Skip to main content

voldemort - Why didn't Tom Riddle kill Harry Potter in Chamber of Secrets?



In the Chamber of Secrets, Tom used Harry's wand to cast Flagrante to spell out ‘Tom Marvolo Riddle’ and unscramble it to ‘I am Lord Voldemort’. If he was able to cast any spell with Harry's wand, why didn't he try to stop Harry from destroying the diary? He could have even petrified Harry and then let the Basilisk finish him.


Even while Fawkes was healing Harry after he got poisoned by the Basilisk he's just watching and shouting.



Get away, bird. Get away from him — I said, get away.



It seems he forgot that he was a wizard...he raised the wand after the healing completed. Even after that he was not fast enough.


So why didn’t he just immediately kill Harry himself?



Answer



I think that the premise went like this:


Ginny has been writing on the diary for quite a while. Turns out she's been writing, all the time, about how the famous Harry Potter defeated the Dark Lord - as a baby.



If the baby Harry destroyed Voldemort, knowing this, would Tom Riddle dare try again, without first figuring out how exactly did it happen? He's not stupid enough to commit the same mistake twice... ok yes, yes he is, but this time it is pretty obvious that it would be overly imprudent to attack someone who somehow destroyed his adult version with no reasonable explanation.



  • (from Chamber of Secrets - Chapter 17 - The Heir of Slytherin)



"I have many questions for you, Harry Potter". "Like what?" Harry spat, fists still clenched. "Well," said Riddle smiling pleasantly, "how is it that you -- a skinny boy with no extraordinary magical talent -- managed to defeat the greatest wizard of all time? How did you escape with nothing but a scar, while Lord Voldemort's powers were destroyed?" There was an odd gleam in his hungry eyes now. "Why do you care how I escaped?" said Harry slowly. "Voldemort" said Riddle softly, "is my past, present, and future, Harry Potter..."





"To business, Harry," said Riddle, still smiling broadly. "Twice -- in your past, in my future -- we have met. And twice I failed to kill you. How did you survive? Tell me everything. The longer you talk," he added softly," the longer you stay alive."




On the other hand, asking the Basilisk - a third party - to kill Harry seems to be safest bet. If Harry has some sort of miraculous defence mechanism, it will be the Basilisk that ends up dead, rather than Tom Riddle.


So Harry kills the Basilisk. Why didn't Tom, on a desperate move, attempt to kill Harry? Because Harry was already doomed anyway: Tom knew that Harry was poisoned and it was just a matter of time for him to die, so there is no need to cast a spell that may or may not have adverse effects on Tom.


So, the safest bet is to simply wait for Harry to die off from the poison...


... aaaand Fawkes arrives.



Riddle's face contorted. Then he forced it into an awful smile. "So. Your mother died to save you. Yes, that's a powerful countercharm. I can see now... "



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.
Post a Comment
Read more

What is Tolkien trying to say in this letter?

In a draft of a letter, later recorded as #246, Tolkien makes a strange statement. I am interested in the first few sentences of the letter, but I will include the remainder for the sake of context. In the 'Mirror of Galadriel', 1381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond . But this is another matter. It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power . But this the Great had well considered and had rejected, as is seen in Elrond's words at the Council. Galadriel's rejection of the temptation was founded upon previous thought and resolve. In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy ...
Post a Comment
Read more

tolkiens legendarium - Was Galadriel's temptation of Boromir instrumental to his fall?

We know Galadriel tempted the members of the Fellowship, did she tempt Boromir with visions of taking the Ring and saving Gondor? In the books, Boromir willingly accepts the judgement of the council that the Ring should be destroyed, but after the meeting with Celeborn and Galadriel his personality seems to change. Was the temptation offered by Galadriel in some way responsible for Boromir's fall? Answer It's likely, but not certain I believe it is likely Galadriel tempted him with the ring, and in doing so re-ignited a pre-existing idea to take the ring, but to be clear lets break this down into three parts. Boromir at the Council of Elrond Boromir after setting off Boromir after being tempted Boromir at the Council of Elrond Boromir pleas for the ring to go to Minas Tirith, to help Gondor in its defense against Mordor. “ Why should we not think that the Great Ring has come into our hands to serve us in the very hour of need? Wielding it the Free Lords of the Free may surely...
Post a Comment
Read more

harry potter - What is the difference between Diffindo and Sectumsempra?

In the Harry Potter books, Diffindo is called the 'Severing Charm' and it’s most commonly used to cut ropes and the like. However, in the last book Hermione uses it on Ron but misses, creating a 'slash in his jeans' and his knee gets cut, causing him to 'roar in pain'. We've only seen Sectumsempra used once on screen when Harry directly uses it on Malfoy in the sixth book, but there it's mentioned that he is 'waving his wand wildly'. Wouldn't Diffindo, if used in such a fashion also cause a similar effect? Similarly, if it was able to cut Ron, it would also be able to, say, chop off an ear (George's)? In that case, how are these two spells different, except for Sectumsempra seemingly used exclusively to hurt humans? Answer While Diffindo and Sectumsempra both can be countered by other spells, Diffindo is far more easily countered. Reparo, a relatively common spell, can completely reverse its effect when used once. “He pulled the old cop...
Post a Comment
Read more