From s_ings at yahoo.com  Sat May  2 13:00:03 2009
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 06:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Big Birthday Bash!
Message-ID: <988036.98880.qm@web63408.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


*scurries about redecorating the party room, streamers and balloons trailing behind*

We is going to having a very big party here this weekend! I must be hurrying to get things ready. 

Birthday honourees for the upcoming week or so are:

May 3 - Phyllis poppytheelf at hotmail.com
May 5 - Juli jlnbtr at yahoo.com
May 5 - Alex dracos_boyfriend at yahoo.co.uk
May 7 - Cindy esk at europa.com
May 11 - Peter Schuster pfsch at gmx.de

Nibblies and cake are on the side table to your left. The bar will open shortly over there on the right. It may be a wee bit early in the day for some, but feel free to crank up the music and start dancing. And don't forget to leave some cake for our honourees!

Wishing you all happiness, good health, good friends and magical days!

Happy Birthday, Phyllis!
Happy Birthday, Juli!
Happy Birthday, Alex!
Happy Birthday, Cindy!
Happy Birthday, Peter!

Sheryll the Birthday Elf, who is leaving on vacation in 2 hours and not back until after last birthay (hence the early party!)

Join me at Sirens this fall!  http://www.sirensconference.org/


      __________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! 

http://www.flickr.com/gift/



From catlady at wicca.net  Sun May  3 17:31:16 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 17:31:16 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <gt8su8+qkhf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gtkkd4+qqvh@eGroups.com>

--- <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39158>, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:

<< Don't forget that astronomical names  are common in the Black family and relatives - Regulus, Draco, Bellatrix and Andromeda spring immediately to mind. >>

I'm more annoyed by the large number of non-astronomical names that Rowling included in the Black family, contradicting their family tradition. 

I'm willing to make excuses for 'Narcissa', pretending that wizards have given that name to some specific visible star which Muggles know by a Greek letter and a Latin genitive, or maybe which can only be seen by magic eyes, not Muggle eyes.

I'm willing to make excuses for 'Elladora', perhaps somehow named for a star with the un-Muggle-documented name of L Doradus (there is an S Doradus, in the southern constellation Doradus, the 'goldfish', which is actually some big ocean fish and not a carp). 

When I am then called upon to make excuses for 'Walburga', I feel that is a bit much. 

And the whole 'Black Family Tree' is annoying, starting with the arms on top, which I always thought should be a black snake on a black field, thus seeming pure Black unless one looked carefully.

Black Family Tree <http://www.hplex.info/wizards/blackfamilytree.html>




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun May  3 17:41:38 2009
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 3 May 2009 17:41:38 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/3/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1241372498.498.27570.m8@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday May 3, 2009
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2009 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20090503/a528931e/attachment.html>

From catlady at wicca.net  Sun May  3 17:42:30 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 17:42:30 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <gta7jp+ne5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gtkl26+8dn3@eGroups.com>

--- <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39159>, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

<< The name is Greek and derived from Hermes (with whom our Hermione has no connection that I can see). >>

Hermes is the god of cleverness. He's a real good talker, speaking rather more persuasively and seductively than our Hermione does in canon; I hope, for the sake of House Elf protection, she learned some of his rhetorical skills early in her career in politics or as a barrister! He also is the source of information, both true and false: traveller, messenger, gossip, journalist, liar, and so on. Hermione is a source of information, conveying it from all those books. 

Fans of alchemical interpretations liked to point out that not only is Hermes called Mercury in Latin, but the chemical abbreviation for mercury is Hg, the initials of Hermione Granger. There is a lot of material here which, if not designed by the author, has a lot of wonderful co-incidences to play with.




From Mhochberg at aol.com  Sun May  3 19:15:38 2009
From: Mhochberg at aol.com (Mhochberg at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 15:15:38 -0400
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
Message-ID: <8CB9A3AADBC8DBF-16B8-3EA3@webmail-db04.sysops.aol.com>

Carol responds:



And Snape would still be a Death Eater!



Seriously, though, do we know for sure that Snape knows about Neville
as a potential Prophecy boy? Maybe he just can't tolerate incompetence,....

I write back:
Yup, Snape would still be a Death Eater and yes, he can't stand incompetence. Look how hard he was on other students. If you weren't in Slytherin, you were worthless in his eyes. Competence was not a redeeming factor. Look at his disdain & abuse of Hermione. He picked on everyone who wasn't a Slytherin but he picked on Neville the most. (i.e., Snape's comments to Lupin in the first DADA class in POA.) Neville, being who he was, was worse in Potions because of Snape's actions.

I think Snape could easily have figured out who the two potentials (Harry & Neville) could have been. He was a Death Eater as soon as he could be and may have even helped Voldemort figure out who the potentials could be. As far as I can tell Snape was the only DE who knew exactly why the prophecy was important.

Snape is a very smart man. One of the reasons I didn't buy the premise of Snape murdering DD was that two such intelligent people, who were already working together, would have a plan of their own.

---Mary


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon May  4 01:40:07 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 01:40:07 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <gtcuje+s5jv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gtlh1n+lv8t@eGroups.com>

Lizzie:
> This could have been part of the reason, but Neville really was an awful potions student too.
> 

Pippin:
I think that's the only reason. One of the things that smack *me* on the head on re-reading is that Snape says nothing at all nasty to Neville in that first class, and in fact blames Harry for Neville's mishap. We hear at the end of PS/SS that Neville's potions grade was abysmal, but there's no indication that Snape's hostility has anything to do with it. It's only in PoA that we hear that Neville regularly went to pieces in potions class, that it was his worst subject, and that Neville's great fear of Professor Snape made it worse. 

It sounds to me as though Snape only gradually became frustrated with Neville's lack of improvement.

Pippin




From md at exit-reality.com  Mon May  4 01:54:58 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 21:54:58 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re:Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <gtlh1n+lv8t@eGroups.com>
References: <gtcuje+s5jv@eGroups.com> <gtlh1n+lv8t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000301c9cc5b$543ec5a0$fcbc50e0$@com>



-----Original Message-----


Pippin:
I think that's the only reason. One of the things that smack *me* on the
head on re-reading is that Snape says nothing at all nasty to Neville in
that first class, 

::::::::::::::::
As a writer Rowling wants to concentrate on her main characters, to have
Snape needle Harry then turn on Neville would take away from Snapes focus on
Harry, the reader wouldn't get that strong impression of Snapes abject focus
on Harry, his singular issue. The reader wouldn't get the Snape / Harry
dynamic or such a strong sense of why he, Hermione and Ron distrust him in
regards to Harry if he was picking on several student.

Neville's issue with Snape is more about how easily he's intimidated by
Snape and his lack of skill at potions, Snape doesn't have to directly go
after Neville for Neville to be rattled, and it makes Neville in DH a much
more evolved character. 






From sassykat1121963 at aol.com  Mon May  4 05:09:53 2009
From: sassykat1121963 at aol.com (Kathi)
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 05:09:53 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <8CB9A3AADBC8DBF-16B8-3EA3@webmail-db04.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <gtltb1+s7dh@eGroups.com>

> Carol responds:
> And Snape would still be a Death Eater!
>
> Seriously, though, do we know for sure that Snape knows
> about Neville as a potential Prophecy boy? Maybe he just
> can't tolerate incompetence,....
>
> Mary:
> Yup, Snape would still be a Death Eater and yes, he can't
> stand incompetence. Look how hard he was on other students.
> If you weren't in Slytherin, you were worthless in his eyes.
> Competence was not a redeeming factor. Look at his disdain
> & abuse of Hermione. He picked on everyone who wasn't a
> Slytherin but he picked on Neville the most. (i.e., Snape's
> comments to Lupin in the first DADA class in POA.) Neville,
> being who he was, was worse in Potions because of Snape's
> actions.
>
> I think Snape could easily have figured out who the two
> potentials (Harry & Neville) could have been. He was a
> Death Eater as soon as he could be and may have even helped
> Voldemort figure out who the potentials could be. As far as
> I can tell Snape was the only DE who knew exactly why the
> prophecy was important.
>
> Snape is a very smart man. One of the reasons I didn't buy
> the premise of Snape murdering DD was that two such
> intelligent people, who were already working together,
> would have a plan of their own.


Kathi:
I think Snape did realize that Neville was the other potential
"Chosen One".  Remember, he heard the first part of the prophecy.
It was Voldemort's choice that Harry was the one with the most
potential.  So maybe some of Snape's cruelty to Neville was the
fact that he could have been the one.  Once Voldemort made his
choice, and killed Lily in the process, that's when he lost
Snape forever.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May  5 01:20:45 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 01:20:45 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <gtkkd4+qqvh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gto49d+kke4@eGroups.com>

Catlady wrote:
> I'm more annoyed by the large number of non-astronomical names that Rowling included in the Black family, contradicting their family tradition. 
> 
> I'm willing to make excuses for 'Narcissa', pretending that wizards have given that name to some specific visible star which Muggles know by a Greek letter and a Latin genitive, or maybe which can only be seen by magic eyes, not Muggle eyes.
> 
> I'm willing to make excuses for 'Elladora', perhaps somehow named for a star with the un-Muggle-documented name of L Doradus (there is an S Doradus, in the southern constellation Doradus, the 'goldfish', which is actually some big ocean fish and not a carp). 
> 
> When I am then called upon to make excuses for 'Walburga', I feel that is a bit much. 
> 
> And the whole 'Black Family Tree' is annoying, starting with the arms on top, which I always thought should be a black snake on a black field, thus seeming pure Black unless one looked carefully.
> 
> Black Family Tree <http://www.hplex.info/wizards/blackfamilytree.html>
>
Carol responds:
It's possible that some Blacks were more traditional than others and/or that the tradition applied more to sons, who would retain and,  theoretically, pass on the family name than to daughters, who would most likely marry and give their husband's surname to any children they might have.

>From a practical standpoint, it's possible that JKR decided to name Draco's blond, blue-eyed mother Narcissa before she decided to establish the star/constellation tradition for naming Black children (which, for all we know, may have started with Sirius).

Carol, wishing that the children (other than Draco) with surnames other than Black were named




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May  5 01:46:46 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 01:46:46 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <8CB9A3AADBC8DBF-16B8-3EA3@webmail-db04.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <gto5q6+aob8@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
<snip>
> Seriously, though, do we know for sure that Snape knows about Neville as a potential Prophecy boy? Maybe he just can't tolerate incompetence,....
> 
Mary responded::
> Yup, Snape would still be a Death Eater and yes, he can't stand incompetence. Look how hard he was on other students. If you weren't in Slytherin, you were worthless in his eyes. Competence was not a redeeming factor. Look at his disdain & abuse of Hermione. He picked on everyone who wasn't a Slytherin but he picked on Neville the most. (i.e., Snape's comments to Lupin in the first DADA class in POA.) Neville, being who he was, was worse in Potions because of Snape's actions.


Carol responds:
Since we never see Snape teaching Potions to any students except the Slytherins and Gryffindors, I'm not so sure we can say that competence isn't a redeeming factor. Four Ravenclaws and the Hufflepuff Ernie Macmillan (who praises Snape's first DADA lesson) made it into NEWT Potions, which means that they must received O's on their NEWTs (we don't see anyone except Ron and Harry come to that first class without books and supplies; the rest knew they'd gotten in). The only time we see Snape docking points from Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs is when he catches them snogging behind the rosebushes at the Yule Ball, and then it's a very businesslike and impersonal statement.

Hermione is another matter. He marks her papers fairly (she never complains that he's unfair to her); he just avoids answering her questions when he can, reprimands her for speaking without raising her hand, and calls her "an insufferable know-it-all"--the last part of which is certainly true. Even Ron (in HBP) makes fun of her raising her hand in MCGonagall's class, desperate to be called on. 

Neville starts out nervous in Snape's class, but he melts his first cauldron *before* Snape calls him an idiot boy. Granted, Snape's sarcastic and critical teaching style hurts him more than it helps, but I don't think it's anything personal. Nor do I see (despite rumors that Snape favors the Slytherins) any evidence that he favors anyone besides Draco. We don't see him handing out points left and right to Pansy Parkinson or even Blaise Zabini and Theodore Nott, both of whom end up in NEWT Potions.

Mary: 
> I think Snape could easily have figured out who the two potentials (Harry & Neville) could have been. He was a Death Eater as soon as he could be and may have even helped Voldemort figure out who the potentials could be. As far as I can tell Snape was the only DE who knew exactly why the prophecy was important.

Carol:
In theory, he could have checked the Daily Prophet to see which Wizard kids were born at the end of July that year, but we have no evidence that he did so. All we know is that he went to Dumbledore when he found out that Voldemort had decided that Harry Potter was the Prophecy and intended to kill the whole Potter family. Before that, the matter was of no concern to him, I'm sorry to say. And although he was the only DE who, AFAWK, even knew about the Prophecy, having heard part of it, I see no reason why he would have meddled in what would at that time have seemed to be Voldemort's affairs. It became important to him only when he found out that Voldemort intended to kill Lily, at which point he felt both remorse and panic.

Mary: 
> Snape is a very smart man. One of the reasons I didn't buy the premise of Snape murdering DD was that two such intelligent people, who were already working together, would have a plan of their own.

Carol:
Oh, absolutely. I'm the last person to question Snape's intelligence. (I did have my doubts, though, because of the clever way in which HBP was set up. I thought that in wanting to believe in Snape's innocence (and seeing ways in which JKR might be setting us up), I was indulging in wishful thinking. Thank goodness for the main group, which restored my faith that Snape was Dumbledore's man. But doubt his cleverness or his skill as a wizard? Never.

Carol, who thinks that we have insufficient evidence regarding Snape's interaction with students other than HRH, Neville, and Draco to draw any firm conclusions
> 
> ---Mary
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May  5 02:00:44 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 02:00:44 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <gto5q6+aob8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gto6kc+hdmd@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> <snip> All we know is that he went to Dumbledore when he found out that Voldemort had decided that Harry Potter was the Prophecy and intended to kill the whole Potter family. <snip>

Carol again. Urghh. "Voldemort had decided that Harry Potter was the Prophecy Boy," I meant. Sorry about that.

Carol, who thinks that not even Voldie could mistake a kid for a prophecy




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Thu May  7 02:38:10 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 20:38:10 -0600
Subject: Ginny
Message-ID: <3A25BA4BD8B0451CAAE3B7F799202086@Marianne>

I'm not taking this to the main list, because the other discussions.  Or maybe I'll take it over to the main list after a bit.

I have a question/comment.

I'm listening to the last part of DH.  Mrs. Weasley is hell bent and bound that Ginny is not going to go into Hogwarts to do battle.  She's too young.  She's only 16.  Valid point.

