chemistry, possibly now catalyzed with the Basilisk venom and Phoenix tears from Harry's blood, then a wand with a Unicorn hair inside it may well be a mighty weapon against him. I can't help but think that JKR thought carefully about Ollivander's last wand sale and to whom he sold it (or which wand chose Neville...and why).

I have a sneaking suspicion that it will be Neville, with his specific wand, who will strike a cunning and possibly lethal blow to Voldemort.

Posted by: memyslfnI Feb 9 2007, 12:21 PM

I agree with you Lost Centaur that Neville will play an important part in the last book, in the alchemy thread we have characterized him as the "lesser stone" for that reason. After all he could have been the chosen one! However, HArry Potter must be the one to kill Voldemort, not Neville. He must be the hero who slays the dragon. (I just got through reading a facinating story of St. George slaying the dragon and I can't help thinking it relates to our HArry!) AS HArry discovers in HBP,and Dumbledore confirms, HArry must "kill or be killed" There is no other choice.

PP! Again, your posts make me think and as always, are wonderfully eleoquent! I agree one hundred percent on this! Dumbledore has been honing HArry POtter since the day he was born! HE is the weopon and maybe we get a glimpse of this metaphor in OotP when HArry thinks he is the weapon Lord Voldemort is trying to use when in actuality, Dumbledore has been sharpening Harry for this purpose?

I also like the idea that Slughorn will have a hand in the appearance of Dragons blood Becky920! He seems to hoard these types of presous sustances due to their monetary value! This seems logical.

An interesting thing I read was this: We might have seen this used in CoS when AHrry slays the dragon (BAsilisk) in COS and uses his fang (covered with basilisk blood and venom) to destroy the Diary Horcrux. (the first secret of Tom's quest for immortality revealed!)

Posted by: Lost Centaur Feb 9 2007, 01:34 PM

True enough, memyslfnI, Voldemort the dragon must be killed, alchemically, by the hero. But the hero, Harry, is hopelessly outgunned, so far as we now know.

In my post, I did qualify Neville's wand as inflicting a "cunning and possibly lethal blow". In fact I was thinking of LOTR, and Eowyn's vanquishing of the Lord of the Nazgul. She fulfilled the prophesy: "He whom no man may kill"...specifically by not being "a man". But she couldn't have done it if Merry hadn't first stabbed him with a blade found way back in the beginning of the first book, made thousands of years earlier, and made especially with spells for defeating, of all people, the King of Angband, who later became the Lord of the Nazgul. In other words, Merry unknowingly had the ONLY blade that could have broken through the Nazgul's dark spell of invincibility, thereby making it possible for Eowyn to kill the Nazgul, fulfilling the prophesy.

Sorry if that's a bit long winded, but that's the correllation I meant to convey about Neville's special wand...it may, with its Unicorn hair core, have special properties against LV, leveling the playing field so that Harry can in fact carry out the prophesy and fulfill the alchemical prescription of "slaying the dragon"...LV.

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Feb 9 2007, 02:58 PM

I think that Voldemort has the seed of his own destruction already within himself: Harry's blood.

If the Dark Lord sustained himself with unicorn's blood, why would the unicorn's hair wand affect him?

PP

Posted by: Lost Centaur Feb 9 2007, 04:32 PM

not sure about that, Prongs, just speculating on the coincidence. The drinking of Unicorn's blood curses one.

As far as I know, we haven't been told how, or what the possible agents or consequences of the curse could be. One would assume the consequences of the act are different than, say, the outcome of the curse of creating horcruxes.

Harry's wand, the brother of Vd's, seems to create a kind of parity between the two. But Neville's new wand with its Unicorn hair core might be charged by the cursed Unicorn's blood inside VD, making it more powerful than other wands. In other words, the Unicorn hair in the wand may be an agent to amplify the power of the wand against Vd, due to the curse.

Just speculating...I have nothing else to go on but noting the components of Neville's new wand, the curse of drinking the Unicorn blood, and the possible catalytical process in VD's blood by the combination of cursed Unicorn blood with the Basilisk venom/Phoenix tears carried in Harry's blood (an altered/twisted recipe for the PS, ie. : Basilisk venom, phoenix tears, dragon blood)

Sorry for the byzantine logic.

Posted by: memyslfnI Feb 9 2007, 06:24 PM

Ah, here is my Harry is the greatest hero that ever lived! speech! Harry has more power than he knows. He is pure, incorruptable and good. Yet I think many expect a hero to be more of a cedric type and look how far that got him, the poor, poor boy! The Sorting hAt recognized that he had "talent" and I think that the the flaws in Lord Voldemort far outweigh his power. This will be his downfall. I see what you are saying. I am not sure I agree. I think that Neville will have his day though. I do not think it will be with Lord Voldemort, I think he will be the one to defeat Bellatrix. Neville is a product of his past. He had been shaped by seeing the results of his parents being cursed into insanity and as a result was forced to live with his domineering grandmother. It is through his association with Harry that has given him cofidence, which frankly is what he needs to get out from the shadow of his past. I thgink he will be the one to foil Bella, (Another who I do not think will use an unforgivable). Bella will underestimate him and that will be his strength.


Granger's comparison of drinking the blood of a unicorn is awesome. He likens it to someone unworthy dining the "life sustaining " blood of Christ. From http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=14: (read the whole thing its awesome!)

He points out the siliarity between the passage I quoted above and (1 Corinthians 11:29)

I thin1k that this is awesome! The unicorn is a symbol of Crist and his relation to immortality is clear! What do you all think?

Posted by: Lost Centaur Feb 9 2007, 10:39 PM

Sorry, I guess I expressed myself poorly; it's obvious Harry's not like Cedric at all. I just don't see Harry defeating LV all on his own, as St. George did with the dragon.

And I still see Harry as outgunned by Voldemort, who has immense power, if I've read the books correctly. Since this thread is about Blood, I was using the varius components in Harry's and Voldemort's blood to theorize about possible plot twists.

