But if you know or expect the Stone to be in Hogwarts, then why take the awful risk of breaking out Bellatrix Black? If you were found out, you’d lose your chance to continue casing Hogwarts for the Stone.
Come to think of it, why did Quirrellmort break out Bellatrix before his other plans were complete? Wasn’t that awfully risky?
What does Bellatrix offer that is so urgently needed?
Possible that he was actually in love with her, and that all the supposed torture was false memory charmed into her? I can’t quite see how it would work, but my guess is that EY is a soppy old romantic at heart, so I wouldn’t be surprised if somehow the relation between Bellatrix and Voldemort was transfigured.
Then again, maybe it wasn’t Bellatrix at all. She was just being used again.
As DanArmak implies, maybe Quirrell is just driving a wedge between Harry and The Man. That’s certainly useful, and plays into the current storyline of Hermione possibly going there. That was my first thought. Wouldn’t that be a nice start to manipulate Harry into the Dark Side, a la the consistency bias? Also, it let Harry see first hand the torture, further alienating him from The Man.
And if Hermione gets sent up, I can’t see Harry doing nothing about that, after liberating Bellatrix. Save Bellatrix and let Hermione rot? That doesn’t seem likely.
However, didn’t Hat and Cloak press Hermione that Harry would eventually sacrifice her for some higher goal? Somebody did that. Kind of a replay of Hermione looking to Dumbledore for justice, but receiving it from Quirrell instead. Maybe she gets disillusioned with Harry this time, and Quirrell rights the balance again? Maybe he wants to turn Hermione to the Dark Side?
The Bellatrix thing is a really good point, though. But it leads me to something else interesting—Dementors.
Maybe rescuing Bellatrix was just a diversion from the true point—seeing what Harry could do about Dementors. Defeating Death is central to Harry, Voldemort, and EY. Harry was extra sensitive to Dementors. Quirrell too. He asked for them at Hogwarts. He saved Harry from them. But Hermione said the Dementor’s told her that Quirrell wanted the Dementors to eat Harry. And the Dementor told Quirrell that he knew him, and would hunt him down. Quirrell talked about “someone” attempting to destroy a Dementor. Death Eaters? A little joke from a guy who wanted to defeat death?
I would have to think, that given EY’s values, the one transvaluation of values he’d want to achieve with his story is to get people to stop acquiescing and even loving death, and fight it. The symbolic crux of the story will be the fight against death. If so, betting on the Dementors as the issue for any plot point is a good bet.
Possible that he was actually in love with her, and that all the supposed torture was false memory charmed into her?
Charmed by someone other than Voldemort, I presume, after his death, and really they were two happy lovers all along? But then others (Lucius, Draco through him, etc) would have had quite different memories of the Voldemort-Bella relationship, and Harry would ventually hear about it when she became a popular subject of discourse after escaping from Azkaban. Everyone can’t be charmed about this matter.
Has anyone besides Quirrell shared recollections about them? I only remember Quirrell. I wouldn’t expect either to be the huggy wuggy pda types. Particularly with Dumbledore setting fire to spouses.
He might lose his claim to inherit the vast Lestrange fortnue stored at Gringotts? I don’t remember, the Lestrange and Black intermarried family trees are complex...
Draco mentioned that Bella once Crucioed herself at Voldemort’s orders.
Didn’t remember that one. That’s a good one. No wedding bells for Quirrell and Bella, then.
But does that offstage action of Quirrell feel right to you? As Harry would say—it doesn’t seem like his style. Ruthless yes, but I’d think he’d consider that kind of gratuitous sadism as childish.
Actions like that ensured that Bellatrix’s devotion to Voldemort was not a happy memory for her, and therefore would survive in Azkaban for as long as she did. It might even have prolonged her life (though I rather doubt he tortured her for her own good).
Actions like that ensured that Bellatrix’s devotion to Voldemort was not a happy memory for her, and therefore would survive in Azkaban for as long as she did. It might even have prolonged her life
ETA: It’s funny because the same actress plays the role of Bellatrix and Marla, who is Typer Durden’s girlfriend from the movie Fight Club, which was released in 1999.
That one action may have had a reason: to demonstrate to someone how loyal she was to him, perhaps, or what was possible with Dark rituals for mind control.
More generally, the public Voldemort persona—as exemplified by Harry pretending to be Voldemort to Bella—is very different from Quirrel’s public persona. In my impression, Quirrel’s is more personable and likeable, and just as powerful and scary and competent. This may be due to complexities of the Quirrel-Voldemort relationship.