Say Ginny is of age, 17.  She has every right to go fight.  How anxious/willing would Mrs. Weasley still be for her to go fight Voldemort.  Her only daughter.  The baby of the family.

The boys are of age, they can go.  She seems perfectly willing to let her sons go fight.  Put themselves in harms way.  It seems like it don't bother her so much to see her sons go.  Or is she resigned to the fact that her sons will go, with or without her permission.  If you could call it permission.

I have two sons and 1 daughter.  I would not be willing to watch them go off to battle.  I don't care if they were of age or not.  I would have something to say about the situation, but there's nothing I could do about it either.  They are of age.

By the way.  How old was Luna at the battle of HW?  I thought she was underage too?  I only ask one thing about the DH movie.  I hope they keep Mrs. Weasley's comment of "NOT MY DAUGHTER YOU B**CH!" in the movie.  My favorite part of the book.

Marianne

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Thu May  7 03:30:46 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 23:30:46 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Ginny
In-Reply-To: <3A25BA4BD8B0451CAAE3B7F799202086@Marianne>
References: <3A25BA4BD8B0451CAAE3B7F799202086@Marianne>
Message-ID: <D97573E1A27C4F5FA9362536DC46933E@FRODO>

Hi,

Let's face it, Molly's name suits her as a "Mollycoddling" person.  Remember
how she balked at Fred and George being there when Sirius, et al, wanted to
answer Harry's questions?  They were of age but, as she cried, "They're
still in school!"  Arthur had to set her straight there.

I can only imagine Arthur having a serious talk with Molly and her
sputtering herself into resignation that Fred and George would, no doubt,
have to fight.  Also, remember, red and George struck out on their own with
their shop and proved themselves.  I'm sure she probably grumbled and/or
wept, but what can she do?

As far as Gini is concerned, of course Molly would probably have had a fit
when she discovered that Gini had gone to fight.  Remember she tried to keep
her in the Room Of requirement.  However, realizing that Gini was as
strong-willed as any of her children, she did what any mother would do; she
stepped in and took on Belatrix...and won!

Molly is just the kind of person who, when faced with something against her
grain, she'll yell and scream and grumble and do anything she can to prevent
it; see how she reacted to Harry and his mission.  She did everything she
could to sabotage it by keeping the threesome separate.  However, she
couldn't stop them, could she?

I'm not a parent, but remember all too well the strictures of my beloved
mother.  And, indeed, I felt there were times when she was a bit
over-protective.  I was a bold creature and would take my stand.  I think,
sometimes, it's just in the nature of parents to want to keep their kids
safe, but parents need to be taught how to let go and let their offspring
learn from their mistakes or prove themselves.

And Loona, even though she was in Gini's year, she could have been under 17
or maybe just 17, as we don't know her b-Day.

Cheers,

Lee :-)

Do not walk behind me,    | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead;   | N2FGC
Do not walk before me,    | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu May  7 04:11:13 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 04:11:13 -0000
Subject: Ginny
In-Reply-To: <D97573E1A27C4F5FA9362536DC46933E@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gttn11+eoc4@eGroups.com>

Lee wrote:
> And Loona, even though she was in Gini's year, she could have been under 17 or maybe just 17, as we don't know her b-Day.

Carol adds:

Right. Since the battle takes place some time in May, a large number of the students (all except those born later in May or in June, July, or August) will have had their birthdays, so the majority of the sixth years will have turned seventeen (just as most of the sixth years in Harry's year had already had their birthdays by late April and could take the Apparition test. Of the ten students in Slughorn's Potions class, only Harry, Draco, and Ernie were too young.

Just how McGonagall knows that Colin Creevey, who would have been a sixth year and shows up for the battle, is underage, I don't know. (Would she really keep track of every Gryffindor's birthday?) But I think we can assume that she's right simply because JKR has no reason (except possibly difficulty keeping track of her own character's ages since she's bad at math) to have McG be wrong on that point. Flitwick, however, says nothing about Luna's being underage, so I think that we can safely assume she's of age.

As for Ginny, we know from JKR's website that she was born in August, so she's definitely still underage.

Carol, who calculates that about sixteen seventh-years and about thirteen of-age sixth years (excluding the Slytherins, who were dismissed, and the Muggle-borns, who weren't present) *could* have chosen to fight, but we don't know how many actually did




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu May  7 12:21:07 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 12:21:07 -0000
Subject: Ginny
In-Reply-To: <3A25BA4BD8B0451CAAE3B7F799202086@Marianne>
Message-ID: <gtujnj+4mci@eGroups.com>

 "wildirishrose"  wrote:

> 
> The boys are of age, they can go.  She seems perfectly willing to let her sons go fight.  Put themselves in harms way.  It seems like it don't bother her so much to see her sons go.  Or is she resigned to the fact that her sons will go, with or without her permission.  If you could call it permission.

Potioncat:
I don't think it's because Ginny is a girl, after all, Molly is there, ready to fight. But Ginny is too young. The boys are of age and have already been involved in the conflict through the OoP and by Ron's having been with Harry all year.

Given what was going on at Hogwarts, Ginny has been involved too, but I'm not sure Molly really  knows that. But, at any rate, the baby of the family is always the baby. It takes a little longer to let them go.








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu May  7 19:15:28 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 19:15:28 -0000
Subject: Ginny
In-Reply-To: <gtujnj+4mci@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gtvc0h+jndt@eGroups.com>

Potioncat:
> I don't think it's because Ginny is a girl, after all, Molly is there, ready to fight. But Ginny is too young. The boys are of age and have already been involved in the conflict through the OoP and by Ron's having been with Harry all year.
> 
> Given what was going on at Hogwarts, Ginny has been involved too, but I'm not sure Molly really  knows that. But, at any rate, the baby of the family is always the baby. It takes a little longer to let them go.
>
Carol notes:
Absolutely, Ginny's being the youngest and not yet of age has something to do with it. But Molly's line, "Not my daughter, you b----!" does suggest--not that Ginny is less gifted or powerful than her brothers as a Witch rather than a Wizard (after all, look whom Molly is fighting)--but that there's something special to Molly about her only daughter. Ron is right, I think, that Molly (though she loves him dearly) was disappointed that he wasn't born a girl and tried again, one last time, to have a daughter with Ginny, at which point she stopped having children. So Ginny, as the youngest and the only girl, is doubly precious. But, also, setting aside JKR's glaring allusion to a certain film, Molly means, "You've killed my son Fred. You're not going to take my daughter, too." Or that's how I read it.

I think, though, that any of Molly's sons would have been humiliated if she'd stepped in to take over their battle because it would insult their competence, their maturity, and their masculinity. With Ginny, a fellow female and a "child," her (perceived) interference won't be resented as much, especially since Ginny herself could never have killed Bellatrix. And once Ginny has children of her own, any lingering resentment of her mother's taking over her battle will disappear as her own mother instinct kicks in.

Carol, just speaking from her own experience with teenage boys and girls




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Thu May  7 19:47:28 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 19:47:28 -0000
Subject: Room Of Requirement:  Was Ginny
In-Reply-To: <D97573E1A27C4F5FA9362536DC46933E@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gtvdsg+vv6c@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm \(God Is The Healing Force\)" <n2fgc at ...> wrote:
>
Hi,
 
As far as Gini is concerned, of course Molly would probably have had a fit when she discovered that Gini had gone to fight.  Remember she tried to keep her in the Room Of requirement.  However, realizing that Gini was as strong-willed as any of her children, she did what any mother would do; she stepped in and took on Belatrix...and won!


Marianne:

Speaking of the Room Of Requirement.  When Harry told Gini to leave the ROR so he could use it and then she could go back in, did he honestly think she would go back.   I wonder if Harry purposely did that.  He knows how strong-willed she is.  How she wanted to get into the fight.

Marianne




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Thu May  7 19:57:02 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 19:57:02 -0000
Subject: Ginny
In-Reply-To: <gtvc0h+jndt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gtveee+ja0f@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
Carol notes:
Absolutely, Ginny's being the youngest and not yet of age has something to do with it. But Molly's line, "Not my daughter, you b----!" does suggest--not that Ginny is less gifted or powerful than her brothers as a Witch rather than a Wizard (after all, look whom Molly is fighting)--but that there's something special to Molly about her only daughter. Ron is right, I think, that Molly (though she loves him dearly) was disappointed that he wasn't born a girl and tried again, one last time, to have a daughter with Ginny, at which point she stopped having children. So Ginny, as the youngest and the only girl, is doubly precious. But, also, setting aside JKR's glaring allusion to a certain film, Molly means, "You've killed my son Fred. You're not going to take my daughter, too." Or that's how I read it.

Marianne:

Bellatrix is taunting Molly about the death of Fred and Molly is saying that she - Bellatrix- will never touch her children again.

Carol:
 
I think, though, that any of Molly's sons would have been humiliated if she'd stepped in to take over their battle because it would insult their competence, their maturity, and their masculinity. With Ginny, a fellow female and a "child," her (perceived) interference won't be resented as much, especially since Ginny herself could never have killed Bellatrix. And once Ginny has children of her own, any lingering resentment of her mother's taking over her battle will disappear as her own mother instinct kicks in.
 
Carol, just speaking from her own experience with teenage boys and girls

Marianne:

You're so right Carol.  Evan as old as my kids are, especially with my daughter who is pregnant, if anyone messes with them my mother instinct kicks in and I will step in and protect them.  Daughter has meddlesome neighbor and I've stepped in between my daughter and the neighbor at times.  Not that neighbors would hurt her, but they aren't going to mess with her.

Marianne




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Sat May  9 09:33:05 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 09:33:05 -0000
Subject: Star Trek
Message-ID: <gu3ikh+de5q@eGroups.com>

I just got out.  No one needs to see this movie, but everyone should!

The action doesn't stop but you don't feel like you need a break like you do in a Michael Bay movie which you could easily go to the bathroom, drop a deuce, wash hands with soap and warm water for twenty seconds being sure to get between the fingers, dry hands with a paper towel that you'll use to open the door before tossing it into the garbage, head over to the concession stand for some Jr Mints or maybe a Kit-Kat bar (it's hard to decide, the cost is prohibitive for both), get back to your seat with some Milk Duds instead because they sounded good all without needing to ask your buddy in the next seat what you missed because you know it wasn't a gee-dee thing.

You can't do that with this movie.  But that's okay because you won't even be aware that you need to use the toilet until the credits roll --which you don't need to sit through if you're looking for a cool little something at the end-- because you will be so engrossed with the interpersonal dynamics of the students at the Academy and the crew of the Enterprise.

One happy surprise was the hint of waybackstory to Spock as a kid.  It sucked me in and was way too short.  
MORE TWEEN!SPOCK !!!

So, of course there was Kid!Kirk.  I could have done without him.  Well... more his trope.  The only thing I found interesting and wondered about was

SPOILER ALERT SORT OF
why his mom remarried and why she went off-world leaving Li'l Jimmy behind with stepdad.  
SPOILER ALERT OVER

But whatevs.  

I can't imagine another movie this summer being so full of YES!

Kemper




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Sat May  9 14:22:10 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 10:22:10 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Star Trek
In-Reply-To: <gu3ikh+de5q@eGroups.com>
References: <gu3ikh+de5q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <F1F2756A67EC4A2B8B0A3C764AFA44D5@FRODO>

[Lee]:
Hmm--sounds like I might want to see it. <Grin>

[Kemper wrote]:
| The action doesn't stop but you don't feel like you need a 
| break like you do in a Michael Bay movie which you could 
| easily go to the bathroom, drop a deuce, wash hands with soap 
| and warm water for twenty seconds being sure to get between 
| the fingers, dry hands with a paper towel that you'll use to 
| open the door before tossing it into the garbage, head over 
| to the concession stand for some Jr Mints or maybe a Kit-Kat 
| bar (it's hard to decide, the cost is prohibitive for both), 
| get back to your seat with some Milk Duds instead because 
| they sounded good all without needing to ask your buddy in 
| the next seat what you missed because you know it wasn't a 
| gee-dee thing.

[Lee]:
<LOL> Uh--That's how I felt when I tried "The Truman Show" on the airplane
returning from Los Angeles back in 1998...And I did indeed need a bathroom
break with thorough hand-wash, and a bit of a line, etc.  I got back to my
seat something like 10 minutes after leaving and felt like I had missed
absolutely nothing.  Then, at one point, I dozed off and woke up realizing
that something new was happening and my interest was peaked for the next few
minutes. :-)

Glad to hear the "Pre" TOS movie offers good entertainment.

Thanks,

Lee :-)




From macboysmom at comcast.net  Sat May  9 19:47:00 2009
From: macboysmom at comcast.net (Leeann McCullough)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 15:47:00 -0400
Subject: Star Trek
Message-ID: <87F36605E4E545848DB0623259679E4A@DENCOMPUTER>

I am the 45 year old daughter of an original trekkie. This movie was a must see for me. My dad and I went together (since no one else would) and I am so glad we have things like this to share.

Back to the movie itself...Kemper is right, when the movie was over I said to myself, "Oh crap, I really have to go!".
It is all action all the time.

Go and enjoy!

Leeann




Kemper wrote]:
| The action doesn't stop but you don't feel like you need a 
| break like you do in a Michael Bay movie which you could 
| easily go to the bathroom, drop a deuce, wash hands with soap 
| and warm water for twenty seconds being sure to get between 
| the fingers, dry hands with a paper towel that you'll use to 
| open the door before tossing it into the garbage, head over 
| to the concession stand for some Jr Mints or maybe a Kit-Kat 
| bar (it's hard to decide, the cost is prohibitive for both), 
| get back to your seat with some Milk Duds instead because 
| they sounded good all without needing to ask your buddy in 
| the next seat what you missed because you know it wasn't a 
| gee-dee thing.

[Lee]:
<LOL> Uh--That's how I felt when I tried "The Truman Show" on the airplane
returning from Los Angeles back in 1998...And I did indeed need a bathroom
break with thorough hand-wash, and a bit of a line, etc. I got back to my
seat something like 10 minutes after leaving and felt like I had missed
absolutely nothing. Then, at one point, I dozed off and woke up realizing
that something new was happening and my interest was peaked for the next few
minutes. :-)

Glad to hear the "Pre" TOS movie offers good entertainment.

