I have alarm bells going off in my head and I feel like I read something suggesting that Quirrell took Harry’s blood at some point in time. Or that Harry bled in his presence. Or something. This could be a fake memory though because it’s very vague.
Earlier in this very same chapter, Harry tells Quirrell that he can’t imagine Quirrell hurting someone unless he means to. (This was in context of their discussion of the Gryffindor who cast a dark curse without knowing what it did.)
So we can assume that either Quirrell isn’t as precise as Harry thinks and accidentally hurt Harry, or that he’s exactly as precise as Harry thinks and took the blood on purpose.
Snape tells Moody that the “bone of the father” has to be removed from the original grave during the ritual. It stands to reason that the other two components must be sacrificed during the ritual as well.
I couldn’t decide where to put it! Your post was kinda sorta a furtherance of chaosmosis’s point, and and it could have been a reply to ArisKatsaris below too, and and it was just so confusing!
But personally I doubt it has some deeper significance. Quirrel seemed honestly distracted by the article at that time—and a papercut doesn’t leave much if any blood on the paper… as the paper moves away fast enough that blood doesn’t even have time to flow on it.
I find “a papercut doesn’t leave much if any blood on the paper… as the paper moves away fast enough that blood doesn’t even have time to flow on it” way more convincing than “Quirrel seemed honestly distracted by the article at that time”.
a papercut doesn’t leave much if any blood on the paper… as the paper moves away fast enough that blood doesn’t even have time to flow on it.
It is possible to engineer, though, if you’re manipulating the paper with great telekinetic precision. I accidentally bloodstained a book that way when I was about Harry’s age.
Though it must be said that in canon, it didn’t take much. After cutting Harry’s arm with a dagger, “Wormtail, still panting with pain, rumbled in his pocket for a glass vial and held it to Harry’s cut, so that a dribble of blood fell into it.”
I also don’t remember anything specific about Harry bleeding in any chapter, but an opportunity to take it unawares would have been just before chapter 60, when Harry was sleeping in Quirrel’s presence.
A potential problem with Quirrel doing this is that the ritual’s requirements seem to distinguish between “forcibly” and “unknowingly”. It’s possible that he’ll have to do it by directly forcing Harry to give up his blood, not by deceiving or tricking him, or even letting him lie unconscious while he’s pulling it out.
I was referring to a question of objective fact, not a prediction or speculation. Saying that Harry bled in Quirrell’s presence in no way assumes that Harry is Voldemort’s foe. Your comment wasn’t relevant to mine.
I have alarm bells going off in my head and I feel like I read something suggesting that Quirrell took Harry’s blood at some point in time. Or that Harry bled in his presence. Or something. This could be a fake memory though because it’s very vague.
Was it this bit?
Earlier in this very same chapter, Harry tells Quirrell that he can’t imagine Quirrell hurting someone unless he means to. (This was in context of their discussion of the Gryffindor who cast a dark curse without knowing what it did.)
So we can assume that either Quirrell isn’t as precise as Harry thinks and accidentally hurt Harry, or that he’s exactly as precise as Harry thinks and took the blood on purpose.
Snape tells Moody that the “bone of the father” has to be removed from the original grave during the ritual. It stands to reason that the other two components must be sacrificed during the ritual as well.
This is a good point. (Why is it a reply to me rather than chaosmosis?)
I couldn’t decide where to put it! Your post was kinda sorta a furtherance of chaosmosis’s point, and and it could have been a reply to ArisKatsaris below too, and and it was just so confusing!
Nice catch! Upvoted.
But personally I doubt it has some deeper significance. Quirrel seemed honestly distracted by the article at that time—and a papercut doesn’t leave much if any blood on the paper… as the paper moves away fast enough that blood doesn’t even have time to flow on it.
I find “a papercut doesn’t leave much if any blood on the paper… as the paper moves away fast enough that blood doesn’t even have time to flow on it” way more convincing than “Quirrel seemed honestly distracted by the article at that time”.
It is possible to engineer, though, if you’re manipulating the paper with great telekinetic precision. I accidentally bloodstained a book that way when I was about Harry’s age.
Though it must be said that in canon, it didn’t take much. After cutting Harry’s arm with a dagger, “Wormtail, still panting with pain, rumbled in his pocket for a glass vial and held it to Harry’s cut, so that a dribble of blood fell into it.”
That was it.
I also don’t remember anything specific about Harry bleeding in any chapter, but an opportunity to take it unawares would have been just before chapter 60, when Harry was sleeping in Quirrel’s presence.
A potential problem with Quirrel doing this is that the ritual’s requirements seem to distinguish between “forcibly” and “unknowingly”. It’s possible that he’ll have to do it by directly forcing Harry to give up his blood, not by deceiving or tricking him, or even letting him lie unconscious while he’s pulling it out.
Harry has also fallen asleep around Quirrel since then, in the warehouse after the prison break.
This assumes that Harry is V’s foe, not an obvious assumption in this fanfic.
I was referring to a question of objective fact, not a prediction or speculation. Saying that Harry bled in Quirrell’s presence in no way assumes that Harry is Voldemort’s foe. Your comment wasn’t relevant to mine.
Neg karma, anyone care to explain why?