I don’t know, it’s kind of telling that Harry-as-Voldemort quotes Quirrell’s “one must be efficient” thing to Bella without seeming to notice. And I’ve always been of the opinion that the glowing-red-eyes, high-pitched-giggling schtick was a conscious attempt to get people to underestimate him ever since the martial arts story. (He goes in disguise to learn, is taught to “lose” and kick butt, comes back afterwards in full regalia to kill everyone who spat on him except his one friend, in the process making sure no one else will learn what he did.) Apparently he sees a benefit in cultivating the crazy sadistic killer persona, but it’s definitely done out of cold calculation.
it’s kind of telling that Harry-as-Voldemort quotes Quirrell’s “one must be efficient” thing to Bella without seeming to notice.
Why? Harry himself respects Quirrel (as a powerful wizard, all questions of motivation aside) more than enough to emulate and quote him.
the martial arts story
Story makes limited sense. Why leave a single survivor to tell the story when that survivor and all the dead are muggles? Why spread fear-of-Voldemort to other Muggles who wouldn’t believe in it, him, or magic, anyway? Notice that the one we see actually spreading the story is Quirrel.
It might just as easily that really he killed them all quickly and dispassionately once he learned everything, and invented the story to tell others once he became Quirrelmort and wanted stories to disparage Voldemort rather than to enhance fear of him.
Why? Harry himself respects Quirrel (as a powerful wizard, all questions of motivation aside) more than enough to emulate and quote him.
When Harry asks his brain “what would Voldemort say”, the response comes out almost word-for-word what Quirrell would say. This despite Harry’s previous conscious disparagement of Voldemort.
Notice that the one we see actually spreading the story is Quirrell.
It might just as easily that really he [...] invented the story to tell others once he became Quirrelmort and wanted stories to disparage Voldemort rather than to enhance fear of him.
You know, right up until this latest chapter I would have dismissed this idea out of hand for how sloppy it would be- he states that one was left alive to spread the story which no one else has ever heard? It wouldn’t exactly be difficult to check, either.
But Quirrell was apparently a Ravenclaw, so I’m not sure what to think anymore.
Maybe just to prime Harry with Azkaban, to drive a wedge between him and all magical authority that supports it, to prepare him to go Dark, and to be absolutely certain he’d act in a hurry if, say, Hermione was imprisoned there.
The other major effect of the Azkaban arc was to convince Dumbledore, and through him Madam Bones who commands the Aurors, that Voldemort has returned. While Dumbledore thinks Voldemort is around, he’s less likely to suspect or investigate Quirrel as the cause of any new disasters; and he also prohibits Harry from leaving Hogwarts, which drives Harry to Quirrel for help if he must leave—such as, again, to help Hermione.
Besides, Quirrel may be right when he says he didn’t think the Azkaban breakout was such a big risk (of discovery), he just didn’t anticipate Harry interfering against orders and then stunning him due to the resonance.
You’re right, the Stone would be worth it.
But if you know or expect the Stone to be in Hogwarts, then why take the awful risk of breaking out Bellatrix Black? If you were found out, you’d lose your chance to continue casing Hogwarts for the Stone.
Come to think of it, why did Quirrellmort break out Bellatrix before his other plans were complete? Wasn’t that awfully risky?
What does Bellatrix offer that is so urgently needed?
(Possible answer: Quirrellmort is decaying fast.)
Bellatrix is a puzzle.
Possible that he was actually in love with her, and that all the supposed torture was false memory charmed into her? I can’t quite see how it would work, but my guess is that EY is a soppy old romantic at heart, so I wouldn’t be surprised if somehow the relation between Bellatrix and Voldemort was transfigured.
Then again, maybe it wasn’t Bellatrix at all. She was just being used again.
As DanArmak implies, maybe Quirrell is just driving a wedge between Harry and The Man. That’s certainly useful, and plays into the current storyline of Hermione possibly going there. That was my first thought. Wouldn’t that be a nice start to manipulate Harry into the Dark Side, a la the consistency bias? Also, it let Harry see first hand the torture, further alienating him from The Man.
And if Hermione gets sent up, I can’t see Harry doing nothing about that, after liberating Bellatrix. Save Bellatrix and let Hermione rot? That doesn’t seem likely.
However, didn’t Hat and Cloak press Hermione that Harry would eventually sacrifice her for some higher goal? Somebody did that. Kind of a replay of Hermione looking to Dumbledore for justice, but receiving it from Quirrell instead. Maybe she gets disillusioned with Harry this time, and Quirrell rights the balance again? Maybe he wants to turn Hermione to the Dark Side?
The Bellatrix thing is a really good point, though. But it leads me to something else interesting—Dementors.
Maybe rescuing Bellatrix was just a diversion from the true point—seeing what Harry could do about Dementors. Defeating Death is central to Harry, Voldemort, and EY. Harry was extra sensitive to Dementors. Quirrell too. He asked for them at Hogwarts. He saved Harry from them. But Hermione said the Dementor’s told her that Quirrell wanted the Dementors to eat Harry. And the Dementor told Quirrell that he knew him, and would hunt him down. Quirrell talked about “someone” attempting to destroy a Dementor. Death Eaters? A little joke from a guy who wanted to defeat death?