Thanks,

Lee :-)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From klewellen at shellworld.net  Sat May  9 19:56:53 2009
From: klewellen at shellworld.net (Karen Lewellen)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 15:56:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Star Trek
In-Reply-To: <87F36605E4E545848DB0623259679E4A@DENCOMPUTER>
References: <87F36605E4E545848DB0623259679E4A@DENCOMPUTER>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.64.0905091554100.85874@server1.shellworld.net>

going to try for the third time to see it tomorrow.
Its described, which I do not normally do, but given what I have heard of 
the action, I thought I would do dvs this time.
Still I wish I could find an another trekker in Toronto to treat it really 
should be shared.
Karen

On Sat, 9 May 2009, Leeann McCullough wrote:

> I am the 45 year old daughter of an original trekkie. This movie was a must see for me. My dad and I went together (since no one else would) and I am so glad we have things like this to share.
>
> Back to the movie itself...Kemper is right, when the movie was over I said to myself, "Oh crap, I really have to go!".
> It is all action all the time.
>
> Go and enjoy!
>
> Leeann
>
>
>
>
> Kemper wrote]:
> | The action doesn't stop but you don't feel like you need a
> | break like you do in a Michael Bay movie which you could
> | easily go to the bathroom, drop a deuce, wash hands with soap
> | and warm water for twenty seconds being sure to get between
> | the fingers, dry hands with a paper towel that you'll use to
> | open the door before tossing it into the garbage, head over
> | to the concession stand for some Jr Mints or maybe a Kit-Kat
> | bar (it's hard to decide, the cost is prohibitive for both),
> | get back to your seat with some Milk Duds instead because
> | they sounded good all without needing to ask your buddy in
> | the next seat what you missed because you know it wasn't a
> | gee-dee thing.
>
> [Lee]:
> <LOL> Uh--That's how I felt when I tried "The Truman Show" on the airplane
> returning from Los Angeles back in 1998...And I did indeed need a bathroom
> break with thorough hand-wash, and a bit of a line, etc. I got back to my
> seat something like 10 minutes after leaving and felt like I had missed
> absolutely nothing. Then, at one point, I dozed off and woke up realizing
> that something new was happening and my interest was peaked for the next few
> minutes. :-)
>
> Glad to hear the "Pre" TOS movie offers good entertainment.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lee :-)
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



From catlady at wicca.net  Sat May  9 20:55:11 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 20:55:11 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <gto49d+kke4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu4qjf+o93q@eGroups.com>

"Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39172>:

<< From a practical standpoint, it's possible that JKR decided to name Draco's blond, blue-eyed mother Narcissa before she decided to establish the star/constellation tradition for naming Black children (which, for all we know, may have started with Sirius). >>

Rowling said in an interview that she named Narcissa before she thought up the astronomical tradition. I already said I was willing to make excuses for Narcissa.

When you say 'started with Sirius', do you mean, she named him after the Dog Star right away, and years later named his other two first cousins Andromeda and Bellatrix? Named his mother Walburga before she named his father Orion? 

Because on <http://www.hplex.info/wizards/blackfamilytree.html>, she did put a Sirius in the first generation shown, sibling of non-astronomical Phineas Nigellus, and a Sirius apparently first son of Phineas Negellus and grandfather of Orion.

Non-astronomical males include Phineas Nigellus in the first row, his deleted apparently second son Phineas (why wasn't it his first son that he named after himself?) and the deleted 'Marius, a squib' in the third row. I don't know if Lycoris is supposed to be male or female or astronomical.

Rowling said in an interview that the Death Eaters used to be a group named the Knights of Walpurgis before LV got hold of them, perhaps Pollux and Irma named their little girl after the namesake of that anti-Muggle organization. In my fanfic, the Knights of Walpurgis were a less dishonorable anti-Muggle organization, one that started in the Middle Ages with the intention of protecting wizards and witches from Muggle persecutions by taking violent revenge on any Muggle who persecuted a witch or wizard, soon expanded to any convenient Muggle neighbor of a Muggle persecutor. They started and took their name from the Muggle murder of a Healer named Walburga who was so open-hearted that that she treated any Muggle who asked her as well as treating wizarding folk.

In my fanfic, Phineas Nigellus named his son Ciaran Cole, who married a witch named Stella Moon (a Moon was Sorted in PS/SS) and started the astronomical tradition with a daughter named Selene and sons named Saturnus and Scorpius. Saturnus's sons were Mimas and Enceladas. Scorpius's daughters were Zubenalgenubi and Zubeneschemali. Mimas and Enceladus were Sirius and Regulus's two grandfathers.




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Sat May  9 21:01:30 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 21:01:30 -0000
Subject: Star Trek
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.64.0905091554100.85874@server1.shellworld.net>
Message-ID: <gu4qva+hbkp@eGroups.com>

> Karen:
> going to try for the third time to see it tomorrow.
> ...
> Still I wish I could find an another trekker in Toronto to treat it really should be shared.

Kemper now:
So do you mean you went to theater twice and couldn't get tickets  or that you called around twice to see if someone wanted to see the movie with you?

I saw it alone though I suppose if I went with someone then I would have talked about with them about the awesomeness instead being inclined to share my excitement here.  The showing I saw started at 11pm.  I wanted to talk about it at 1:45am when I got home, but no one was up except for the ever ready to listen or talk: HPfGU-OTChatter.

Kemper




From catlady at wicca.net  Sat May  9 21:02:12 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 21:02:12 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <gto5q6+aob8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu4r0k+2ja1@eGroups.com>

"Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39173>:

<< Nor do I see (despite rumors that Snape favors the Slytherins) any evidence that he favors anyone besides Draco. We don't see him handing out points left and right to Pansy Parkinson or even Blaise Zabini and Theodore Nott, both of whom end up in NEWT Potions. >>

We don't see him docking points from Crabbe and Goyle, not even calling them 'idiot boy!' or 'disgrace to Slytherin!', which we can take as an example of favoritism to Slytherin.

Altho' in my fanfic, I made Draco so good at Potions that he pulled not only his lab partner Pansy but also the team of Vince and Greg through all their lab exercises in the classroom, and they copied all their homework from Millicent. 







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat May  9 21:42:13 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 21:42:13 -0000
Subject: The crux of the matter, or, the etymology of "crucio"
Message-ID: <gu4tbl+i79k@eGroups.com>

I'm transferring this post from HPfGu because there's not much canon involved.

Carol earlier in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186462>:

<< "Crucio" *means* "I torture" and "Cruciatus" is a real Latin word meaning "torture" or "torment." The successful caster *must* want his victim to suffer unendurable agony, as Bellatrix knows well and as the name itself should be sufficient to inform us. (Even if we don't know Latin, we should see the etymological connection with "excruciating.") >>
Catlady responded:
How are these words connected with 'crux' meaning 'cross'? Are all the words meaning torture (except 'torture' itself, which comes from 'twist') derived from cruxification? Was the cross named 'instrument of torture' and then the + T X shape was named after the instrument of torture?

Carol again:
I deliberately left "crux" (cross) and "crucifixion" out of my post because the etymology is rather complicated. I can't find an etymology for the noun form, "crucifixion," but here's the etymology for the verb "crucify" from Merriam-Webster Online:

"Middle English crucifien, from Anglo-French crucifier, from Late Latin crucifigere" (fourteenth century)

Which takes us to "figere," the infinitive form of "figo" (fix or fasten), so "crucify" means "fasten to the cross."

Much earlier, in Roman times, "crux" had already taken on a secondary meaning, clearly related to crucifixion:

crux crucis f. [a cross]; hence [torment, trouble]; as a term of abuse, [gallows bird].

http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=crux&ending=

The Latin word for "crucify" was the same as the word for "torture" or "torment," (crucio, cruciare). "Excruciate" is specifically derived from "cruciare" in this sense:

"Etymology:
    Latin excruciatus, past participle of excruciare, from ex- + cruciare to crucify, from cruc-, crux cross
Date:
    circa 1570

1: to inflict intense pain on: torture 2: to subject to intense mental distress"

Carol, betting that JKR knew full well all the etymological implications of the word she chose for her torture spell 










From klewellen at shellworld.net  Sat May  9 22:25:27 2009
From: klewellen at shellworld.net (Karen Lewellen)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 18:25:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Star Trek
In-Reply-To: <gu4qva+hbkp@eGroups.com>
References: <gu4qva+hbkp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.64.0905091819500.96398@server1.shellworld.net>



> Kemper now:
> So do you mean you went to theater twice and couldn't get tickets  or that you called around twice to see if someone wanted to see the movie with you?

Karen again:
The travel service I use has botched the trip twice now.  First I got 
there but too late to buy tickets.  Second, I did not manage to leave at 
all as I would again miss the chance.
It is a tad logistically complex as I am seeking the described option, 
indeed sharing it with someone for conversation would be fun too, not to 
mention easing some of the confusion laughter.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun May 10 00:04:52 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 00:04:52 -0000
Subject: Black family names (Was: Sometimes things just have to smack me ...)
In-Reply-To: <gu4qjf+o93q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu55n4+k3n1@eGroups.com>

Catlady:
> When you say 'started with Sirius', do you mean, she named him after the Dog Star right away, and years later named his other two first cousins Andromeda and Bellatrix? Named his mother Walburga before she named his father Orion? 

Carol responds:
Yes. I meant that she may have thought of Sirius Black as a character, including the idea of a black dog as an Animagus (black for Black and dog because of Sirius)--or, for that matter, she could have thought of the dog Animagus first and tried to come up with a suitable name for him, just as she must have realized that Remus Lupin was a werewolf and then come up with a suitable name for him. 

(I'm just guessing, of course. I don't have any source for all this.) Having named him Sirius, she may have decided that his brother and father should have astronomical names as well. Walburga, OTOH, has (as you point out) a DE-related name (Knights of Walpurgis/Walpurgis Night, a JKR-style pun). Possibly, and again, I'm just speculating, she may not have originally intended for Walburga and Orion to be cousins, so the astronomical tradition would be in Sirius's father's line, not his mother's. When she thought of Sirius's cousin Bellatrix, she probably decided to continue the tradition with her and the other Black sister, Andromeda. If my view of these characters is correct, the Black Family Tree would be a fairly late development. She didn't need it until OoP, after all.   

Catlady:

<snip> I don't know if Lycoris is supposed to be male or female or astronomical.

Carol responds:

I don't read ancient Greek (wish I did), but all the Greek names ending in -is that I'm familiar with (e.g., Iris, Doris, Alexis) are feminine. (The -is suffix may be a case ending.) I Googled "Lycoris," which I think is a lovely name. The Lexicon says it's the name of a group of plants in the lily family(!), but another source says that it means "twilight," which I like much better. (Maybe those plants bloom at twilight?)

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Lycoris_Black

Carol, just speculating for the fun of it




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun May 10 00:13:55 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 00:13:55 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <gu4r0k+2ja1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu5683+91m5@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
>
> "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39173>:
> 
> << Nor do I see (despite rumors that Snape favors the Slytherins) any evidence that he favors anyone besides Draco. We don't see him handing out points left and right to Pansy Parkinson or even Blaise Zabini and Theodore Nott, both of whom end up in NEWT Potions. >>

Catlady: 
> We don't see him docking points from Crabbe and Goyle, not even calling them 'idiot boy!' or 'disgrace to Slytherin!', which we can take as an example of favoritism to Slytherin.

Carol:
I don't think we can take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. After all, he did give them detention in HBP, ostensibly because they needed to retake their DADA OWLs. (His real reason was probably to interrogate them about Draco.)

We see from Harry's point of view, so only what he thinks is important gets recorded, which includes Hermione not receiving points that Harry thinks she deserves (and no doubt she does). Then again, maybe Snape simply doesn't give out points for schoolwork to anyone, even his favorite student, Draco. In fact, I don't recall his ever giving points to anyone for any reason. And he does *dock* points from people who aren't in Slytherin, as we see at the Yule Ball with a Hufflepuff and a Ravenclaw.

Carol, who thinks that we don't have sufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the matter




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun May 10 02:16:16 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 02:16:16 -0000
Subject: Black family names (Was: Sometimes things just have to smack me ...)
In-Reply-To: <gu55n4+k3n1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu5ddg+ki60@eGroups.com>


> 
> Carol responds:
 If my view of these characters is correct, the Black Family Tree would be a fairly late development. She didn't need it until OoP, after all.   

Potioncat:
I thought JKR developed the Black Family Tree for a charity event that had "Between the Lines" as its theme. I don't remember exactly when it came out...but it was fairly recent. None of the books seem to follow it, or at least, make any reference to it. It seems to have several mistakes.

Oh wait. We're talking about 2 different versions of the tree. My bad.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun May 10 02:51:46 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 02:51:46 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
Message-ID: <gu5fg2+8dqd@eGroups.com>

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
It sounds like that was a deal-breaker for you. It wasn't
ever a deal-breaker for me. But then, it wasn't something
that struck me as particularly brutal. That's just me.

You know, I do feel sympathy for your POV. I'm the
same way with Darth Vader. The man blew up Naboo, for
goodness sake.

When he told Luke that he was his father, that seemed
important to me because it affected Luke--but it didn't
change my opinion of Vader one little bit. And when
Luke went to go save him, I just shook my head. Could
not have cared less that Anakin got redeemed.

Twenty years later, I went to see the new SW films--
and got all the backstory on Anakin/Vader. Still don't
care about him.

All I really learned was that, in addition to every other
horrible thing he does, he blew up Jimmy Smits. I'll never
forgive him for that. (Although, I suppose he ought to
get a little credit for blowing up Jar-Jar Binks.)
<SNIP>


Alla:

This was really an example in Snape's discussion for those who do not go on Main, but this got me thinking about redemption stories in literature and film and what works and does not work for me. And I decided that I would love to hear what others think.


Redemption of Anakin actually worked amazingly well for me and in such short period of time. It worked for me, because to me the story of his relationship with Luke was driving the series, therefore Anakin's redemption from what he did on the personal level totally worked for me.

Redemption of Snape did not work for me because as I mentioned on Main to me Snape was not redeemed at all from what I felt was one of two his main misgivings (how he treated kids), but now when I think about Anakin, I actually realized another reason why his redemption from being a DE did not work for me.

Yes Dart Vader blew up the whole planet and yes, it is a really really bad thing, seriously I realize that. However, this deed of his (yes blowing up the whole planet) leaves me strangely uncaring, because it is so, I don't know? Abstract in the story? Yeah, he uses it to upset poor Lea, but it is not like we spent time getting to know the inhabitants of the planet and not like we are made to feel their anguish, etc. Does it make sense?

I also in a way find Snape's redemption from being DE to be strangely well, abstract in a same way.