I am quite new to these forums, although I've read through many of them, and recognize you all and all your posts the last couple years. I just thought I'd pipe in a bit with some ideas. I'm sure you know much more about it all than I do.

Posted by: Narya Feb 9 2007, 11:55 PM

Lost Centaur, I do think that Harry and Cedric are alike in the sense that they are/were both very brave, but whereas Cedric's death was bloodless, I'm certain that the element of blood is vital in LV's ultimate defeat, meaning that blood will have to be spilt again in order to ensure that this happens.

Somewhere in this thread PP mentioned the sacrificial element of Harry donating his blood in the cave. Metaphorically, since LV is so afraid of spilling his blood in any form, this gives Harry a huge advantage. It also strikes me that shedding the blood of an innocent is hugely significant, just as Ronan said in PS/SS:

Cedric had a wand with a unicorn hair at its core, and he died at LV's hands - yes, Peter killed him, but LV's wand struck the blow. Innocent blood spilt. Neville also has a wand with a unicorn hair, but as you mentioned, his wand might act as the catalyst in the battles to come. Picking up on M's point about unworthiness, I feel that LV sowed the seeds of his own destruction with his own inventive potion. The combination of the unicorn blood conferring "a half life, a cursed life ..." (PS/SS) and the evil of shedding the blood of an innocent doomed LV to be a dead man walking right from the outset. Finally, but not digging too far into the future, the moment Harry turns seventeen and the bond of blood protection is lost with his maturity, is also the final nail in LV's coffin. What no longer protects Harry, leaving him truly on his own, also leaves LV defenceless.

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Feb 14 2007, 05:18 PM

I have been thinking a lot lately about unicorn blood, specifically, the scene in the Forbidden Forest when Harry came upon QuirrellMort drinking it.

We know from Grubbly-Plank that unicorns are not fond of males when grown--she keeps the boys back from them (GoF). Firenze tells us about the "cursed", "half-life" that anyone killing or drinking unicorn blood would have (PS/SS).

So, when does this curse take effect? Does it have to be "live" blood as opposed to blood from a dead unicorn? How did QuirrellMort get close to the unicorn, if the unicorns in the Potterverse follow the well-known trait of preferring untouched women and girls? Surely the green light from an Avada Kedavra would have been seen; they are following the tracks of a wounded creature, too--but no mention of what could have caused the wound.

So many questions, and so little time...

PP

Posted by: becky920 Feb 15 2007, 04:48 PM

What if Dumbledore's gleam of triumph at the end of GoF is because he knows that when Harry turns 17, his blood will no longer protect Voldemort and in fact -- because it is filled with love -- will start to act like a virus and eventually kill him? All Harry would have to do is find the horcruxes because Voldemort would be dying already from the poison within.

Posted by: Shard Feb 15 2007, 04:55 PM

I've been contemplating that same theory Becky920, especially since we never even saw LV in HBP. I've been thinking that LV may be some ticking timebomb because of Harry's blood within LV. The gleam's vanishing to me meant that even with that the Horcruxes had to be attented to first and DD had no idea where the rest were or how many until HBP.

Posted by: memyslfnI Feb 15 2007, 06:01 PM

Could Quirrell have known the Sectumsempra curse? maybe he threw the curse from far away and followed the bloody trail until it collapsed from loss of blood. Then it drank what it needed and left the remains to be found by Hagrid?

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Feb 15 2007, 08:40 PM

Quirrell may not have known Sectumsempra, but I wonder if Voldemort got it from Snape. A newly-recruited DE, eager to please... Voldemort may even have developed a similar spell himself-- he is no slouch in the magic department, is our Tom. Whatever spell or device he used, it did not kill the unicorn right away--there was a trail of blood for Hagrid to follow...

PP

Posted by: Lost Centaur Feb 15 2007, 09:40 PM

Permit me to segway a bit...

Harry's blood carries the old-magical charm of his mother's choice of self-sacrifice to protect him. But Voldemort, on the other hand, chose to murder his own father. If old magic works in opposites, wouldn't Voldemort be cursed by his act? How would such a curse pan out?

One wonders what would be the result of Harry's mother's charm, carried with Harry's blood into the body of his attacker. The charm might have protected Harry, but might it not be skewed to a different effect inside the body of the one who provoked her sacrifice? And, further, VD's patricide might even augment that negative effect. Just speculating.

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Feb 17 2007, 03:24 PM

Lost Centaur, I firmly believe that Lily will have something to say to Voldemort, through her blood and the workings of her charm to protect Harry. What is such love doing to the mummified soul of Voldemort?

In terms of the Old Magic, blood is precious--lifeblood stands in for the person from whom the blood was taken. thus, we have "blood" brothers and killing "in cold blood" to remind us of this belief of our forefathers. In the sharing of blood is a bond which is supposed to outlast death. However, blood that is forcibly taken is different. Harry and Voldemort are not blood brothers, because, although Harry's blood courses through the veins of Voldemort, the opposite is not true.

What is interesting to me is that Voldemort could touch Harry without harm after this transfer, so what other qualities of Harry's blood might there be?

PP

Posted by: memyslfnI Feb 17 2007, 04:45 PM

Could there be a componant of Harry's blood that preserves him? harry distroys the horcrux diary without a scratch. Voldemort must have put some strong curses on all his horcruxes. Dumbledore, a much more skilled and powerful wizard emerges from his encounter with the ring horcrux with a withered hand.

Why?

Posted by: Lost Centaur Feb 17 2007, 07:22 PM

So Prongs...LV has a veritable witch's brew bubbling away in his blood (heh):

...cursed by the killing and drinking of Unicorn's blood, and a ruinous subtlety of Lily's old magic charm triggered by forcibly taking Harry's blood and using it to resurrect himself, plus the basilisk venom and phoenix tears present in Harry's blood, and a possible curse from VD's own act of patricide,...what else is there we know of?...no wonder he looks so poorly, besides having so little soul left, and whatever snake DNA seems to be present as well (from Nagini?).

