Well we know that the protection exists, because Harry is still alive.
We don’t know he had to have been protected from something. People in-universe thinks that Voldie cast AK and it rebounded, but in MoR we’re not told of any witnesses other than Harry and Voldie, the body found was burned, and his Dementor-triggered memory ended when Voldie locked eyes with him. It’s not a given that the canon scenario really happened in MoR.
True, but assuming even a modicum of forensics(prior incantem, say), it seems likely. What other process explains Voldemort’s “death”? He’s not stupid enough to try a plot that clever.
I have no very compelling scenario, but just because we have no obvious alternative is not very strong evidence in a universe with many smart characters and complex magic of which we don’t know most of the rules. Also, Eliezer changed lots of things from canon without removing them completely (e.g. the wicked step-parents stuff, the mess with Sirius and Pettigrew), and everyone believing a certain explanation for what happened without any witnesess which turns out to be wrong kinda’ sorta’ feels like his style.
What’s the probability that Avada Kedavra will leave a scar, when it has never left a scar before?
What’s the probability that Avada Kedavra will burn Voldemort’s body, when it usually kills without a trace?
Why would Voldemort have given his wand to Bellatrix before going to the Potters (as she mentions in Azkaban)?
From a story-external perspective, why does the story keep hinting that this is not what happened (we are told Harry should have felt confused when he first heard the story, and ch.81 says the wisest wizards in the Wizengamot wonder why Godric’s Hollow night happened, if it did happen, or why Dumbledore is lying if it didn’t)
All those bits and pieces don’t make sense if the events went down as in canon.
What other process explains Voldemort’s “death”?
That would depend on figuring out what Voldemort wants, and we don’t really know much about that. Even Dumbledore is at a loss in figuring out what motivates someone like Voldemort.
If it’s just amusement, perhaps he just found being Voldemort to be boring, and sought to start another game. If he wants to control the world, not just Britain, perhaps he felt he had no chance doing so as an open villain, he had to present himself as a hero instead (like Dumbledore being given the Chief Warlock position after he defeated Grindelwald).
And the above ideas are assuming the night went as Voldemort planned. If he was planning something different than what occurred, but what actually happened was caused by e.g. some magical trap set up by Dumbledore, the possibilities expand.
What’s the probability that Avada Kedavra will leave a scar, when it has never left a scar before?
What’s the probability that Avada Kedavra will burn Voldemort’s body, when it usually kills without a trace?
In canon, of course, we know that a Killing Curse hitting an inanimate object rater than its target results in a release of kinetic energy. In which case, both the scar and the burning are, in fact, reasonably probable results, given the prior that Harry couldn’t be killed by the curse. The curse hit Harry, couldn’t kill him any more than it could kill an inanimate object, and was converted into kinetic energy just like if it hit an inanimate object. The scar is the result of part of the kinetic energy being transferred to Harry through a not-perfect-but-adequate-to-save-his-life protection, while the rest bounced and hit Voldemort (and the cottage) with a lot of kinetic energy, causing blast and burn.
As HPMOR has (I believe) no examples the Killing Curse hitting inanimate objects, and we do not have enough data on magic theory that would allow us to construct an independent theory as to what a Killing Curse should do if it rebounded, how could we possibly construct a prior that would make the scar and blast improbable in HPMOR?
It’s got a definite defect, in that the levels of kinetic energy shown in Order of the Phoenix were substantially lower than the “blow up the cottage” level.
But hitting an inanimate object versus a life-sacrifice-love-warded subject, and not being able to precisely measure how much power/concentration Voldemort put into different castings makes it, well, at least good enough for a Dumbledore explanation to the curious in a culture without the scientific method.
Why would Voldemort have given his wand to Bellatrix before going to the Potters (as she mentions in Azkaban)?
She mentions that she has his wand, not that he gave it to her. Perhaps she stole it after he died?
And you’re right, the possibilities of traps are fairly open—though of course, the canon version could be considered a trap, if one laid unconsciously.
In Chapter 26 (“Noticing Confusion”), Quirrell reacted rather violently on hearing about a prophecy in the Daily Prophet:
“He didn’t have any choice,” said Harry. “Not if he wanted to fulfill the conditions of the prophecy.” ″Give me that,” said Professor Quirrell, and the newspaper leaped out of Harry’s hand so fast that he got a paper cut.