Way before DH came out I used to argue that Snape's hands just must be bloody simply because there will be no way that one member of the merry gang of killers and torturers just avoided getting his hands bloody for the sole reason that his name is Severus Snape. I still think so. However, now I also think that there is a reason why JKR did not show it. I do not care much for Snape's redemption from being DE because besides selling Potters to Voldemort I did not SEE him doing anything bad as DE, if that makes sense. Even him killing Dumbledore turned out to be something he did not want to do and did on Dumbledore's persistent request.

Anyways, believe it or not, Snape really was not the main reason for this post, general redemption theme in literature was :)

One redemption story that worked perfectly for me was Jean Valjean in Les Miserables. Which I found to be, hmmm, surprising in a way. I could root for good character, although I usually love Snape like characters better (unless they are Snape lol), but Valjean literally behaves like a saint to me so many times through the story. And his redemption is just, well, too fast to me, I usually prefer my redemption stories to be slow and painful. But I get the point that he saw God, I get it and I love him and pity him too much to get concentrated on too fast redemption for too long.

Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment also worked great for me and that was to me a perfect redemption storyline, albeit in essense it is also coming to God and merging love to Sonya with love to God and finding redemption through it.

Zuco in Avatar was lovely.

I will think of more and will let you know if I do :)

So which redemption stories in literature and film work for you and which do not and why?





From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Sun May 10 05:28:30 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 23:28:30 -0600
Subject: Dr. Who & Harry Potter
Message-ID: <CDA6528AE7DE4ED79C40D00CE2326EAD@Marianne>

I'm watching Dr. Who tonight, they had landed in London, Shakespear time, and magic and the Harry Potter books was mentioned.  Dr. Who (David Tennant) said something about the last book it made him cry.

I cracked up.  Who'd of thought.

Marianne

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Sun May 10 05:53:26 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 23:53:26 -0600
Subject: One Last HP and Dr. Who
Message-ID: <22B9B0CA0DEF483BB58E4650AE6AC706@Marianne>

Then at the end of the show Martha yells Expeliarmus, Shakespear yells the same word, the witches go away and Dr. Who yells "Thank you J.K."

Sorry about this.  Just had to write.  The scene/ending cracked me up.  I'll go now.

M

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun May 10 17:42:32 2009
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 10 May 2009 17:42:32 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/10/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1241977352.629.77192.m7@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday May 10, 2009
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2009 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20090510/22e360a3/attachment.html>

From catlady at wicca.net  Sun May 10 20:13:23 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 20:13:23 -0000
Subject: etymology chat and Black Family Tree
Message-ID: <gu7ch3+p5v3@eGroups.com>

Carol wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39189>:

<< betting that JKR knew full well all the etymological implications of the word she chose for her torture spell >>

Thank you for answering. My computer is broken so I have to use Tim's computer and yesterday he was sulking beside me ('watching television') so I was too hurried to answer my question at the online etymology site (which on MY computer I have bookmarked). Today he is asleep. :)

On <http://www.etymonline.com/> I put crux in the search box and found a great many hits. Somem relevant ones:

Cross: O.E. cros, from O.Ir. cros, probably via Scand., from L. crux (gen. crucis) "stake, cross," orig. a tall, round pole, possibly of Phoenician origin. Replaced O.E. rood. 

crucify: c.1300, from O.Fr. crucifer, from V.L. *crucificare, from L.L. crucifigere "to fasten to a cross," from cruci, dat. of L. crux "cross" + figere "fasten" (see fix).

excruciate: 1570, from L. excruciatus, pp. of excruciare "to torture, torment," from ex- "out, thoroughly" + cruciare "cause pain or anguish to," lit. "crucify," from crux (gen. crucis) "cross."

cruicial: 1706, from Fr. crucial, a medical term for ligaments of the knee (which cross each other), from L. crux (gen. crucis) "cross." The meaning "decisive, critical" is extended from a logical term, Instantias Crucis, adopted by Francis Bacon (1620); the notion is of cross fingerboard signposts at forking roads, thus a requirement to choose.

cruise: 1651, from Du. kruisen "to cross, sail to and fro," from kruis "cross," from L. crux.

Carol wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39191>:

<< I Googled "Lycoris," which I think is a lovely name. The
Lexicon says it's the name of a group of plants in the lily family(!), but another source says that it means "twilight," which I like much better. (Maybe those plants bloom at twilight?)
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Lycoris_Black >>

Thank you for pointing me to the Lexicon entry:

<< Lycoris means "twilight" in Greek. It is also a genus of flowering plants in the Amaryllis family that is associated with death and reincarnation in Chinese and Japanese folklore. Ovid and Virgil also mention a mistress of Mark Antony called Lycoris. It is also possible that this name was derived from the plant and sweet licorice. >>

I don't feel this little-known word for 'twilight' passes my smell test for being astronomical, but a meaning 'licorice' would pass as a name that means 'black'. Phineas means 'Nubian' and Nigellus is a Latin form of 'Neil' that was thought to mean 'black', so I was delighted with Rowling's cleverness at naming him 'black black Black'. When other listies posted their discovery of a tradition that Phineas is Hebrew for snake-head, that showed her even more clever. I wanted him to name his children in the same tradition, so I came up with Ciaran Cole for his son and Melanie Maura for his first daughter, but having been struggling for years with the name of his second daughter, maybe Kali, but what else? Maybe Lycoris Kali?

I followed the Lexicon's link to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoris_(genus)> and found that the flower has sad folk traditions:
<< Since these scarlet flowers usually bloom near cemeteries around the autumnal equinox, they are described in Chinese and Japanese translations of the Lotus Sutra as ominous flowers that grow in Diyu, or Hu?ngqu?n, and guide the dead into the next reincarnation.

When the flowers of lycoris bloom, their leaves would have fallen; when their leaves grow, the flowers would have wilted. This habit gave rise to various legends. A famous one is the legend of two elves: Ma?ju, who guarded the flower, and Saka, who guarded the leaves. Out of curiosity, they defied their fate of guarding the herb alone, and managed to meet each other. At first sight, they fell in love with each other. God, exasperated by their waywardness, separated the miserable couple, and laid a curse on them as a punishment: the flowers of Ma?ju shall never meet the leaves of Saka again.

It was said that when the couple met after death in Diyu, they vowed to meet each other after reincarnation. However, neither of them could keep their words. >>

If Rowling knew this, she could have chosen the name Lycoris to go with a back story about why this character never married. Perhaps she fell in love with a man who didn't have one of those family tree tapestries to prove that he was a Pureblood, so in obedience to her family, she didn't marry him, but she didn't marry anyone else either.

<< Some other legends have it that when you see someone that you may never meet again, these flowers, also called red spider lilies, would bloom along the path. Perhaps because of these sorrowful legends, Japanese people often use these flowers in funerals. >>

A whole bunch of death-oriented customs, which, like 'twilight', fit with the decor theme of the Black House.




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Sun May 10 22:30:06 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 22:30:06 -0000
Subject: Star Trek
In-Reply-To: <87F36605E4E545848DB0623259679E4A@DENCOMPUTER>
Message-ID: <gu7khe+osf8@eGroups.com>

 I've never been a trekkie.  Never seen any of the movies.  I'm more of a Star Wars person myself.  However, I've heard so much about it that I think I'll drag my sorry, cheap butt to the movie theatre to see it.

I tend to wait for things to come out on DVD.  I'm too cheap to go to a theatre.  Last time I went to a movie was U2 3D.

Marianne

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Leeann McCullough" <macboysmom at ...> wrote:
>
> I am the 45 year old daughter of an original trekkie. This movie was a must see for me. My dad and I went together (since no one else would) and I am so glad we have things like this to share.
> 
> Back to the movie itself...Kemper is right, when the movie was over I said to myself, "Oh crap, I really have to go!".
> It is all action all the time.
> 
> Go and enjoy!
> 
> Leeann
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kemper wrote]:
> | The action doesn't stop but you don't feel like you need a 
> | break like you do in a Michael Bay movie which you could 
> | easily go to the bathroom, drop a deuce, wash hands with soap 
> | and warm water for twenty seconds being sure to get between 
> | the fingers, dry hands with a paper towel that you'll use to 
> | open the door before tossing it into the garbage, head over 
> | to the concession stand for some Jr Mints or maybe a Kit-Kat 
> | bar (it's hard to decide, the cost is prohibitive for both), 
> | get back to your seat with some Milk Duds instead because 
> | they sounded good all without needing to ask your buddy in 
> | the next seat what you missed because you know it wasn't a 
> | gee-dee thing.
> 
> [Lee]:
> <LOL> Uh--That's how I felt when I tried "The Truman Show" on the airplane
> returning from Los Angeles back in 1998...And I did indeed need a bathroom
> break with thorough hand-wash, and a bit of a line, etc. I got back to my
> seat something like 10 minutes after leaving and felt like I had missed
> absolutely nothing. Then, at one point, I dozed off and woke up realizing
> that something new was happening and my interest was peaked for the next few
> minutes. :-)
> 
> Glad to hear the "Pre" TOS movie offers good entertainment.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lee :-)
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





From drdara at yahoo.com  Sun May 10 22:53:51 2009
From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 15:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Harry Potter and God
Message-ID: <285012.97950.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>


Hi I was hoping for some help. I am hoping to convince my friend that Christians can love HP and still be Christians. When her daughter is old enough, I want to introduce her to the wonderful world of HP. So I am hoping for some easy sites that will illustrate, I know that there are sites out there. But am hoping that if any of you guys have been down this road, you can point me to some good sites. I am having ear surgery next week, so I will have time to compile the info down for her. Thanks

Danielle


      



From md at exit-reality.com  Sun May 10 23:07:31 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 19:07:31 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Star Trek
In-Reply-To: <gu7khe+osf8@eGroups.com>
References: <87F36605E4E545848DB0623259679E4A@DENCOMPUTER> <gu7khe+osf8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002701c9d1c4$18f0a8b0$4ad1fa10$@com>

I just took my 10 yr old daughter who choose it over Hanna Montana with her
little sister. This was the first new Star Trek since dad died in Feb, it
was really hard because it was the only thing he ever went to the theater to
see and that and RPG games (playstation, NES) where all we had in common.
Unfortunately my daughter won't say she liked it though I think she did. She
knew PopPop put in Star Trek video every single night and watched them until
he fell asleep (and I mean every night for 15 years) so him not being there
for this was hard and she was very close to him.

The movie was excellent, about 20 min short IMO, I highly recommend you get
to the comic-shop and buy the 4-part graphic novel of the films back-story,
it really fleshes it out. I really hope there's and extended version DVD in
our future (ah hem, blu-ray I mean) the cast signed on for two more, so
let's hope it continues to be great.

md


-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wildirishrose01us
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 6:30 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Star Trek

 I've never been a trekkie.  Never seen any of the movies.  I'm more of a
Star Wars person myself.  However, I've heard so much about it that I think
I'll drag my sorry, cheap butt to the movie theatre to see it.

I tend to wait for things to come out on DVD.  I'm too cheap to go to a
theatre.  Last time I went to a movie was U2 3D.

Marianne




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon May 11 00:57:21 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 00:57:21 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu5fg2+8dqd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu7t5h+ld6p@eGroups.com>

Alla: 
> I also in a way find Snape's redemption from being DE to be strangely well, abstract in a same way.

Magpie:
Or maybe the problem is that it's the opposite. I mean, Snape started out as an innocent kid who loved Lily. But then he turned into a DE who loved Lily. And then he got Lily killed, and wanted to make that up, so he did.

And that's all he did. That's why I don't really see it as redemptive. It's redemption in the most literal sense since he does pay back the crime he wanted to pay back, but it's just not a greater redemption that I can see. He continues to reject that, as we see in his relationships with other people, old and new.

Alla:
> Zuco in Avatar was lovely.

Magpie:
Ha. I remember writing a whole piece on him called "And THAT'S a redemption story!" He's like a whole different person, but at the same time clearly the person he was all along.

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 01:52:44 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 01:52:44 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu7t5h+ld6p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu80dc+s1gq@eGroups.com>

> Alla: 
> > I also in a way find Snape's redemption from being DE to be strangely well, abstract in a same way.
> 
> Magpie:
> Or maybe the problem is that it's the opposite. I mean, Snape started out as an innocent kid who loved Lily. But then he turned into a DE who loved Lily. And then he got Lily killed, and wanted to make that up, so he did.
> 
> And that's all he did. That's why I don't really see it as redemptive. It's redemption in the most literal sense since he does pay back the crime he wanted to pay back, but it's just not a greater redemption that I can see. He continues to reject that, as we see in his relationships with other people, old and new.

Alla:

I am just curious what is your definition of greater redemption? I mean, I see Snape as making up for more than just killing Lily, but for being DE in general. I mean, it is not like he is trying to atone for his part in getting Lily killed while trying to continue DE activities on the other fronts? Or maybe I am totally misunderstanding you. I was just trying to say that to me his redemption did not work because I saw him and Harry as main conflict in his life, and to me he was not redeemed from that like at all (obviously if one thinks Snape did not need to be redeemed from that, it does not apply).

Obviously DE past is a huge part of him to, but as I said the reason why it feels so abstract to me is because I really did not see him doing anything bad as DE, except selling Potters for Voldemort.

And that in a way makes me agreeing with you, I guess. It is because we do not see Snape doing nothing bad as DE, his redemption feels to you as only making up for his part in Lily's death, yes? Oh boy, I think I am doing circular reasoning here. I guess I am know even more curious what is your definition of redeemed character. Pretty please?


> 
> Alla:
> > Zuco in Avatar was lovely.
> 
> Magpie:
> Ha. I remember writing a whole piece on him called "And THAT'S a redemption story!" He's like a whole different person, but at the same time clearly the person he was all along.

Alla:

Well, seems that we both love Zuco's redemption. Would it be fair to say then that you see redemption as character while remaining his core, at the same time changing in how he looks at the world, and people around him? I mean, I agree that Zuco changes significantly, becomes more open more, I don't know, joyful, understands what he really wants in life, etc and at the same time remains loyal as he always was and wanting to lead his nation, etc.

But is it the only type of redemption that works for you? I mean, Zuco is a teenager after all, yes he is a teenager in the show where kids have adults responsibilities, but what I am trying to say is that it must at least a little easier for him to realize that his father is a murderous maniac and pursue his own needs in the world?

It must be much harder to change completely for the adult like Snape?

Oh, but he came to Dumbledore when he was not that much older than Zuco. Hm, I seem to be doing arguing with myself part quite well, lol.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon May 11 03:02:19 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 03:02:19 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu80dc+s1gq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu84fr+8hfp@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> 
> I am just curious what is your definition of greater redemption? I mean, I see Snape as making up for more than just killing Lily, but for being DE in general. I mean, it is not like he is trying to atone for his part in getting Lily killed while trying to continue DE activities on the other fronts? Or maybe I am totally misunderstanding you. I was just trying to say that to me his redemption did not work because I saw him and Harry as main conflict in his life, and to me he was not redeemed from that like at all (obviously if one thinks Snape did not need to be redeemed from that, it does not apply).