And MemyselfnI, to follow on your idea...though VD had not yet resurrected with Harry's blood when Harry encountered the diarycrux, I wonder if now, with Harry linked not only 'soulfully' (however that is actually so) to VD, but also in blood, will Harry's future dealings with the horcruxes be substantially different than, say, Dumbledore's, helping Harry in his quest for the horcruxes? It's possible that this very irony is what caused DD to gleam in his eyes, so to speak.

Though I lean toward the gleam being about Lily's magic backhanding VD...just my preference I suppose for the wheel of a mother's vengeance.

Posted by: MissJubilee Feb 19 2007, 01:29 AM

Actually, Harry has quite a lethal scratch when he destroys the diary-crux! And perhaps Tom had learned a bit more about defensive spells between making the diary and the ring horcruxes. Plus it was the fang that destroyed the diary, not Harry's hand - or even his wand, which perhaps could be argued to be part of him. Tom probably didn't anticipate his inherited pet basilisk being used to destroy his diary. I don't know why Dd would WEAR the ring while he destroyed it, but perhaps it was necessary, in which case it would actually be touching him and so in a better position to inflict damage.

But it does make me wonder why Dd didn't use pheonix tears on his own injury as they were used on Harry's. Somehow I can see it being 'alright' with him - he's not in danger of dying from the wound (after Snape helps), he's an old man already, it broadcasts that the ring was destroyed (wait, do we want LV to know we're on to his plan?), and he'll be dying soon anyway (if Snape killed him on his orders)... But perhaps that's a question for another thread.

I've been keeping up with the posts via e-mail, and I'm mighty impressed with what I've been reading! Great job, everyone!

Posted by: Ainsley Haynes Feb 24 2007, 07:21 AM

About blood itself:
The Incas believed that the blood was the best connection between the natural and the supernatural (hence the many blood sacrifices made by them)...

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Feb 24 2007, 08:13 AM

Welcome, Ainsley!

From what I have read about the MesoAmericans, blood was intimately concerned with Universal Order; blood was the food of the gods. Without the sacrifice of human blood the Sun would not rise in his heavens, and the world would cease to exist as they knew it. The Potteverse, however, had a very different world view of the place of blood; there, it is a matter of social standing. In the case of the Old Magic, it is one of my own opinions that blood meant that the invoker of that magic was serious about the work he was about to do. Blood was the stand-in for the person himself; the success or failure of the magic could be seen with the acceptance or denial of the blood in the ritual.

PP

Posted by: firephoenix Mar 19 2007, 10:27 PM

Ariahrod just sent this to me in an email;

DD makes the comment the Harry's blood is more valuable then his. I wonder if DD knew this to be the case???

Posted by: memyslfnI Mar 20 2007, 07:50 AM

I am trying to elaborate on the blood thing that FP from Arianhrod :

Looking at the Hallows and their relationship to blood: from http://www.sacred-texts.com/sro/hchg/hchg12.htmsource (I love this source)!

didn't someone say somewhere that Hufflepuff will have its day?

the source talks about the cultus of the precious blood in regards to the cup (or the grail). It says there are two vials of blood that were taken from the crucifiction where one of the hallows, the lance that delivered the Delorous blow, spilled the blood of christ. From that wound the vials were taken.

I am reminded of the vials of blood in 12 Grimmauld Place that we assume was dragon's blood. could it be the blood of someone else? A founder? Merlin? the text also says that the cup held the blood that was spilled by the lance. What if he needs to get the horcruxes in some sort of order? If the hallows are the four sacred Hallows of Ireland, what if he needs whatever represents the lance in order to break the curse of th e cup?

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Mar 20 2007, 10:53 AM

Isn't it amazing how all these topics eventually devolve into one another?

I believe that Hufflepuff had its day with Cedric Diggory--however, Ravenclaw still has a moment of glory due them; I think that will be coming with this last book. The vials of blood in Grimmauld Place--wow--great catch! They could, indeed, be dragon's blood; they could be blood from a Founder, too. The Blacks were a Slytherin family--for all we know, that blood could belong to Slytherin himself (although I don't want to imagine a scenario in which Salazar Slytherin would consent to some bloodletting... )

I do think that the achievement of the Horcruxes will involve blood; We had the DiaryCrux being destroyed by the basilisk fang (and the blood on the fang); the locket (although ultimately false) required blood on the rock at the entrance.

We do not know what was involved in the destruction of the RingCrux; it may be that Dumbledore tried to avoid bloodshed in order to destroy it, thereby gaining a withered hand for his troubles. I must bring up the Law of Symmetry here--it took blood to make a Horcrux (murder); I believe it will take blood to destroy them.

PP

Posted by: Weasle Diva Mar 20 2007, 01:42 PM

OK, this is a wacky thought, but often in the alchemy thread, we have discussed that Harry may represent lead on its way to philosopher's gold.

It makes a certain kind of sense that Harry's blood in Voldemort represents a lead poisoning. (or a gold poisoning if you want to look at it that way.)

Posted by: You_wont_know_who Mar 20 2007, 03:50 PM

I've been wondering - it's been repeated many times here on the different forums that LV and Harry are like twins, one being ultimately good, the other - ultimately evil. Voldemort's made Harry his equal twice so far: marking him unknowingly with the lightning- shaped scar and using Harry's blood for his rebirth.

Maybe Harry will have the right to touch and destroy the Horcruxes, based on the blood that was used in the process of recreation of Voldemort's body? The Horcruxes would recognize him as their lawful owner and it would make him LV's equal for the third and final time.

Dumbledore has paid a high price for destroying the Marvolo's ring. If Harry is to pay so much for every other remaining Horcrux, he won't be able to face his nemezis in the end.