I would have to think, that given EY’s values, the one transvaluation of values he’d want to achieve with his story is to get people to stop acquiescing and even loving death, and fight it. The symbolic crux of the story will be the fight against death. If so, betting on the Dementors as the issue for any plot point is a good bet.
Charmed by someone other than Voldemort, I presume, after his death, and really they were two happy lovers all along? But then others (Lucius, Draco through him, etc) would have had quite different memories of the Voldemort-Bella relationship, and Harry would ventually hear about it when she became a popular subject of discourse after escaping from Azkaban. Everyone can’t be charmed about this matter.
Has anyone besides Quirrell shared recollections about them? I only remember Quirrell. I wouldn’t expect either to be the huggy wuggy pda types. Particularly with Dumbledore setting fire to spouses.
What would it mean for the story if Lesath Lestrange was actually Lesath Riddle by blood?
He might lose his claim to inherit the vast Lestrange fortnue stored at Gringotts? I don’t remember, the Lestrange and Black intermarried family trees are complex...
Draco mentioned that Bella once Crucioed herself at Voldemort’s orders.
Also, if Dumbledore could have set fire to Bella he would have, spouse or no spouse.
Didn’t remember that one. That’s a good one. No wedding bells for Quirrell and Bella, then.
But does that offstage action of Quirrell feel right to you? As Harry would say—it doesn’t seem like his style. Ruthless yes, but I’d think he’d consider that kind of gratuitous sadism as childish.
Actions like that ensured that Bellatrix’s devotion to Voldemort was not a happy memory for her, and therefore would survive in Azkaban for as long as she did. It might even have prolonged her life (though I rather doubt he tortured her for her own good).
Nice one.
Helena Bonham Carter has really bad taste in men, apparently.
ETA: It’s funny because the same actress plays the role of Bellatrix and Marla, who is Typer Durden’s girlfriend from the movie Fight Club, which was released in 1999.
That one action may have had a reason: to demonstrate to someone how loyal she was to him, perhaps, or what was possible with Dark rituals for mind control.
More generally, the public Voldemort persona—as exemplified by Harry pretending to be Voldemort to Bella—is very different from Quirrel’s public persona. In my impression, Quirrel’s is more personable and likeable, and just as powerful and scary and competent. This may be due to complexities of the Quirrel-Voldemort relationship.
I don’t know, it’s kind of telling that Harry-as-Voldemort quotes Quirrell’s “one must be efficient” thing to Bella without seeming to notice. And I’ve always been of the opinion that the glowing-red-eyes, high-pitched-giggling schtick was a conscious attempt to get people to underestimate him ever since the martial arts story. (He goes in disguise to learn, is taught to “lose” and kick butt, comes back afterwards in full regalia to kill everyone who spat on him except his one friend, in the process making sure no one else will learn what he did.) Apparently he sees a benefit in cultivating the crazy sadistic killer persona, but it’s definitely done out of cold calculation.
Why? Harry himself respects Quirrel (as a powerful wizard, all questions of motivation aside) more than enough to emulate and quote him.
Story makes limited sense. Why leave a single survivor to tell the story when that survivor and all the dead are muggles? Why spread fear-of-Voldemort to other Muggles who wouldn’t believe in it, him, or magic, anyway? Notice that the one we see actually spreading the story is Quirrel.
It might just as easily that really he killed them all quickly and dispassionately once he learned everything, and invented the story to tell others once he became Quirrelmort and wanted stories to disparage Voldemort rather than to enhance fear of him.
When Harry asks his brain “what would Voldemort say”, the response comes out almost word-for-word what Quirrell would say. This despite Harry’s previous conscious disparagement of Voldemort.
You know, right up until this latest chapter I would have dismissed this idea out of hand for how sloppy it would be- he states that one was left alive to spread the story which no one else has ever heard? It wouldn’t exactly be difficult to check, either.
But Quirrell was apparently a Ravenclaw, so I’m not sure what to think anymore.
Maybe just to prime Harry with Azkaban, to drive a wedge between him and all magical authority that supports it, to prepare him to go Dark, and to be absolutely certain he’d act in a hurry if, say, Hermione was imprisoned there.
The other major effect of the Azkaban arc was to convince Dumbledore, and through him Madam Bones who commands the Aurors, that Voldemort has returned. While Dumbledore thinks Voldemort is around, he’s less likely to suspect or investigate Quirrel as the cause of any new disasters; and he also prohibits Harry from leaving Hogwarts, which drives Harry to Quirrel for help if he must leave—such as, again, to help Hermione.
Besides, Quirrel may be right when he says he didn’t think the Azkaban breakout was such a big risk (of discovery), he just didn’t anticipate Harry interfering against orders and then stunning him due to the resonance.
Regardless of whether it was awfully risky, I don’t think Quirrell thought it was risky. “My planss not in habit of failing.”