Magpie:
That's part of it for me too. I meant that even though he'd turned away from the DEs (that totally didn't work out and they killed Lily) he was still picking on kids in school and being generally unpleasant and not getting over his personal grudges. He creates the conflict with Harry and never gets over that either, it seems. Not that this keeps him from protecting Harry as part of his penance for Lily, of course.

Alla:
> And that in a way makes me agreeing with you, I guess. It is because we do not see Snape doing nothing bad as DE, his redemption feels to you as only making up for his part in Lily's death, yes? Oh boy, I think I am doing circular reasoning here. I guess I am know even more curious what is your definition of redeemed character. Pretty please?

Magpie:
I think Snape redeemed himself for what we know about his bad work as a DE (telling the prophecy) in that he worked for the good side. But a redeemed character in general I think tends to have a bigger change in their overall outline. Like it's all about realizing how they were wrong in more than just that way. Ebenezer Scrooge, for instance, doesn't just give Bob Cratchitt a raise and get him a goose for Christmas because he doesn't want Tiny Tim to die, he sees how his whole previous outlook was wrong. 
 
 Alla:
> 
> Well, seems that we both love Zuco's redemption. Would it be fair to say then that you see redemption as character while remaining his core, at the same time changing in how he looks at the world, and people around him? I mean, I agree that Zuco changes significantly, becomes more open more, I don't know, joyful, understands what he really wants in life, etc and at the same time remains loyal as he always was and wanting to lead his nation, etc.

Magpie:
Yup, totally1

Alla: 
> But is it the only type of redemption that works for you? I mean, Zuco is a teenager after all, yes he is a teenager in the show where kids have adults responsibilities, but what I am trying to say is that it must at least a little easier for him to realize that his father is a murderous maniac and pursue his own needs in the world?
> 
> It must be much harder to change completely for the adult like Snape?

Magpie:
Not necessarily--Scrooge is older than Snape (and Snape's kind of stuck in his teenaged thinking anyway). But it's not even really that Snape's story didn't work for me. I just don't really think of him as a character that's a good example of a redeemed character. I guess I do feel like the person just needs to have a change of heart big enough that it's uplifting to read about. Snape seemed to definitely realize he was wrong for passing on the prophecy and therefore for joining Voldemort, but I don't know exactly he viewed it all. It just seemed very laser-focused on Lily. Like, if he'd really looked at himself and how he got to that point I'm not sure he'd have been so immediately belligerant to Harry. He continued the same cycle because he hadn't broken out of it, which is why I don't really think of him as being about redemption. I'd think penance rather than redemption. (Even though technically redemption is regret--he pays his debt with the job he does for Dumbledore.)

-m




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 03:19:47 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 03:19:47 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu80dc+s1gq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu85gj+ut7c@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> Well, seems that we both love Zuco's redemption. Would it be fair to say then that you see redemption as character while remaining his core, at the same time changing in how he looks at the world, and people around him? I mean, I agree that Zuco changes significantly, becomes more open more, I don't know, joyful, understands what he really wants in life, etc and at the same time remains loyal as he always was and wanting to lead his nation, etc.
> 
> But is it the only type of redemption that works for you? I mean, Zuco is a teenager after all, yes he is a teenager in the show where kids have adults responsibilities, but what I am trying to say is that it must at least a little easier for him to realize that his father is a murderous maniac and pursue his own needs in the world?
> 
> It must be much harder to change completely for the adult like Snape?
> 
> Oh, but he came to Dumbledore when he was not that much older than Zuco. Hm, I seem to be doing arguing with myself part quite well, lol.


Kemper now:
Speaking for myself, the difference I see between Zuko and Snape is how they came to be good.  Zuko's redemption is more thoughtful, more internal.  Zuko is not guilted into good, he wrestles with it based on what he learns from his uncle and what he's been taught by his dad.  Snape feels like a d-bag for putting Lily at risk and wants to save her not because he wants to be good but because he has the hawts for her. Seeking freedom from guilt is not the same as striving for deliverance from sin which is my definition of redemption.  

Going back to Anakin.  I like Snape more mostly because he didn't murder a temple of younglings.  Knowing that back story (screw you Lucas) makes it difficult to cheer the Anakin/Vader in Return of the Jedi.  Like Snape, he didn't turn to good because of thoughtful reflection (even though it seems that way), he turns 'good' because the Emperor was going to kill his son.  I know 'what if' situations are bullshit, but what if the Emperor let Luke live, would Vader have acted on his own to fight for good?  I sort of doubt it.  

My one knut :D

Kemper




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 03:34:01 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 03:34:01 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu85gj+ut7c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu86b9+79n3@eGroups.com>

> Kemper now:
> Speaking for myself, the difference I see between Zuko and Snape is how they came to be good.  Zuko's redemption is more thoughtful, more internal.  Zuko is not guilted into good, he wrestles with it based on what he learns from his uncle and what he's been taught by his dad.  Snape feels like a d-bag for putting Lily at risk and wants to save her not because he wants to be good but because he has the hawts for her. Seeking freedom from guilt is not the same as striving for deliverance from sin which is my definition of redemption.  

Alla:

Well yeah, I am just wondering if redemption could not different for different personalities. Maybe for Snape what started with Lily could have lead to some more general thing. I am not sure I do get the deliverance from sin part, but I have to sleep on it.

Kemper: 
> Going back to Anakin.  I like Snape more mostly because he didn't murder a temple of younglings.  Knowing that back story (screw you Lucas) makes it difficult to cheer the Anakin/Vader in Return of the Jedi.  <SNIP>

Alla:

Oh. Good thing I did not see that movie. Um, I will continue to ignore that I mean, cause THAT would make me reevaluate things a lot.

However, yes, as I said if I pretend I have not read it, the fact that what to me read as main conflict in the story was resolved, worked well.




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 04:30:43 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 04:30:43 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu86b9+79n3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu89lj+8sq9@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> Well yeah, I am just wondering if redemption could not different for different personalities. Maybe for Snape what started with Lily could have lead to some more general thing. I am not sure I do get the deliverance from sin part, but I have to sleep on it.

Kemper now:
Deliverance from sin = atonement = redemption.  Freedom from guilt = avoidance of accountability.  In Snape's case, I do feel he has recognized the evil of his actions but it was through avoidance of accountability rather than a desire to atone.

 
> Kemper: 
> > Going back to Anakin.  I like Snape more mostly because he didn't murder a temple of younglings.  Knowing that back story (screw you Lucas) makes it difficult to cheer the Anakin/Vader in Return of the Jedi.  <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> Oh. Good thing I did not see that movie. Um, I will continue to ignore that I mean, cause THAT would make me reevaluate things a lot.
> 
> However, yes, as I said if I pretend I have not read it, the fact that what to me read as main conflict in the story was resolved, worked well.

Kemper now:
Alla, I'm so sorry for not adding spoiler space!
But you bring up an interesting idea regarding episode 4-6 of Star Wars:  taken by itself, does Anakin redeem himself?  I still don't think so.  30 minutes or so before the Emperor is about to kill Luke with Crucio, Vader is all 'so you have a sister, maybe she wants to go to a daddy/daughter darkside dance.'  I find it hard to believe true struggle with that (paraphrased) comment.

Kemper




From predigirl1 at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 05:56:46 2009
From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 22:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Star Trek
In-Reply-To: <gu4qva+hbkp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <96768.41071.qm@web63706.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

II'm wiggling like jello over this movie! I wish I was with either one of you!
?
Alex Hogan

--- On Sat, 5/9/09, kempermentor <kempermentor at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: kempermentor <kempermentor at yahoo.com>
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Star Trek
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, May 9, 2009, 4:01 PM








> Karen:
> going to try for the third time to see it tomorrow.
> ...
> Still I wish I could find an another trekker in Toronto to treat it really should be shared.

Kemper now:
So do you mean you went to theater twice and couldn't get tickets or that you called around twice to see if someone wanted to see the movie with you?

I saw it alone though I suppose if I went with someone then I would have talked about with them about the awesomeness instead being inclined to share my excitement here. The showing I saw started at 11pm. I wanted to talk about it at 1:45am when I got home, but no one was up except for the ever ready to listen or talk: HPfGU-OTChatter.

Kemper

















      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 05:58:11 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 05:58:11 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu89lj+8sq9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu8epj+pnqb@eGroups.com>


> me ealier:
> ...  I find it hard to believe true struggle with that (paraphrased) comment.

Me now:
I mean to say that I didn't see Vader struggling between good/evil.  I see him embracing evil or at least holding hands with it.

Kemper




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 06:06:53 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 06:06:53 -0000
Subject: Star Trek
In-Reply-To: <002701c9d1c4$18f0a8b0$4ad1fa10$@com>
Message-ID: <gu8f9t+jma1@eGroups.com>

> md:
> I just took my 10 yr old daughter who choose it over Hanna Montana with her little sister. This was the first new Star Trek since dad died in Feb, it was really hard because it was the only thing he ever went to the theater to see and that and RPG games (playstation, NES) where all we had in common. ...
> ... I highly recommend you get to the comic-shop and buy the 4-part graphic novel of the films back-story, it really fleshes it out. ...

Kemper now:
I think its speaks highly of your daughter to choose Star Trek.  She rules.  My condolences.

Thanks for the recommendation.  I'll be going to my comic book shop tomorrow to pick it/them up!  

Kemper
 






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon May 11 06:30:31 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 06:30:31 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <285012.97950.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gu8gm7+a5aj@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, danielle dassero <drdara at ...> wrote:

Danielle:
> Hi I was hoping for some help. I am hoping to convince my friend that Christians can love HP and still be Christians. When her daughter is old enough, I want to introduce her to the wonderful world of HP. So I am hoping for some easy sites that will illustrate, I know that there are sites out there. But am hoping that if any of you guys have been down this road, you can point me to some good sites. I am having ear surgery next week, so I will have time to compile the info down for her. Thanks

Geoff:
Not a website, but something which might interest your friend 
would be to read "The Gospel According to Harry Potter" by 
Connie Neal. 

She is an American Christian writer who has worked with young 
people and written many books including a number about Harry.

This book was published a few years ago and covers the stories 
up to Goblet of Fire, picking out themes to illustrate her arguments.

As A Christian who came from suspicion to support with the HP 
books, I think it's a very good publication with which to help folk 
like your friend.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 17:02:15 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:02:15 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu7t5h+ld6p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu9lmn+bdmc@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> Alla: 
> > I also in a way find Snape's redemption from being DE to be strangely well, abstract in a same way.
> 
> Magpie:
> Or maybe the problem is that it's the opposite. I mean, Snape started out as an innocent kid who loved Lily. But then he turned into a DE who loved Lily. And then he got Lily killed, and wanted to make that up, so he did.
> 
> And that's all he did. That's why I don't really see it as redemptive. It's redemption in the most literal sense since he does pay back the crime he wanted to pay back, but it's just not a greater redemption that I can see. He continues to reject that, as we see in his relationships with other people, old and new.

Carol responds:

I'm not sure what you mean by "he continues to reject that." He doesn't want to be thought of as "weak," perhaps realizing that continuing to love a dead woman is a weakness. At any rate, he doesn't want to "wear his emotions on his sleeve" where others (especially Voldemort) can see them and manipulate them, which makes perfect sense in his position. 

It isn't just a matter of protecting Harry so that Lily won't have died in vain. He's also undermining Voldemort and doing his best to teach Potions or DADA in his own Snapish way. He protects the students in general when he has the opportunity; he cares enough about Draco to make the Unbreakable Vow for him (having already promised to kill Dumbledore for entirely humanitarian reasons), and he saves as many lives as he can. ("How many people have you watched die, Severus?" "Lately, only those whom I could not save.") He dies preventing Voldemort from knowing that Draco disarmed Dumbledore, making him the master of the sword, and his last act is to give Harry the memories that will enable him to defeat Voldemort (and understand Snape).

It's never openly stated, but his remorse seems to include his having become a DE in the first place and supported Voldemort in whatever fashion. (As far as we know, all he did was spy. He also watched people did, but there's no evidence that he ever killed anyone.)

You may find his redemption unsatisfactory, but I have no doubt that in acting courageously, continuing risking being tortured or killed, all for love (which is also Ron's and Mrs. Weasley's and Lily's primary motive), he's redeemed in JKR's eyes and Harry's--as he is in mine.

At any rate, I don't know what more we can expect from a man like Snape, who can never be nice (though he manages civility on occasion). Yes, he nurses grudges, but so do many unquestionably good characters. Yes, he wants revenge, but so do many unquestionably good characters. the primary difference between him and Harry is that Harry eventually learned, through Snape, to forgive. Snape never had that opportunity.

Carol, who wonders just what it takes to achieve redemption if years of self-endangerment to make up for our greatest sin don't accomplish that




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 17:25:11 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:25:11 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu8epj+pnqb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu9n1n+k65u@eGroups.com>

Kemper earlier:
> > ...  I find it hard to believe true struggle with that (paraphrased) comment.
> 
Kemper again:
> I mean to say that I didn't see Vader struggling between good/evil.  I see him embracing evil or at least holding hands with it.


*
*
*
*
*
*
*

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

*
*
*

Carol responds:
But Darth What's His Name manipulates Anakin, using Anakin's love for his wife and his fear that she'll die in childbirth. The Jedi aren't supposed to love because of the conflict between personal desires and what I suppose we could call "the greater good."

Now granted, something resembling love (and probably regret for being the worst father ever) motivates Darth Vader to turn on the emperor in the end, but love in "Star Wars" works very differently than in the HP books. (Unrequited) love motivates Snape's remorse; Anakin/Vader never feels remorse at all, as far as I can tell, and he turns to the Dark Side to begin with because of his love (all of which ironically backfires as she dies anyway and he's practically burned to death before becoming Darth What's His Name's right-hand man). 

At any rate, I agree that it's not so much a struggle between good and evil as between his love for a woman and the fight against evil. Oddly, love wins and so does evil. The feminists could have a field day with the Jedi's view of good.