Posted by: Oryx Mar 20 2007, 04:31 PM

I think Dumbledore's mistake was attempting to handle a Horcrux alone. Someone has to absorb the damage so that another person can remove/destroy the Horcrux. In the case of the diary it was Ginny, and with the locket it was Dumbledore. I have a feeling Ron will play that role at least once.

Posted by: firephoenix Mar 20 2007, 10:10 PM

Great catch mem! Since LV seems to be all about blood - Purebloods only. I would guess that the vials contain LV's blood or Salazar Slytherin for reasons that PP has already pointed out. Ya know. . . LV went to alot of trouble to make sure he was the last of Slytherin's line - killing his Uncle made him even more "special".


I'm sure it wasn't that big of a deal. The vampires in the clinic lab take vial after vial when you are pregnant. I almost passed out when they laided 5 vials in front of me that had to be filled with my blood!

I agree. This may also explain the gleam of triumph in DD's eyes.


I think you are correct. Though I think the poison flowing in LV from taking Harry's blood is love. Since LV is working the Alchemist's journey this will certainly kill him.

This is the what I wanted to post about and you beat me to it! I was wondering if because they have the same blood now if Harry will be able to destroy the Horcruxes easier.

On the other hand, if LV figuares out that Harry is destroying his Horcruxes LV might not be able to reach them either. LV no longer has the same blood so any blood crux will not reconize him either.

Posted by: You_wont_know_who Mar 21 2007, 05:00 PM

Blood is the liquid of life. It is strange that LV, although alive as a ghostly vapour, needed some blood of an enemy, not of a friend, to get a new body. It had to be forcibly taken, not donated. The new body was a result of unfriendly action. I've been wondering - if by a miracle of a sort Harry turned out to be LV's friend, would his blood still serve its purpose?

Posted by: Prongs Patronus Mar 22 2007, 12:37 AM

What I find interesting about that, YWKW, is that Dumbledore's blood just wouldn't do--it HAD to be Harry's. Yes, I believe that this marks Harry as LV's equal once again. I do want to stress, though, that the Law of Contagion carries only so far. The link Harry has with Voldemort happened at Godric's Hollow--but Harry does not have Voldemort's blood within him; Voldemort, however, does have Harry's blood. It remains to be seen how much the one will affect the other.

I think you make an interesting point: what if Harry forgives Voldemort? I don't think that Harry will ever be his friend, per se--the Dark Lord has no friends. However, forgiveness may provide the same result you imply by your question.

PP

ETA: Blood, as the liquid of life, is used as the premiere stand-in for the person from whom it came. Thus we have sympathetic magic, or we have the rebirthing potion...

Posted by: Oryx Mar 22 2007, 01:10 AM

I don't expect Harry to forgive Voldemort, but already twice Harry has expressed pity or sympathy for young Tom Riddle - once in COS, when he saw the memory of Riddle asking Dippet for permission to remain in Hogwarts for the summer, rather than going back to the orphanage, and to a lesser degree in HBP when Harry learned the circumstances around Riddle's birth. The first instance should be significant for the purpose of this discussion because it happened before Harry's blood was taken for Voldemort's rebirth. Is the blood of a foe who pities the rebirthed person dangerous to use for this purpose?

Posted by: becky920 Mar 22 2007, 05:04 AM

How significant is it that Dumbledore's blood and Harry's blood were both used to open the door into the cave in HBP? Does that somehow connect Harry somehow to Dumbledore (like make him his blood brother)? Hmm.

I think what's more significant about Voldemort using the blood of an enemy isn't what would happen if Harry became his bestest bud, so much as it's a perversion of the natural order of things. I don't want to go too far off on an alchemical tangent, but I'm convinced Voldemort's perversion of alchemical principles is what will really be his downfall.

Posted by: You_wont_know_who Mar 23 2007, 11:10 AM

I had even a weirder idea. Could Voldemort experience love for the first time in his life just because he took Harry's blood? Could it kill him?

Harry's and Voldemort's connection always made me uneasy but also strangely fascinated. Blood ties would explain it very nicely. Harry was able to know what mood Voldemort was in, and I don't doubt it was reciprocal. Finally, Voldemort had to apply Occlumency (or Dumbledore thought so) to break the most intimate connection but I think the side effects might prove to be more far-reaching than just knowing each other's mood. Even at the graveyard, LV felt strangely sentimental. It might be just because he was close to the Riddle House but what if it was the begining and the first symptom of a far deeper change?

We wasn't shown LV in the sixth book and I suppose it wasn't without a good reason. When we see him in the last installment, he will be changed. Whether only physically, it remains to be seen. I keep my hopes up.

Posted by: firephoenix Mar 26 2007, 10:46 PM

I have always thought of Harry's blood as a slow acting poison in LV. I do believe that the love in Harry's blood is what will bring down LV in the end.

I have been thinking about this post for awhile now. Is Harry really LV's enemy? Harry is only in the possion he is in, because of a choice LV made when Harry was a baby. Does that make Harry a true enemy? I wonder if the rebirthing potion was not correct by using Harry's blood.

Posted by: You_wont_know_who Mar 27 2007, 12:03 PM

I have to say that these were exactly my sentiments. The prophecy making Harry the nemezis of LV (or the other way round) was something misleading and elusive - only LV's actions made it true. Harry at the first sound of Tom Marvolo Riddle's name felt as if it was his long-lost friend. Then he was able to access his thoughts and emotions which is something incredible intimate (just imagine feeling the same as your friend just for a second, exactly the same, and being aware of it...). When Harry heard about the fate of Merope he almost started to feel for her orphaned son. Heck, he did feel for him.

What's more, the blood ties were matched with the wand cores - even their wands weren't supposed to act against each other, as they were brother wands, having the core from the same magical creature. All these facts suggest that Harry and LV can understand each other better than anybody else. Understanding is the first step to forgiveness.

Posted by: Lost Centaur Mar 27 2007, 03:36 PM

I've been thinking...If Lord Voldemort now has Harry's blood and all that implies running through his veins, then he no longer has his own... nor Riddle blood...nor Gaunt, nor the blood and bloodline of Salazar Slytherin. I would suspect that technically this means he is no longer Slytherin's descendant and heir. This might prove important.

