24

In Harry Potter, it is understood that the act of Self Sacrifice is a means of protecting one or more people from death from Avada Kedavra.

Sacrificial Protection happens at least twice in the Harry Potter series:

  1. Lily sacrificing herself to attempt to save Harry.
  2. Harry sacrificing himself to attempt to save the defenders of Hogwarts.

But then we have a scene that Harry sees by looking into Voldemort's mind. Voldemort is looking for Gregorovitch and murders a german-speaking family who lives in Gregorovitch's old home:

... He raised the wand. She screamed. Two young children came running into the hall. She tried to shield them with her arms. There was a flash of green light - (Deathly Hallows, Ch. 12 - Magic is Might)

This event is similar to the scene when Voldemort kills the Potter family in the sense that the mother attempts to protect the children by using her body as a shield.

Why does this act of sacrificial protection not have the same result as in the other instances?

Anduril_1251
  • 1,455
  • 11
  • 16

1 Answers1

24

  • She wasn't given a choice to stand aside. JKR specifically stated that the protection would only apply if the victim gave their life willingly.

  • It's not clear whether the German woman was a witch or just a random Muggle anyway.

JKR: James was immensely brave. But the caliber of Lily's bravery was, I think in this instance, higher because she could have saved herself. Now any mother, any normal mother would have done what Lily did. So in that sense her courage too was of an animal quality but she was given time to choose. James wasn't. It's like an intruder entering your house, isn't it? You would instinctively rush them. But if in cold blood you were told, "Get out of the way," you know, what would you do? I mean, I don't think any mother would stand aside from their child. But does that answer it? She did very consciously lay down her life. She had a clear choice -

ES: And James didn't.

JKR: Did he clearly die to try and protect Harry specifically given a clear choice? No. It's a subtle distinction and there's slightly more to it than that but that's most of the answer.

MA: Did she know anything about the possible effect of standing in front of Harry?

JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, knew that could happen.

MA: So no one - Voldemort or anyone using Avada Kedavra - ever gave someone a choice and then they took that option [to die] -

JKR: They may have been given a choice, but not in that particular way.

Community
  • 1
Valorum
  • 689,072
  • 162
  • 4,636
  • 4,873
  • 2
    Could you put some sources for the JKR statement and why the sacrificial protection is dependent on whether the sacrificer must be a witch or muggle for this to work (against the Killing Curse). I see no reason to believe for example that if Voldemort had gone after Hermione when she was a toddler and her mother did the same as Harry's and was given a choice, that she would not have been protected as well. – Anduril_1251 Aug 13 '14 at 13:29
  • @Anduril_1251: What makes you think it would be possible for a muggle, who is not capable of any magic whatsoever, bestow a magical protection on a person by willingly and clearly sacrificing his/herself in a desperate act? – Ellesedil Aug 13 '14 at 17:46
  • @Ellesedil - In fairness the book doesn't make it clear that she's a muggle. She's certainly living in a wizard's house so there's a possibility that she's a witch. – Valorum Aug 13 '14 at 18:07
  • Of course. I was simply responding to @Anduril_1251's suggestion to provide evidence of "why the sacrificial protection is dependent on whether the sacrificer must be a witch or muggle for this to work" to explain why he'd think a person incapable of casting magic could possibly cast a magical barrier of protection. – Ellesedil Aug 13 '14 at 18:15
  • @Ellesedil: I'm not sure that your premise is true: that muggles are not capable of any magic whatsoever. What about love? This is another topic, not suited for the comment section of this question. I was simply asking for either to explicitly explain why that portion of Richard's answer adds anything to the answer as a whole, or if it should just be removed. I accepted the answer because of the first bullet. The second bullet, in my opinion (because it was not proven that it has bearing on the answer) could be removed and the answer would be equally strong. – Anduril_1251 Aug 13 '14 at 18:15
  • @Anduril_1251 - I've left it in because even had the conditions been met, the spell might fail because the homeowner isn't a sufficiently powerful witch (or a muggle). – Valorum Aug 13 '14 at 18:16
  • @Richard, it's fine to have it there. Though personally, I have my reservations with respect to that point and I don't find it particularly helpful, it may add to the answer for someone else who looks for an answer to this question. – Anduril_1251 Aug 13 '14 at 18:22
  • 5
    As a seasoned DM, her answers and hedging reek of desperate retconning and explanation of things she just never considered. Haha. I know because I've done it. – asteri Aug 13 '14 at 23:17
  • So if this never happened before, how did Dumbledore know so much about it? @Anduril_1251, at least one of Hermione's parents is a Squib, and we don't know if the magic works with Squibs. If Voldemort went after the right parent, she might get lucky. – trysis Aug 14 '14 at 00:44
  • 1
    @trysis "at least one of Hermione's parents is a Squib" why do you say this? I've tried searching the site but not found anything on this topic. – TZHX Mar 30 '15 at 14:36