Carol, no expert on the Star Wars films and wholly unable to follow the plot of the one about the clones





From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 17:28:06 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:28:06 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu9lmn+bdmc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu9n76+4vo4@eGroups.com>

> Carol signs off:
> Carol, who wonders just what it takes to achieve redemption if years of self-endangerment to make up for our greatest sin don't accomplish that

Kemper now:
It was his guilt that initiated the redemption which, to me, makes it a little less satisfactory of a redemption story.  No one is saying he wasn't brave with regard to putting his life at risk.  
I think you would like Avatar: The Last Airbender.  If you're library doesn't have them and you've found your way around torrents, then download soon!  It is a great story that will help show a satisfactory redemption story that will stop your wondering!!!  You won't regret it.

Kemper




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 17:29:46 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:29:46 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu9lmn+bdmc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu9naa+7d62@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
<snip> He [Snape] dies preventing Voldemort from knowing that Draco disarmed Dumbledore, making him the master of the sword, <snip>

Carol: "Making Draco the master of the Elder Wand," I meant. 

Carol, supposing that her fingers are so used to typing "sword" after all my Sword of Gryffindor posts that they can only spell "wand" with a conscious effort




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 17:33:29 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:33:29 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu9n1n+k65u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu9nh9+ar7a@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> 
> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
> 
> S
> P
> A
> C
> E
> 
> *
> *
> *
> 

Carol now:
What the heck good is spoiler space if the first part of the post is going to show up in the messages, anyway? Guess I should have written some nonspoiler text after the spoiler space!

My apologies if I gave anything away to those who haven't seen the film.

Carol, sighing with frustration at Yahoo!mort






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 17:55:00 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:55:00 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu9n76+4vo4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu9opk+2925@eGroups.com>

> > Carol signed off:
> > Carol, who wonders just what it takes to achieve redemption if years of self-endangerment to make up for our greatest sin don't accomplish that
> 
> Kemper now:
> It was his guilt that initiated the redemption which, to me, makes it a little less satisfactory of a redemption story.  No one is saying he wasn't brave with regard to putting his life at risk.  
> I think you would like Avatar: The Last Airbender.  If you're library doesn't have them and you've found your way around torrents, then download soon!  It is a great story that will help show a satisfactory redemption story that will stop your wondering!!!  You won't regret it.

>
Carol responds:
Thanks, Kemper. I'm still afraid of torrents (viruses, legal concerns, etc.) and I'm a bit busy with editing projects right now, but I'll look into it next time I go to the library.

As for guilt being the motivation for Snape's redemption, that's how redemption works in Christianity: you repent your sins as the first step toward atonement. 

Here's the General Confession used in a number of Christian churches. I copied it from a Methodist site, but it's identical to the one used in the Episcopal (and probably the Anglican) church:

"Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, maker of all things, judge of all men, we acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness which we from time to time most grievously have committed by thought, word, and deed against Your divine Majesty, provoking most justly your wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; the remembrance of them is grievous unto us. Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful Father for Your Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake."

Though Snape is not necessarily a Christian (he'd have made a great medieval Catholic!), he certainly "acknowledges and bewails" his "wickedness" in "word and deed," not against God but against Lily (and perhaps others). He "earnestly repents" and is "heartily sorry" for his "misdoings," and "the remembrance of them is grievous" to him. 

But Snape goes beyond remorse to active atonement. He can't undo his sin, but he can do his very best to make sure that Lily didn't die for nothing and to fight against the Dark Wizard who murdered her. In essence, rather than trusting to repentance alone, he takes atonement into his own hands. (Maybe he'd have been happier trusting God to forgive him, but, then, he wouldn't have been Snape.)

Carol, who thinks that Snape's redemption would have been unrealistic if it involved a complete personality change like Scrooge's and is sure that he's earned peace and happiness in the afterlife, whether it's a Christian Heaven or not




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 18:44:05 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:44:05 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu9opk+2925@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu9rll+aja9@eGroups.com>

> Carol, who thinks that Snape's redemption would have been unrealistic if it involved a complete personality change like Scrooge's and is sure that he's earned peace and happiness in the afterlife, whether it's a Christian Heaven or not <SNIP of the whole post>


Alla:

Actually I do not need complete personality change at all for the redemption storyline to work for me. I acknowledge that I like the redemption storylines that Magpie was describing - Zuco does not undergo personality transplant, he just discovers what he really wants to achieve in the world and consequently changes how he views the world and people around him. His personality remains the same and at the same time it shines with new colours and he becomes a better person to be arounf with if that makes sense.

HOWEVER, I certainly do not think that those redemption storylines are the only storylines that I will call redemption.

With Snape to me it is much simpler, it is not that I do not feel that he was redeemed enough from being a DE, quite the contrary. I think he was. 

He however to me just **was not redeemed** at all from what I consider his other thing he needed to be redeemed from - his hatred of Harry, which to me at least just as important for him to be redeemed from.

I will not be arguing about whether he really hated Harry or not, my opinion on this matter is not changing. To me he hated Harry with the 
passion till the end of his life.

So, really the answer to your question in one of your other posts on this thread is very simple for me - for Snape to achieve redemption I needed to see him acknowledging that he was wrong in his hatred of innocent child. If he would have done that, I would have said that he achieved redemption.

Now, of course, if he stopped hating Harry but remained a DE I would not have considered him to achieve full redemption.

But to me his DE activities were always on the background till we knew that he sold Potters to Voldemort and artistically his redemption from that just does not give me a great emotional impact.

JMO,

Alla




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 18:49:38 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:49:38 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu89lj+8sq9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gu9s02+7e94@eGroups.com>

> Kemper now:
> Alla, I'm so sorry for not adding spoiler space!
> But you bring up an interesting idea regarding episode 4-6 of Star Wars:  taken by itself, does Anakin redeem himself?  I still don't think so.  30 minutes or so before the Emperor is about to kill Luke with Crucio, Vader is all 'so you have a sister, maybe she wants to go to a daddy/daughter darkside dance.'  I find it hard to believe true struggle with that (paraphrased) comment.


Alla:

Oh, no no Kemper please do not worry! Films were out a LONG time ago, I had seen the first one and second one, and it was my own choice not to see the third one, no problem at all.

But yes, to me based on the original movies alone Anakin was redeemed. I sort of trusted Luke when he said he feels struggle between good and evil in his mind and to me it was very satisfactory resolved.




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 20:04:43 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 20:04:43 -0000
Subject: Star Trek
In-Reply-To: <gu3ikh+de5q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gua0cr+2vc6@eGroups.com>

---  "kempermentor" <kempermentor at ...> wrote:
>
> I just got out.  No one needs to see this movie, but everyone should!
> 
> The action doesn't stop but you don't feel like you need a 
> break ...
> 
> You can't do that with this movie.  But that's okay because 
> you won't even be aware that you need to use the toilet until
> the credits roll ... because you will be so engrossed with 
> the interpersonal dynamics of the students at the Academy and
> the crew of the Enterprise.
> 
> One happy surprise was the hint of waybackstory to Spock as a
> kid.  It sucked me in and was way too short.  
> MORE TWEEN!SPOCK !!!
> 
> So, of course there was Kid!Kirk.  I could have done without him.  
> ...
> 
> But whatevs.  
> 
> I can't imagine another movie this summer being so full of YES!
> 
> Kemper
>


bboyminn:

WITH MINOR SPOILERS -

I just saw it yesterday afternoon. I like the matin?e because
they are cheap and usually not crowded.

Absolutely, this was the best Star Trek ever. I'm a fan but
not an obsessed Trekkie. But the truth is, the old crew and
especially William Shatner, were just getting on my nerves; the
same old same old.

With one exception -

SPOILER ALERT -

The Old Spock, Lenard Nemoy, was brilliant in this movie and
I loved seeing him, and thought he did a brilliant job.

The new characters were spot on in my opinion. I loved them all
especially Anton Yelchin as Chekov; brillant.

Some critics didn't like the new 'Bones' McCoy, but I think they
did a brilliant job of imagining his younger self. I thought it
was spot on.

The new young Spock was also brilliant and very much as I would
imagine a young Spock to be. I especially like the way he 
captured the eyebrow movements, which was about the only way
that Spock every displayed any emotion or reaction. 

The very young 'tween Spock was also brilliantly done. I loved 
that part. 

J.J. Abrams calls this a 'reboot' of the Star Trek franchise,
and I think he is absolutely right; Star Trek is reborn.

The movie leaves you totally satisfied, but absolutely wanting 
more. 

Most important, this wasn't just a crash bang shoot'em up movie,
I really engaged with these characters. They make me love
Star Trek all over again.

I can't wait for more, BUT the future depends on the writing.
If the franchise descends into merely excuses for things to 
blow up, then I think it is over for Star Trek, but if they
can continue to combine the actions we expect with compelling
characters and story lines, then I think there is hope for a 
least a couple more movies in the franchise. 

Steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon May 11 22:07:01 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 22:07:01 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu5fg2+8dqd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gua7i5+dbi1@eGroups.com>

---  "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> ...
> 
> You know, I do feel sympathy for your POV. I'm the
> same way with Darth Vader. The man blew up Naboo, for
> goodness sake.
> 
> When he told Luke that he was his father, that seemed
> important to me because it affected Luke--but it didn't
> change my opinion of Vader one little bit. And when
> Luke went to go save him, I just shook my head. Could
> not have cared less that Anakin got redeemed.
> 
> Twenty years later, I went to see the new SW films--
> and got all the backstory on Anakin/Vader. Still don't
> care about him.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> This was really an example in Snape's discussion for those who do not go on Main, but this got me thinking about redemption stories in literature and film and what works and does not work for me. And I decided that I would love to hear what others think.
> 
> 
> Redemption of Anakin actually worked amazingly well for me and in such short period of time. It worked for me, because to me the story of his relationship with Luke was driving the series, therefore Anakin's redemption from what he did on the personal level totally worked for me.
> 
> Redemption of Snape did not work for me because as I mentioned on Main to me Snape was not redeemed at all from what I felt was one of two his main misgivings (how he treated kids), but now when I think about Anakin, I actually realized another reason why his redemption from being a DE did not work for me.
> 
> ...

bboyminn:

I think it depends on what you mean by redemption. If you mean
that a character totally turns around, the sinner becomes saint,
then no I don't see that in either case.

But I do think there is redemption in the sense that the 
inhuman become human. We can see Darth and Snape has inhuman
monsters without redeeming qualities, though more so with
Darth. He kill unsparingly and killed million, perhaps billions
of innocent people. How can we understand that?

I think that last question is the key to the inhuman becoming
human. Eventually we see Darth's backstory and come to 
understand how and why he chose the path he did.

The same is true of Snape, while we still don't like him, we
see a degree of humanity in him. We see what motivated him,
we can understand why he did the things he did.

And in seeing that humanity and understanding the characters
motivation, I think we see redemption of a sort. 

But understanding and even in cases where we can forgive, that
doesn't mean we completely blow off the actions of the 
character. Even if we understand and forgive, even if we see
the underlying humanity and the driving motivations, they must
still stand responsible for their actions.

We don't legally forgive Darth simply because we can feel some
sympathy for his circumstances. 

We don't fully forgive Snape, even though we can now understand
what was driving him, the guilt, the shame, the originally
misguided values, etc.... 

So, I think in the metaphorical sense, seeing the transition from
seeming inhuman to human is the transition of redemption in the
story.

But in none of the examples, does this free a person of the
responsibilities for their action. No one, in this sense of
redemption goes from guilty to innocent in the metaphorical,
social, or legal sense. 

In the case of Harry using Unforgivables, which has also been
hotly discussed, Harry doesn't make the transition for guilty
to innocent. He is guilty. He is wrong. But his action in
context are also understandable and can be overlooked along
side the much greater things he accomplished. 

That 'much greater things' exclusion doesn't always hold. A 
serial murder could be very benevolent and generous, but we
still hold him accountable. So, JUST BECAUSE you do 'greater
things' is not a free pass. But in Harry case, I think it is,
most in the wizard world would tell him he was wrong, but also
that they understand the circumstances and are willing to 
overlook it even as they condemn it. 

So, in the broad sense, I think this is what we are looking for,
to understand and, in the most general sense, forgive the bad guy,
we must see the man in the monster, we must see the human in 
the apparent inhuman. 

I think they were successful in this limited sense of 
redemption in both Snape and Darth's case.

Sinner to Saint = No.
Inhuman to human = I say, Yes. 

Steve/bboyminn




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 00:08:30 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 00:08:30 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu9opk+2925@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guaelu+87i7@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Carol, who thinks that Snape's redemption would have been 
> unrealistic if it involved a complete personality change 
> like Scrooge's and is sure that he's earned peace and happiness 
> in the afterlife, whether it's a Christian Heaven or not


zanooda:

Oh, Carol, then you would have liked a picture I saw on one of the Russian HP sites: Harry talks to little Albus Severus on the platform nine and three quarters, and next to them stands Snape with big black wings on his back. I suppose it's a hint that Snape became little Al's guardian angel, LOL. 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 01:10:07 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 01:10:07 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu9rll+aja9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guai9f+8871@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Carol, who thinks that Snape's redemption would have been unrealistic if it involved a complete personality change like Scrooge's and is sure that he's earned peace and happiness in the afterlife, whether it's a Christian Heaven or not <SNIP of the whole post>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Actually I do not need complete personality change at all for the redemption storyline to work for me. I acknowledge that I like the redemption storylines that Magpie was describing - Zuco does not undergo personality transplant, he just discovers what he really wants to achieve in the world and consequently changes how he views the world and people around him. His personality remains the same and at the same time it shines with new colours and he becomes a better person to be arounf with if that makes sense.
> 
> HOWEVER, I certainly do not think that those redemption storylines are the only storylines that I will call redemption.
> 
> With Snape to me it is much simpler, it is not that I do not feel that he was redeemed enough from being a DE, quite the contrary. I think he was. 
> 
> He however to me just **was not redeemed** at all from what I consider his other thing he needed to be redeemed from - his hatred of Harry, which to me at least just as important for him to be redeemed from.
> 
> I will not be arguing about whether he really hated Harry or not, my opinion on this matter is not changing. To me he hated Harry with the 
> passion till the end of his life.
> 
> So, really the answer to your question in one of your other posts on this thread is very simple for me - for Snape to achieve redemption I needed to see him acknowledging that he was wrong in his hatred of innocent child. If he would have done that, I would have said that he achieved redemption.
> 
> Now, of course, if he stopped hating Harry but remained a DE I would not have considered him to achieve full redemption.
> 
> But to me his DE activities were always on the background till we knew that he sold Potters to Voldemort and artistically his redemption from that just does not give me a great emotional impact.
> 
> JMO,
> 
> Alla
>
Carol:
I see. I can't imagine him remaining a DE and not hating Harry, though. In fact, there'd have been no redemption story at all if he'd remained a DE. And wouldn't ceasing to hate Harry be a complete personality transformation? I think it would.