Also, any magical keys (or portals, like in the cave) that required a blood offering to access would now be compromised for LV, since his blood will show up identical to Harry's,...not as his own, nor the heir of Slytherin's. If some of these blood offerings act as say, retinal scanners...identifying the individual, then ipso facto this would be so, and might complicate his access to certain magical objects or their environments.

Posted by: kwiki Mar 29 2007, 12:15 PM

If I remeber correctly when someone drinks unicorn blood to stay alive, they end up having a cursed half life. I forget which centaur said this in PS, but this happened when Harry, Hermione, Draco and Neville were in the forest doing detention with Hagrid trying to find who was killing the unicorns.

For some, blood tells people who they are related to. This is especially true for the pure blood bigots who follow Voldemort and his DE's.

Posted by: firephoenix Mar 29 2007, 11:07 PM

You bring up an intresting point with long lost friend. Most see this as proof that Harry is a Horcrux, but what if it, because they are blood brothers in a weid sort of way? DD does comform that LV put a bit of himself in Harry. What was that bit? What if it was his own blood?


I agree. But using the bone of his father might have been enough so he will still be able to obtain anything he sealed with his blood. But you are right it would seem LV has lost all ties to the Slytherin blood line.

I wish ignorance was just kept to LV and his followers, but Fudge, Umbridge and to many others place importance in blood lines too.

Posted by: ...RIP Cedric... Apr 4 2007, 03:14 AM

Blood is important but i do think a person can be judged just by their blood which we should know is wrong.
E.g Hagrid (Giant blood but big softy)

Posted by: You_wont_know_who Apr 6 2007, 12:46 PM

Certainly there is no reason to judge people by their "blood" - nationality or origin - but when Voldemort chose to use Harry's blood for magical purpose of regeneration, it was different. He signed something like a magical contract and now he and Harry are bound together. Even the protective spells and charms of Hogwarts weren't able to stop their link working and I suppose Hogwarts protection is one of the best in the wizardkind. Now it's up to Harry and Voldemort what they will do with this unusual affinity.

Posted by: BamaHP May 22 2007, 11:18 PM

I just watched Pan's Labyrinth (excellent movie by the way) and there was a scene in which the main character needs to open a portal by offering the blood of an innocent. She ends up giving her own blood, and it drips on a huge stone. It really reminded me of Harry and DD's blood letting in the Cave. Pan's Labyrinth is based on fairy tale archetypes and themes and I think its a common magical use in stories (to offer blood to open a door). Any thoughts?

Posted by: Maime the Hunter May 23 2007, 01:56 AM

Consider what Dumbledore says of Voldemort, the bad guy, making it necessary to make a blood sacrifice. Dumbledore considers the Blood Payment Crude. Ancient and in a way childishly ignorant, as Voldemort believed one would turn away if he realized he had to hurt himself. Think of the vial of blood Harry found. Could Regulus have used this, not willing to shed his own blood for entrance to cave? Was it his blood or another's?

Because blood is known to be sacred and precious, some cultures honor those willing to shed blood in sacrifice. There is a very moving scene in THE JOY LUCK CLUB, where a daughter makes a broth of her on blood and skin to revive her mother. Maybe at some point in Pre-history, we understood on a basic level that it was possible to save a loved one by giving her-or him--one's blood.

In Le Mort, Galahad the Pure, in his search for the Grail finds an ancient Sorceress who perserves her youth with a magic Grail, but he discoveres her horrible secret. She drinks the blood of innocents.

Pan's Labyrinth (excellent movie by the way I've heard this. I've also heard the trailers and adverstisments are misleading, that it's a darker story than one would expect.

Posted by: You_wont_know_who May 23 2007, 03:39 AM

Ofering your blood is like offering your life, but on a smaller scale. Harry will have to shed it, I don't doubt it, more than once before the final showdown. Dumbledore lost his life after the sacrifice in the cave, so opening the hidden door foreshadowed his imminent death. I suppose it was a part of LV's plan and an ultimate warning: entering the cave you face death.

Innocent blood is supposed to have magical properties till the ancient times. It is deemed to be the crucial ingredient in many "elixirs of life". Harry's blood has returned LV to an almost normal state, letting him to possess a body of his own, but I hope it might destroy him in equally efficient way. LV doesn't deserve Harry's blood for one thing, and doesn't deserve the protection of Harry's mother, the protection of love and sacrifice, included in it.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter May 23 2007, 03:57 AM

I always thought Voldemort used Harry's blood like a vaccine against the deadly effect touching Harry has on him.

He doesn't share Harry's blood anymore than we share blood with whatever creature scientist use to create a vaccine. Voldemort still can't break the bond on the Dursley house.

Harry's already shed quite a bit of blood. He was nearly killed in SS/PS, although I don't think he bled, but he bled when the basiliks bit him. I wonder if Harry has some immunity now to animal poison. I was certain from the description of the attack in GOF, that the spider that attacked him was poisonous.

But back to blood, I think when Dumbledore speaks of using Lily's blood, he just means the family connection, not Lily's actual blood.

Voldemort's use of blood in both the potion and the entrance to the cave would be the misuse of innocent or any kind of blood. I don't think the good side needs blood split for the power of love. You need the raw, unblemished emotion. Harry felt grief for Sirius that was profound, seemingly without comfort, then there was his terror of the pain he felt, and within all of that love gave his a bittersweet hope: that he would see Sirius again.

I don't think Harry will have to bleed to express this kind of love as a positive force or shield against Voldemort's dark magic. But Harry might have to do something physical, even hold onto Tom as he did to Quirrell to keep Voldemort from fleeing.

Posted by: You_wont_know_who May 23 2007, 01:56 PM

That was only one reason. LV needed some blood of an enemy. He chose Harry because he wanted to kill two birds with one stone. I am pretty sure he chose wrong. Either Harry is not the right kind of enemy, or the blood is protected in more than one way.