This is evidence for the canonical version, I think.
We don’t know he had to have been protected from something. People in-universe thinks that Voldie cast AK and it rebounded, but in MoR we’re not told of any witnesses other than Harry and Voldie, the body found was burned, and his Dementor-triggered memory ended when Voldie locked eyes with him. It’s not a given that the canon scenario really happened in MoR.
True, but assuming even a modicum of forensics(prior incantem, say), it seems likely. What other process explains Voldemort’s “death”? He’s not stupid enough to try a plot that clever.
I have no very compelling scenario, but just because we have no obvious alternative is not very strong evidence in a universe with many smart characters and complex magic of which we don’t know most of the rules. Also, Eliezer changed lots of things from canon without removing them completely (e.g. the wicked step-parents stuff, the mess with Sirius and Pettigrew), and everyone believing a certain explanation for what happened without any witnesess which turns out to be wrong kinda’ sorta’ feels like his style.
True, I’d stick p=0.2, maybe, on the official story being wrong in some important respect. Still, the canonical version is by far the most likely.
The canonical version doesn’t work.
What’s the probability that Avada Kedavra will leave a scar, when it has never left a scar before?
What’s the probability that Avada Kedavra will burn Voldemort’s body, when it usually kills without a trace?
Why would Voldemort have given his wand to Bellatrix before going to the Potters (as she mentions in Azkaban)?
From a story-external perspective, why does the story keep hinting that this is not what happened (we are told Harry should have felt confused when he first heard the story, and ch.81 says the wisest wizards in the Wizengamot wonder why Godric’s Hollow night happened, if it did happen, or why Dumbledore is lying if it didn’t)
All those bits and pieces don’t make sense if the events went down as in canon.
That would depend on figuring out what Voldemort wants, and we don’t really know much about that. Even Dumbledore is at a loss in figuring out what motivates someone like Voldemort.
If it’s just amusement, perhaps he just found being Voldemort to be boring, and sought to start another game.
If he wants to control the world, not just Britain, perhaps he felt he had no chance doing so as an open villain, he had to present himself as a hero instead (like Dumbledore being given the Chief Warlock position after he defeated Grindelwald).
And the above ideas are assuming the night went as Voldemort planned. If he was planning something different than what occurred, but what actually happened was caused by e.g. some magical trap set up by Dumbledore, the possibilities expand.
As far as I know it has left a scar on every single person who has survived it!
In canon, of course, we know that a Killing Curse hitting an inanimate object rater than its target results in a release of kinetic energy. In which case, both the scar and the burning are, in fact, reasonably probable results, given the prior that Harry couldn’t be killed by the curse. The curse hit Harry, couldn’t kill him any more than it could kill an inanimate object, and was converted into kinetic energy just like if it hit an inanimate object. The scar is the result of part of the kinetic energy being transferred to Harry through a not-perfect-but-adequate-to-save-his-life protection, while the rest bounced and hit Voldemort (and the cottage) with a lot of kinetic energy, causing blast and burn.
As HPMOR has (I believe) no examples the Killing Curse hitting inanimate objects, and we do not have enough data on magic theory that would allow us to construct an independent theory as to what a Killing Curse should do if it rebounded, how could we possibly construct a prior that would make the scar and blast improbable in HPMOR?
Your other points work, of course.
This is the first actually plausible-sounding explanation for this I’ve ever heard.
It’s got a definite defect, in that the levels of kinetic energy shown in Order of the Phoenix were substantially lower than the “blow up the cottage” level.
But hitting an inanimate object versus a life-sacrifice-love-warded subject, and not being able to precisely measure how much power/concentration Voldemort put into different castings makes it, well, at least good enough for a Dumbledore explanation to the curious in a culture without the scientific method.
She mentions that she has his wand, not that he gave it to her. Perhaps she stole it after he died?
And you’re right, the possibilities of traps are fairly open—though of course, the canon version could be considered a trap, if one laid unconsciously.
In Chapter 26 (“Noticing Confusion”), Quirrell reacted rather violently on hearing about a prophecy in the Daily Prophet:
“He didn’t have any choice,” said Harry. “Not if he wanted to fulfill the conditions of the prophecy.”
″Give me that,” said Professor Quirrell, and the newspaper leaped out of Harry’s hand so fast that he got a paper cut.
This is evidence for the canonical version, I think.