I guess I just don't give the "hating Harry" storyline the same weight that you do. A few sarcastic comments, some unfairly docked points, are, to me, completely outweighed by Snape's saving Harry's life in SS/PS and by all his other sacrifices. And, of course, Ron and Harry could not have destroyed the locket Horcrux had it not been for Snape.

Anyway, I understand and respect your feelings. It's just one of those points that we'll never agree on. 

Carol, who thinks that, in the end, Snape's sarcasm ceased to matter to Harry




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 01:20:45 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 01:20:45 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <guaelu+87i7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guaitd+tlq2@eGroups.com>

Carol signed off:
> > Carol, who thinks that Snape's redemption would have been  unrealistic if it involved a complete personality change like Scrooge's and is sure that he's earned peace and happiness in the afterlife, whether it's a Christian Heaven or not
 
> Oh, Carol, then you would have liked a picture I saw on one of the Russian HP sites: Harry talks to little Albus Severus on the platform nine and three quarters, and next to them stands Snape with big black wings on his back. I suppose it's a hint that Snape became little Al's guardian angel, LOL.

Carol responds:
Black wings, huh? I'd have liked green and silver better, but I guess they wouldn't seem Snapelike. If you run across the picture again, please send me the link offlist. I'd like to see it--even though I envision Snape and all the other dead characters staying put in the afterlife unless someone makes another Resurrection Stone.

Carol, who wishes peace and happiness to the three "good" Marauders and Lily as well as Snape but isn't sure what to wish for "Wormy" (other than oblivion) 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 01:23:11 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 01:23:11 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <guai9f+8871@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guaj1v+pd3i@eGroups.com>

> Carol:
> I see. I can't imagine him remaining a DE and not hating Harry, though. In fact, there'd have been no redemption story at all if he'd remained a DE. And wouldn't ceasing to hate Harry be a complete personality transformation? I think it would.

Alla:

One wise person once told me (in RL) that most people do not change or do not change drastically because it is too much work. And I agree with him completely. However that does not mean that I think that such change is not possible. No, I do not think Snape stop to hate Harry would necessarily be complete personality transformation.

I would not expect him to hug and kiss Harry or anything like that, just to acknowledge that I was wrong and you are not your father, Potter.

No, I cannot imagine him remaining a DE and not hating Harry either. What I meant was more like what happened to Anakin - to me his redemption from going to Dark side was implied. He never specifically says that I am so sorry that I blew up Naboo (sp?), doesn't he?

But to me when he chooses his son, he chooses what Luke stands for, the light, so if Snape was done the similar way, I would say that it would be more explicit redemption.

By the way, when I say that this kind of redemption would have worked for me, that again does not mean that I am unhappy with storyline that occured, quite the contrary, that storyline would have been much more unsettling for me and indeed would have caused me to go back and reevaluate. As it stands, as far as I am concerned at the end Snape was just as nasty as I always thought of him.

But whether I like or do not like the storyline or character, I would have been of course forced to say that yes, Snape for me is redeemed completely.

Carol:
<SNIP>
> Anyway, I understand and respect your feelings. It's just one of those points that we'll never agree on. 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Yes, no, we won't.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue May 12 03:31:58 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 03:31:58 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gu9lmn+bdmc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guaqje+nvq2@eGroups.com>

> > Magpie:
> > Or maybe the problem is that it's the opposite. I mean, Snape started out as an innocent kid who loved Lily. But then he turned into a DE who loved Lily. And then he got Lily killed, and wanted to make that up, so he did.
> > 
> > And that's all he did. That's why I don't really see it as redemptive. It's redemption in the most literal sense since he does pay back the crime he wanted to pay back, but it's just not a greater redemption that I can see. He continues to reject that, as we see in his relationships with other people, old and new.
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "he continues to reject that." He doesn't want to be thought of as "weak," perhaps realizing that continuing to love a dead woman is a weakness. At any rate, he doesn't want to "wear his emotions on his sleeve" where others (especially Voldemort) can see them and manipulate them, which makes perfect sense in his position. 

Magpie:
I mean he continues to reject forgiveness and friendship or trying to get over his old resentments. 

I did say that he fulfills the literal sense of the word. He commits a crime in his mind in setting Voldemort against Lily and pays for it by devoting his life to defending her son. He's not in debt when he dies, sin-wise. He was heroic and self-sacrificing. The good side owes their success to him.

But I don't think what I'm talking about requires a personality change. Scrooge may have had one in Dickens, but his change of heart didn't require it either. Alla said she didn't see him paying for things like bullying Neville and that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Or his failure to get over the same resentments that led to his original trouble to begin with. I really don't see him ever seeing any place he was wrong except for the one big one. The guy continued to make his life more miserable than it needed to be, because there's a lot he just never got.

Alla:
However that does not mean that I think that such change is not possible. No, I do not think Snape stop to hate Harry would necessarily be complete personality transformation.

Magpie:
Exactly. He had no actual reason to hate Harry anyway. His hatred of him is, for me, part of the sign that his redemption is limited. (Not that Snape's alone in not looking at himself that clearly, he's just unfortunately not one of the people with all the qualities that make up for it.)

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 05:23:25 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 05:23:25 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <guaqje+nvq2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gub14d+tn26@eGroups.com>

Magpie:
> Exactly. He had no actual reason to hate Harry anyway. His hatred of him is, for me, part of the sign that his redemption is limited. (Not that Snape's alone in not looking at himself that clearly, he's just unfortunately not one of the people with all the qualities that make up for it.)

Carol responds:

I don't agree that personality flaws would make his redemption limited especially since, as you said, the good side owes him so much. Look at Lupin, Sirius, and James, all of them flawed and none of them really regretting what they did to Snape. Lupin, of course, dies thinking that Snape is the enemy, so he never gets a chance to lose his newly acquired vengefulness. And yet all of them, flawed as they are, seem happy in the afterlife, and Lupin has his (relative) youth and health back.

I see no reason why Snape, who worked hard and suffered much and was much more important to the good side than any of them, would not also be redeemed, having paid for his major sins, and now, perhaps with their gratitude and understanding, he can finally lose his bitterness and his grudges and become the man he could have been if only Lily had loved him and there had been no Voldemort.

Call it wishful thinking if you like, but I see the afterlife as a condition of peace in which a person can understand himself without suffering the pangs of remorse and misunderstandings are put to rest.

Unless, of course, you die unrepentant. We glimpse the state of Voldemort's fragmented soul, but what about Bellatrix, who created no Horcruxes but was just as evil and just as unrepentant as her master in other ways?

And what about Peter Pettigrew, who felt a tiny twinge of mercy or something like it at the end?

I wish I knew what JKR thinks is in store for them. But Snape's fate would have to be better. Otherwise, remorse is pointless and so is atonement.

Of course, in the living WW, his reputation is restored. He's a hero and he'll have his portrait in the headmaster's office, and Harry has preserved his name in giving it to his second son. Exonerated, I suppose is the word. And, more important, he's completely forgiven. For Harry not to forgive him after all that he's done would be for Harry to engage in pettiness himself.

Carol, who suspects that pettiness in the classroom doesn't count in the afterlife, either, or not for much




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue May 12 11:56:55 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:56:55 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <guaelu+87i7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gubo67+g328@eGroups.com>

 
> zanooda:
> 
> Oh, Carol, then you would have liked a picture I saw on one of the Russian HP sites: Harry talks to little Albus Severus on the platform nine and three quarters, and next to them stands Snape with big black wings on his back. I suppose it's a hint that Snape became little Al's guardian angel, LOL.


Potioncat:
Instead of sending it to Carol off list, please post link---if you come across it again.  ;-)

But the thought of guardian angels made me imagine Snape's reaction to having to put up with yet another generation of Potters. He had been something of a guardian to Harry in real life.

So---just make believe--if Harry named his son with the idea of choosing a guardian angel for him, do you think he would prefer Albus or Severus? 





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue May 12 14:27:31 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:27:31 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gub14d+tn26@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guc10j+kpqc@eGroups.com>

> Carol responds:

> I see no reason why Snape, who worked hard and suffered much and was much more important to the good side than any of them, would not also be redeemed, having paid for his major sins, and now, perhaps with their gratitude and understanding, he can finally lose his bitterness and his grudges and become the man he could have been if only Lily had loved him and there had been no Voldemort.

Magpie:
But he didn't lose his grudges and bitterness, is my point. Sure we can imagine him any way we want in the afterlife, but that's something we do ourselves, not something in the story. I'm talking about his life here, not where he'd go in the afterlife. I would say Snape repentent for the things he repented in life as far as I can see. Sure he's not Voldemort--he never was. And he obviously has the ability to repent because he did repent certain things.

Carol:
> Carol, who suspects that pettiness in the classroom doesn't count in the afterlife, either, or not for much

Magpie:
As I said, I was just talking about Snape as a living person. But I don't know why pettiness in the classroom wouldn't count for much. If you spend your life making people unhappy in minor ways that's part of who you are. 

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 14:57:41 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:57:41 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gubo67+g328@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guc2p5+jnjq@eGroups.com>

zanooda:
> > 
> > Oh, Carol, then you would have liked a picture I saw on one of the Russian HP sites: Harry talks to little Albus Severus on the platform nine and three quarters, and next to them stands Snape with big black wings on his back. I suppose it's a hint that Snape became little Al's guardian angel, LOL.
> 
Potioncat:
> Instead of sending it to Carol off list, please post link---if you come across it again.  ;-)
> 
> But the thought of guardian angels made me imagine Snape's reaction to having to put up with yet another generation of Potters. He had been something of a guardian to Harry in real life.
> 
> So---just make believe--if Harry named his son with the idea of choosing a guardian angel for him, do you think he would prefer Albus or Severus?
>
Carol responds:
Since Dumbledore was preparing Harry to destroy Horcruxes and be killed (or "killed") by Voldemort while Snape was protecting Harry, it seems like an easy choice--especially since guardian angels don't normally speak to the people they're guarding! :-)

Carol, who prefers the idea of a timeless, ageless, painless, "griefless" afterlife where all grudges and resentments are forgotten




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 15:12:49 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:12:49 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <guc10j+kpqc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guc3lh+vop4@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > Carol responds:
> 
> > I see no reason why Snape, who worked hard and suffered much and was much more important to the good side than any of them, would not also be redeemed, having paid for his major sins, and now, perhaps with their gratitude and understanding, he can finally lose his bitterness and his grudges and become the man he could have been if only Lily had loved him and there had been no Voldemort.
> 
> Magpie:
> But he didn't lose his grudges and bitterness, is my point. Sure we can imagine him any way we want in the afterlife, but that's something we do ourselves, not something in the story. I'm talking about his life here, not where he'd go in the afterlife. I would say Snape repentent for the things he repented in life as far as I can see. Sure he's not Voldemort--he never was. And he obviously has the ability to repent because he did repent certain things.
> 
> Carol:
> > Carol, who suspects that pettiness in the classroom doesn't count in the afterlife, either, or not for much
> 
> Magpie:
> As I said, I was just talking about Snape as a living person. But I don't know why pettiness in the classroom wouldn't count for much. If you spend your life making people unhappy in minor ways that's part of who you are. 

Carol:
It wouldn't count for much because, as you said, it's minor. If he'd treated Harry as Marvolo gaunt treated Merope, it would be another matter. The chief person he made unhappy was himself.

And you're talking about redemption, which is why I brought in the afterlife.

And there's always that last second of life. JKR says that he died hating Harry, but, if so, why care enough to show Harry, whom he thinks is also going to die, all those memories instead of just enough to show that he was Dumbledore's man? And, yes, he wanted to look into Harry's eyes to see Lily, but that also means that at last, instead of just seeing James in Harry, he saw Lily, too.

Besides, redemption has nothing to do with remaining imperfect. It has to do with expiating and atoning for a sin. And even if the sin he had in mind was revealing the Prophecy (and, by extension, joining the DEs in the first place), he did enough good for the cause and risked his life frequently enough to atone for ten sins. He saved Harry's life at least once (I'd say that conjuring those stretchers and getting four unconscious people off the grounds and away from the werewolf also counts--and, no, he didn't turn Black over to the Dementors; he turned him over to Dumbledore). He also saved the lives of Dumbledore, Katie Bell, and Draco, as well as, apparently, people that Dumbledore didn't even know about ("lately only those whom I could not save"). He came to believe in the anti-Voldemort cause and was, IMO and Harry's, its bravest soldier.

Petty sarcasm and point-docking and continued resentment of the boys who humiliated him when he was also a boy are human traits, probably unavoidable in a man as unloved as Snape was. It's impossible for a man like that to become a saint. At least he helped Harry to the very end, and at least he was angered by the idea of sending him as a "pig to the slaughter."

Obviously, we're never going to agree here, but I think that Harry has it right.

Carol, whose favorite moment in the book was discovering that Harry had named his son Albus Severus




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue May 12 15:58:46 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:58:46 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <guc3lh+vop4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guc6bm+1ild@eGroups.com>

> > Carol:
> > > Carol, who suspects that pettiness in the classroom doesn't count in the afterlife, either, or not for much
> > 
> > Magpie:
> > As I said, I was just talking about Snape as a living person. But I don't know why pettiness in the classroom wouldn't count for much. If you spend your life making people unhappy in minor ways that's part of who you are. 
> 
> Carol:
> It wouldn't count for much because, as you said, it's minor. If he'd treated Harry as Marvolo gaunt treated Merope, it would be another matter. The chief person he made unhappy was himself.
> 
> And you're talking about redemption, which is why I brought in the afterlife.

Magpie:
That's probably where the difference lies, since I don't see redemption as having much to do with the afterlife. The fact that Snape continued to make himself miserable and reject connections he could have had, is what makes it not a redemption story for me. He might spend eternity sitting on a happy cloud, or find peace at last, sure. He's not in the final group around Harry (where Lily is) because he died hating on most of them.

Carol: 
> And there's always that last second of life. JKR says that he died hating Harry, but, if so, why care enough to show Harry, whom he thinks is also going to die, all those memories instead of just enough to show that he was Dumbledore's man? And, yes, he wanted to look into Harry's eyes to see Lily, but that also means that at last, instead of just seeing James in Harry, he saw Lily, too.

Magpie:
Because he wanted the truth about him known. I see nothing in that scene that indicates he didn't hate Harry like he always did. But he was dying and Harry had Lily's eyes at least. 

I know that redemption doesn't mean perfect and Snape does atone for the sin he himself thought was unforgivable--that of getting Lily killed. I just tend to think of redemption stories as a lot more than Snape.