Again, it was something more - not only the blood but also the sacrifice of Lilly's life. The mother's life.



Maybe. But you can't deny that Lilly lost her life for her son. Or rather, sacrificed it. It has a value not to be underestimated and creates a powerful protection. It resides in Lilly's family, so her blood will play a role I suppose.

.

I think you are perfectly right here. The emotions and love, not cruelty and hatred, will defeat the dark lord.

Posted by: MissJubilee May 24 2007, 06:40 AM

This is a sticky issue. As I see it, we are trying to sort out the connection between blood and life on both a linguistic and a metaphorical level as well as the physical, and decide how much of a role it'll play in a written work that many readers find to be full of symbolism. Will it transcend the literary and mythological connection into the "physical" world of the characters? Or am I just typing a bunch of pompous hogwash? It's hard to explain what I mean here - like, on the one hand we do have JKR saying (through Hagrid) that blood is important, and (through Dumbledore) that Lily's blood in Petunia's and Harry's veins is what has protected Harry from Quirrelmort and Voldemort - but then, if we start to look at it very literally, technically Hagrid and Grawp, and Lily and Petunia, as siblings, don't have each other's blood. Yes, they were born from the same mother, but their own bodily fluids never touched. (Well, with the cuts all over Hagrid, they probably did at some point, but not in a large-scale mingling, anyway!) The word "blood" can be used simply to mean family, or family connections. So how much of its use in past and future HP books is in that sense - including what Dumbledore has said - and how much is literal? And how much can we expect the author to make literal in the sense of the story in order to fulfill her own mythological/symbolic necessity/ends?

Did that make any sense? Not that I have answers, just wanted to try to illuminate the question, or at least make my idea of the question clear enough that someone else can either shoot me down or perhaps restate it in a clearer way.

One last shot at it - I think we're trying to ask three questions if we want to predict the role of blood in the last book: How will blood play a role literally in the physical search for horcuxes and fight with Voldemort? How will blood be used in a metaphorical sense? (Whether or not the characters actually bleed, it could still be a symbol for the reader to catch - things that are red, scars, people connected genetically, etc.) And how will the word "blood" be used in ways that may or may not actually mean the wet red stuff that flows in the characters veins?

Simply make the questions past-tense to make it a discussion of how blood has played a part in the previous 6 books. That is what we're doing here, right? I'm just trying to point out how the different levels effect how we see some of the answers. For example, the question of whether Voldemort got protection or just a vaccine, depends on what was linked to Harry's literal blood (and to confuse things I seem to recall it was his *skin* that was un-touchable, or was that just the movie's version?) and what was linked to the "literary" blood (ie, the word as it means physically-related family rather than people who actually share his red stuff).

To me, that seems like it might clear up the question of his protection a little - the sacrificial part that made him "untouchable" was actually on/in him, but the part that kept him safe in general (say, from an AK?) was in the "family" sense rather than the literal. So, the re-birthing "vaccinated" Voldy to the touchability issue, but it didn't break the connection of family and love that kept him safe at Number 4 Privet Drive. That was linked more to the love that naturally exists between family - because, like it or not, Petunia did take him in; we don't have to like those we love, and there was a little bit of love (at least) for her sister and/or nephew that must have motivated it.

What do you think?

(edited to play with colors... I've always liked coloring!)

Posted by: You_wont_know_who May 24 2007, 01:58 PM

MissJubilee thank you for your post, it really did straighten things up, especially with the coloring .

When it comes to literary blood - you know, this red sticky, salty thing- I suppose LV has none in his veins. His artificial new body defies the natural rights so he doesn't need it at all. He used Harry's blood in an alchemical process to recreate it and that's it. Harry, on the other hand, will go through an ordeal and will lose some literary blood in his fight as it has been the case before. It will be the easiest bit for him, though. Poor Harry.

Mythologically speaking blood is the strongest tie you can have with a fellow being - animal, human or god- it shows that your life depends on somebody else's decision and vice versa. We've seen it in the weird connection between Harry and Lord Voldemort. It will be featured also in DH as Harry and Voldemort have been compared (and very rightly, I think) to the twins, of whom one is good and the other - evil. Their wands are brother wands, their fate is intertwined in more levels than any of them is aware of. I just wonder what trick will have to be performed in order to break such a bond? Will any of them survive the separation?

Blood as your family ties will be featured too and it will be important. Harry is an orphan but he has his aunt and his friends as supporters. He almost accepted Molly Weasley as his foster mother, all the Weasleys are like his brothers and Ginny is now his beloved girlfriend. Voldemort has killed the last remnants of his family - directly or indirectly.He has no friends, he has subordinates. His position here is weaker than he thinks.

Posted by: Lost Centaur May 25 2007, 01:32 PM

this continues to trouble me:

Dumbledore thought Voldemort's use of a blood "sacrifice" as the key which opens the portal into the cave as "crude". Crude? Voldemort?

Dumbledore later admits that the protections of the cave were indeed formidable, but he doesn't revisit the apparently "crude" key.

Let us suppose that the "blood" key to the chamber was not crude, but seemed to be just a crude, old-fashioned protection/key. Suppose it was sophisticated, well thought-out, like the rest of the protections in the cave. What if the blood smeared on the portal signified who was about to enter, and the protections inside were activated or deactivated by it? This sets up the possibility that:

LV can no longer de-activate the locking charms that protect his horcruxes, or other magical secrets and entrances.

If the Ravenclaw relic, for instance, is in fact hidden beneath the great smokestack towering over Spinner's End (as some here believe), and LV realizes that Harry and friends are on to him, he might try to recover it and place it elsewhere, somewhere safer, outside of their reach. And if it is protected by one of his own "blood" keys, needing his original blood to de-activate the traps, then we have the makings of a very interesting plot twist. If he manages to "reset" the blood offering to match his new blood, won't Harry be able to enter freely?

Posted by: You_wont_know_who May 26 2007, 03:11 AM

Dumbledore was a very wise man, but he was not perfect and he admitted it himself. I also can't find anything "crude" in the blood sacrifice for opening the door. It might be cruel or sadistic, yes, but crude?

Having a sample of the blood of the intruder would ease a lot the process of identifying the intruder. It would also help in finding this person, I suppose. So, basically I agree with Lost Centaur - the entry was made with a built-in recognition system, based most probably on the blood. As I mentioned before, though, I don't think there's some litteral blood left in LV's veins as his body is a pretty artificial creation. Maybe he rather uses a "password" to enter, instead of hurting himself (or anybody else). Of course I might be wrong.

Finally, even if Harry enters the hideouts of other Horcruxes without problems, there are other security features to overcome (as it was in the case of the false locket - the lake, Inferis, the green potion etc.)

Posted by: Narya May 28 2007, 07:03 PM

Thinking about the "crude" nature of the blood sacrifice to enter the cave, I think I can see where DD is coming from here. Given that he taught LV himself, he would probably have expected to find a highly sophisticated magical means of gaining entry, based on the undoubted intelligence and magical ability which LV possesses. The fact that DD has to spill his own blood to enter signifies to me that LV delights in causing pain to his victims - as we already know - and that some small part of him gloats over the image of another wizard having to draw his own blood to enter his lair. This is at once both sophisticated and crude ... sophisticated in the sense that whoever tried to enter the cave would expect a stiff test, and instead finds something simple, and crude in the sense that it shows LV for what he is - a mean spirited and twisted wizard who likes to hurt in whatever way he can, usually by physical means but also by invasion of the mind, as we have seen in the series.

I do see the point which you both make, Lost Centaur and YWKW. On one level, LV would fully expect Harry to come after him to the cave, so he was probably hoping for Harry's blood. Although he got it in the end when Harry wiped his forearm on the rock, it might have stymied LV's plans when DD's blood was left first.

Posted by: You_wont_know_who May 29 2007, 03:47 AM

It is indeed significant that you have to make the same sacrifice, no matter whether you want to enter or leave the cave. You would think that the opening from the inside should be easier than the opening from the outside - after all, nobody acting alone was supposed to leave the cave on their own, not after drinking this green poison anyway. LV has taken no chances and his sadistic nature can be clearly visible here - one sacrifice is not enough, if a miracle happens and you survive the Inferis and the potion, you must shed some blood again to leave. :shudder:

Do you really think, Narya, that LV was actually hoping for finding Harry's blood? I wonder what for? After all, he got what he needed on the graveyard, why take it again? I suppose, finding Harry's blood will make him very worried indeed, as it means that the knowledge about his Horcruxed didn't die with Dumbledore.

Posted by: theredwitch May 30 2007, 08:14 AM

Anyone watch Pan's Labyrinth? I sat right up when blood from an innocent was needed to unlock the door at the center of the labyrinth. I did some searching and Del Toro based the story on various myths from the Greeks to Brother's Grimm. Somewhere out there are fables about blood unlocking doors. These are old stories. The use of blood may be crude because it is that brutal older type of magic and not as modern or sophisticated as the magic that is now being taught at Hogwarts. Unfortunately, I can't think of any fables that involve blood in this way and Del Toro has not identified specific stories in his interviews. Anyone else know of any?

Posted by: Lost Centaur Jun 1 2007, 09:27 PM

Maybe the magical entrance to the cave is older, far older than Tom Riddle, and was intentionally created to be accessible to someone with "cruder", perhaps entry-level magical skills or talented intuition. The magical defenses inside the cave may be Tom's...for the protection of his horcrux. But the entrance may not be Tom's creation.

Posted by: Rose_Lily Jun 2 2007, 10:16 AM

Blood, literary and figuratively, play an important role in the books. Voldemort takes blood from Harry to bring himself back to power (yes, I know it is actually Wormtail that takes his blood). It is the life and blood sacrificed by Lily that saved and protects Harry. Voldemort is intent on ridding the wizarding world of "unclean blood". To stay alive during SS, Voldemort drank unicorn blood. Yes, I would have to say blood is very important.

It seems to matter in the ministry who is pureblood, who is half-breed, and who is muggle born. This rather makes the ministry (or at least certain people in the ministry) not too different from a certain dark lord. I think Dumbledore said it best, when he said something like it matters not what we are but what we come to be. I have to say, I can't agree more.

Posted by: towerdweller Jun 3 2007, 12:12 PM

The problem with this idea is that DD was sensing Tom Riddle's magical fingerprints--traces of "known magic" that he knew were from Tom Riddle. He even explains to Harry how LV "fails to grasp that there are much more terrible things than physical injury."


There is both the literal use of blood in the books as well as the figurative use. The former plays on the magical properties of a liquid necessary for life. The other plays on the human tendency to distinguish, even alienate fellows, on the basis of blood lines--failing to recognize that if one goes back far enough, we're all related, whether it's to Adam and Eve or a single-cell organism floating in an ancient sea.

Posted by: Lost Centaur Jun 4 2007, 03:24 PM

Forgive me, Towerdweller, I don't have my books anymore having lent them away!!!

But was Dumbledore sure that he was sensing Tom's magic at the entrance to the cave, or magical traces? (Which he assumed were Tom's because he knew the entrance was there and that it was the very cave to which Tom had brought the children.)

And if you're right and he could distinguish Tom's magical "fingerprint", then couldn't it be conjectured that the blood sacrifice, the magical key to the portal, also has some sort of ID capability, since it therefore is an ability that does occur within the realms of known magic?

Posted by: becky920 Jun 5 2007, 05:38 AM

I thought Dumbledore says both -- magic leaves traces and "I taught Tom Riddle, I know his style" -- or am I way off?

Posted by: Lost Centaur Jun 5 2007, 05:19 PM

Ah, Becky920, that rings a bell!

Although...if DD recognized Tom's style, then why did he say, upon realizing the blood offering was the key, "So crude...surely not," or words to that effect?

Posted by: becky920 Jun 7 2007, 06:54 AM

Maybe he was disappointed in his former student. I think Dumbledore thought a blood sacrifice was crude, considering the clever former student who in theory devised the charm. We know Dumbledore doesn't hold the same beliefs about the purity of blood and so on that members of Slytherin House seem to hold. I think his calling the protection crude has more to do with that. A man's worth isn't measured by his DNA. If Voldemort really believed that you had to prove your worth by bleeding in order to gain passage... well, wouldn't there be more clever or refined methods he could have used?

Posted by: Lost Centaur Jun 8 2007, 01:55 PM

mmmmm... I may be misunderstanding you, Becky920.....not sure that Dumbledore was referring to "crude" in the pureblood/ideological sense. I think he was expecting a more sophisticated magical defense to the portal. Apparently: Just smear some of your blood, and bingo, it opens. Crude. Upon emerging, though, he admits that the defenses inside the cave were, in fact, formidable...inside.

I don't believe that the blood sacrifice was to prove one's worth, in a pureblood/elitist sense, or in the courage of cutting yourself sense, and I doubt Dumbledore was referring to that when he said crude; rather, that to him it seemed too unsophisticated and simple for a wizard of Voldemort's capacity, whose style DD can recognize.

The hidden, "sophisticated" angle to the blood-key of the portal may have been a scanning ability, perhaps to recognize Voldemort himself, or a Slytherin descendant, as opposed to anyone else, and that may have influenced the succession of defenses inside the cave, not simply the opening of the portal. And since one had to re-apply one's blood to exit, perhaps the scan kept track of whether the blood sample was the same upon exiting as it was on entering.

Maybe Voldemort made the portal, maybe not. Maybe it scans, maybe not...but then why so crude? It does seem he made the defenses inside the cave, for sure.

Posted by: MissJubilee Jun 9 2007, 07:22 AM

I can think of two things that "crude" could be based on:

First, just the immature simplicity of it - when magic can do so much more subtle and sophisticated work, it seems more like an improper senior prank than a serious defense.

Then, consider some of what we've talked about here about blood symbolizing life and (when from humans) being used almost exclusively for dark potions or evil practices - aside from Lily's self-sacrifice, of course, and in that case it was more figurative than literal, as the AK doesn't seem to splash. To demand human blood to pay for passage is extremely crude, both in the HP world and in the human world as well. Think about it - wouldn't it turn your stomach? Sure, simple, from the standpoint of "OK, just prick myself and wipe it here," but when you consider that he's demanding BLOOD! That's just wrong. Not surprising from LV, but not right either.

So, there's my two cents on the "crude" comment.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Jun 9 2007, 02:40 PM

It is rather childish when you think of it--or a child's or teenagers idea of Dark Magic, shedding blood on a stone and all that. I think Crude is the right word. Voldemort might have been rather young when he made this. But I think Dumbledore was mistaken as to why Voldemort would have wanted the person who endure all his test to survive.

I think Voldemort set up this particular Horcrux for his Death Eaters--a just in case, like giving Malfoy his diary for safe keeping and to use at a certain time.
Voldemort would not want his Death Eater to know exactly what he or she was retrieving, but he knows his people. It is a powerful object and they may not be as inclined to return it to Voldemort if he was old or in a weakened state--or they could black mail him with it. Therefore he gives them the illusion of a trial--this is to test their loyalty to him, and the potion of course, they need an antidote, so they're going to have to return to their master and give him what is his. Does that make any sense.

Posted by: towerdweller Jun 10 2007, 12:08 PM

No worries! I don't know what I'd do if I didn't have my books to refer back to!

After talking about "known magic" in the cave, DD attributes the "crude" requirement of a blood offering to LV failing "to grasp that there are much more terrible things than physical injury."


Yes, DD tells Harry:


Crude also means "in a natural or raw state." In this case, LV is exacting a price of (fresh?) blood to enter the location where he keeps (or believes he keeps) part of his soul. To someone who is immortal, a blood offering doesn't mean as much unless it's blood coming from one who is mortal, then it is a very high price to pay since blood is the fluid that sustains mortal life.

Posted by: Lost Centaur Jun 10 2007, 02:17 PM

Oh, man, Towerdweller, that seems so on the money. Thanks.

Posted by: You_wont_know_who Jun 11 2007, 03:42 PM

A very nice catch towerdweller - I also see the fact that you must offer your blood at the entrance as an imminent threat - you enter to lose your life, nobody will come out unharmed.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Jun 12 2007, 12:30 AM

insightful post. I believe Dumbledore meant Crude a mixture of all three: immaturity, and just crude as in aesthetics and finally as a threat. I especially like
Yes, Voldemort would have consider himself godlike to the person entering; again the idea payment for one of his servants sent to retrieve the horcrux.

Posted by: becky920 Jun 18 2007, 05:36 AM

Harry and Hermione wind up covered in giant's blood during Order of the Phoenix, and it's the giant blood that eventually attracts the thestrals they ride to the Ministry. But... if dragon's blood has 12 uses... does giant's blood have uses as well? What about the blood of other magical creatures?

Posted by: Lost Centaur Jun 18 2007, 11:35 AM

JKR does seem to be telling us that Dumbledore, along with all his other skills and attributes, was an expert on the properties of blood (he helped discover the twelve uses of Dragon blood). He knew or guessed that Voldemort had erred in using Harry's blood to resurrect. Voldemort, clearly, despite all his malignant greatness, does not share Dumbledore's deep and nuanced understanding of the magical properties of blood.

I suspect that Voldemort's mistake in using Harry's blood will not ipso facto be his undoing, but will play into it somehow, in conjunction with the actions and motivations of the other actors in the plotline, and the peculiar properties of the other magical devices we've been shown.