Carol:
> Petty sarcasm and point-docking and continued resentment of the boys who humiliated him when he was also a boy are human traits, probably unavoidable in a man as unloved as Snape was.

Magpie:
And a lot of Snape's being unloved was due to his pettiness and continued resentment. It's human, of course. Everybody in the book is human.

Carol:> 
> Obviously, we're never going to agree here, but I think that Harry has it right.

Magpie:
That Snape was brave? Sure. I still think it's bizarre of him to name his child after Snape who hated him, but that's his business. Knowing Harry I tend to imagine that he's long since replaced the Snape he knew with a more palatable version by the time he has kids. But he certainly was brave.

-m





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 16:34:59 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:34:59 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <guc6bm+1ild@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guc8fj+93fc@eGroups.com>

Magpie:
<SNIP>
He's not in the final group around Harry (where Lily
is) because he died hating on most of them. <SNIP>

Alla:

It is not even that he is not in the final group around Harry is what makes it very telling to me. I mean, after all Albus is not there either, since Harry thinks he betrayed him, etc.

It is that he is not coming to chat with Harry in Kings Cross, it is that he is not with Dumbledore. I mean, supposedly Dumbledore is the only person for whom Snape had some sort of affection, he saved his life, he killed him on request. Would make a total sense to me if two people who need Harry forgiveness the most will come chat with him, but nope the only thing that Dumbledore would spare Snape is ? poor Severus, when he learns that his plan did not work out.

Something tells me that Snape will not be sitting on cloud nine in Potterverse after life either, but it is just my opinion of course.

Magpie:
Because he wanted the truth about him known. I see nothing in that scene that
indicates he didn't hate Harry like he always did. But he was dying and Harry
had Lily's eyes at least. <SNIP>

Alla:
Agreed.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 17:34:35 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 17:34:35 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <guc6bm+1ild@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gucbvb+g4dh@eGroups.com>

Magpie wrote:
> <snip> He's not in the final group around Harry (where Lily is) because he died hating on most of them.

Carol responds:
I don't think that's the reason he isn't there. (Neither is Dumbledore, or poor Tonks.) It's because Harry wanted the people he loved best to be with him at the end to inspire him and give him courage. Lupin, of course, doesn't fully qualify, but he's one of the Marauders and perhaps inseparable in Harry's mind from them. Also, he feels guilty for his harsh words to Lupin (IMO, well deserved) and seems to want the chance to make up with him. Snape would have been out of place in that group. Harry is grateful to him later and publicly vindicates him, but that doesn't mean he'd consider Snape to be inspiring company as he walks to his death. 

Magpie:
> <snip>
> I know that redemption doesn't mean perfect and Snape does atone for the sin he himself thought was unforgivable--that of getting Lily killed. I just tend to think of redemption stories as a lot more than Snape.

Carol responds:
Redemption stories vary just as any type of story does. And, of course, interpretations vary. IMO only, in a story with the Christian themes of mercy and forgiveness and atonement, Snape qualifies as redeemed. If his major sins are forgiven, why wouldn't the minor ones be forgiven as well? Surely, saving Harry's life and protecting him outweighs sarcasm and unfairness. And, surely, if there's a God in the HP universe, as the Christian themes suggest, God will forgive Snape as Harry does. (Otherwise Harry, who in JKR's words is not a saint, comes off as better than God, which I'm sure was not JKR's intention.)

Anyway, to me, three things matter with regard to redemption: atonement, forgiveness, and the afterlife. We know that Snape's remorse drives him to atone for his major sins while retaining the human flaws that make him Snape; we know that Harry forgives him and vindicates him, setting aside the petty misunderstandings that blinded him to Snape's real motivation and actions (and the love and courage that Harry values); and we see that in the afterlife, other imperfect characters (MPP and Dumbledore and, yes, Lily, who is less perfect than Snape thinks), are happy--for, we must presume, all eternity. I see no reason why Snape, after all that he did and suffered, would not be freed of his bitterness and resentment and forgiven by the Wormless Marauders and Lily, or why he, in turn, would not forgive them. Death, after all, is not the end in the HP books.

Clearly, you see things differently and are focusing only on life. Agree to disagree.
> 
> Carol:
> > Petty sarcasm and point-docking and continued resentment of the boys who humiliated him when he was also a boy are human traits, probably unavoidable in a man as unloved as Snape was.
> 
> Magpie:
> And a lot of Snape's being unloved was due to his pettiness and continued resentment. It's human, of course. Everybody in the book is human.
> 
Carol:
Exactly (although Voldemort has lost almost all his humanness). Snape, OTOH, still retains his humanness and therefore his (somewhat tarnished but intact) immortal soul. He's not going to spend eternity as a fiendish child under a bench. Pettiness and resentment are nothing to Voldemort's multitude of sins. And even Harry has his human failings. In the end, to Harry, who names his son Albus Severus, the human failings of both Dumbledore and Snape fade to nothing. It's their strengths and their contribution to the fall of Voldemort that matter.

> Carol:> 
> > Obviously, we're never going to agree here, but I think that Harry has it right.
> 
> Magpie:
> That Snape was brave? Sure. I still think it's bizarre of him to name his child after Snape who hated him, but that's his business. Knowing Harry I tend to imagine that he's long since replaced the Snape he knew with a more palatable version by the time he has kids. But he certainly was brave.

Carol:
I meant that Harry has it right to set aside the pettiness and point docking, which in the long run harmed only Snape himself by feeding his vindictiveness, and see the good in him--not just the courage but the ability to love and the lives he saved. It's not, IMO, a matter of replacing the Snape he knew with "a more palatable version." It's accepting him, faults and all, as he does Dumbledore, and forgiving him. He sees past the obvious flaws that caused him to misjudge Snape. His perception is cleansed (no glasses at King's Cross; he can see clearly now). I don't know whether Harry realizes now that he allowed his own preconceptions and prejudices--as well as Snape's behavior--to distort his view of Snape, just as Snape allowed Harry's resemblance to James to distort his perception of Harry. I don't know whether he realizes that his own behavior--rule-breaking, talking back to Snape, lying about the Potions book, etc.--reinforced Snape's perception of him. Harry isn't a deep thinker and he isn't particularly introspective. But he does see, I think, that some things are more important than others and that saving the life and protecting a person you dislike--which he surely knows must be extremely difficult--outweighs sarcasm and point-docking and continued hatred of Harry's father (for reasons that Harry now understands all too well).

It's not just Snape's courage. That alone would not be sufficient for Harry to name his son Albus Severus. He's (IMO) acknowledging Snape's contribution, honoring him for the role he played in defeating Voldemort, which would not have been possible had he not loved Harry's mother. It's understanding and forgiveness and vindication and acknowledging heroism. And, just possibly, it's one small step toward understanding between Slytherin and Gryffindor. Just my opinion.

Carol, who wonders about the afterlife of Wizards who don't show remorse before death or those like Grindelwald who show it only when it's too late for atonement


Judge not that ye be not judged. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 18:00:37 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 18:00:37 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <guc8fj+93fc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gucdg5+kq1t@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Magpie:
> <SNIP>
> He's not in the final group around Harry (where Lily
Alla wrote:
> 
> It is not even that he is not in the final group around Harry is what makes it very telling to me. I mean, after all Albus is not there either, since Harry thinks he betrayed him, etc.

Carol:
Right. Harry wants just the people he loved or the family he never knew. He needs to be inspired and given courage to sacrifice himself. Snape has already played his role by giving him the memories that told him what he needs to do. His absence, like Dumbledore's, has nothing to do with redemption.

Alla: 
> It is that he is not coming to chat with Harry in Kings Cross, it is that he is not with Dumbledore. I mean, supposedly Dumbledore is the only person for whom Snape had some sort of affection, he saved his life, he killed him on request. Would make a total sense to me if two people who need Harry forgiveness the most will come chat with him, but nope the only thing that Dumbledore would spare Snape is ? poor Severus, when he learns that his plan did not work out.

Carol:
Again, I think we need to look at what Harry wants and needs. In this case, it's partly to understand and forgive Dumbledore (he already understands and has forgiven Snape thanks to the Pensieve memories) and partly it's wisdom and comfort from the wise old mentor who died and left him "alone." It's always been Dumbledore, not Snape, who explained to Harry what was going on, and he needs another informative pep talk. (Just how informative it was is another matter. It didn't answer all my questions, anyway.) It's psychological. Harry needs to understand, to have his questions answered and to know what to do. Not only would Snape's presence interfere with this cozy reunion, Snape himself doesn't have all the answers. (I can imagine him talking with Snape, too, clearing up all his misconceptions and filling in all the information that he concealed from him while he was alive.)

None of this, IMO, means that Snape isn't redeemed. It just means that Harry doesn't need him for a particular role that's better filled by other people. IMO, as always.

Alla: 
> Something tells me that Snape will not be sitting on cloud nine in Potterverse after life either, but it is just my opinion of course.

Carol:
Well, no. That's not what JKR's version of the afterlife apparently involves. What we see is Dumbledore with his injured hand cured and Lupin looking young and healthy and Black healed of the poison of Azkaban. If we were to see Snape, I'm pretty sure that his Dark Mark would be gone and he'd be "cured" of spite and bitterness, looking younger as Lupin does because the burdens of his existence have been lifted from him.

The only person we see suffering in the afterlife is Voldemort (whose future we glimpse before he actually dies) because he has torn his soul in seven pieces and the remaining piece is maimed by many murders and other crimes that he has not repented.

I wonder, as I said earlier, what Grindelwald's afterlife would be like. He never created any Horcruxes, so his soul is intact in that sense, but it would certainly be mutilated by his many crimes (which far outnumber and outweigh Snape's). Dumbledore is glad to know that he expressed repentance at the end. (He probably would admire old Grindelwald fearlessly facing and taunting the upstart Voldemort, as well.) So, apparently, Grindelwald's fate won't be nearly as terrible or as hopeless as Voldemort's. But given the magnitude of his sins and the absence of active atonement like Snape's, I can't imagine him walking freely with Dumbledore and talking about old times. I suppose it's up to each of us to imagine what happens there or to ignore the question altogether since JKR clearly didn't want to answer it. (Harry goes only as far as "King's Cross"; he doesn't "go on.")

At any rate, I think we can safely infer what Snape's afterlife will be like from what we glimpse of Dumbledore's and Lupin's and Black's. Voldemort's is another matter altogether.

Carol, who thinks that Snape would feel extremely silly sitting on a cloud playing a harp





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 18:28:16 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 18:28:16 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gucdg5+kq1t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gucf40+cbq0@eGroups.com>

Carol:
Well, no. That's not what JKR's version of the afterlife apparently involves.
What we see is Dumbledore with his injured hand cured and Lupin looking young
and healthy and Black healed of the poison of Azkaban. If we were to see Snape,
I'm pretty sure that his Dark Mark would be gone and he'd be "cured" of spite
and bitterness, looking younger as Lupin does because the burdens of his
existence have been lifted from him.
<SNIP>

Alla:

And my point is that we do not see Snape and thus we can imagine one way or another what his afterlife will be like and I think if JKR wanted to establish it for sure, she could have shown him as well, I am sure she would have found the way to be true to the story.

She could have for example show him meeting Harry briefly after his chat with Dumbledore ended or something like that.

She did not and thus she left me a room for imagining him getting what I think he deserved for abusing Harry (IMO), even if he saved his life on Dumbledore's directions and then send him to death on Dumbledore's directions as well.

JMO,

Alla





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 18:36:54 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 18:36:54 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <guc6bm+1ild@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gucfk6+ag5f@eGroups.com>

Magpie:
<SNIP>
I just tend to
think of redemption stories as a lot more than Snape. <HUGE SNIP>

Alla:

See I am asking only out of curiosity, because I guess I am still not clear on what exactly you mean here. I mean we established that we are pretty much in agreement that Snape's redemption story does not work for both of us, yes?

But I just wonder what does the redemption story more than Snape's means for you?

I mean with Snape it is easy for me, he simply was not redeemed completely to me, but let's imagine the scenario, hypothetical one, fanfiction one where everything happens the same, Snape's personality remains the same, he does not get new friends, he is not a joy to be around, etc. The only difference is that after "look at me" and before he dies Snape tells Harry that "I was wrong Potter, you are not your father".

That's it, the only difference, but to me it will make TONS of difference, that to me will be redemption story, period, you know and very well crafted too?

I mean, I can't help but feel that partially what you are describing is not just him not being redeemed but his personality remaining the same and to me it is irrelevant if that make sense? I do not need him to change his personality, I just need him to acknowledge that he was wrong.

So with this hypothetical difference will you consider Snape to be redeeed or it will not be enough for you still?


Thanks,

Alla





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 18:37:51 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 18:37:51 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gucbvb+g4dh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gucflv+eudc@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> I don't think that's the reason he [Snape] isn't there. (Neither is Dumbledore, or poor Tonks.) It's because Harry wanted the people he loved best to be with him at the end to inspire him and give him courage. Lupin, of course, doesn't fully qualify, but he's one of the Marauders and perhaps inseparable in Harry's mind from them. Also, he [Harry] feels guilty for his harsh words to Lupin (IMO, well deserved) and seems to want the chance to make up with him. Snape would have been out of place in that group. Harry is grateful to him later and publicly vindicates him, but that doesn't mean he'd consider Snape to be inspiring company as he walks to his death. 

Carol again:
I forgot to mention that Fred isn't there, either, but I don't think anyone would argue that Fred's absence means he's not redeemed (even if, as I suspect, he's not sorry for giving Ton-tongue Toffees to defenseless Muggles and other dangerous mischief). He's not a father-figure or parent, which is what (IMO) Harry needs at the moment.

I also forgot to mention that the group was originally supposed to include Mr. Weasley, who in many respects is like a father to Harry (more so than the rather distant Lupin, IMO). Again, it would have been the people Harry loved, who were either family or like family to him, and in this respect, I think Mr. Weasley would have been a better choice than Lupin. Still, though, I'm glad JKR changed her mind. The Weasley family suffered enough without losing Arthur.

Carol, trying to imagine how different the conversation would have been had the group included Mr. Weasley and not Lupin




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 19:09:52 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 19:09:52 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gucf40+cbq0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guchi0+320n@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> Well, no. That's not what JKR's version of the afterlife apparently involves. What we see is Dumbledore with his injured hand cured and Lupin looking young and healthy and Black healed of the poison of Azkaban. If we were to see Snape, I'm pretty sure that his Dark Mark would be gone and he'd be "cured" of spite and bitterness, looking younger as Lupin does because the burdens of his existence have been lifted from him.
> <SNIP>
> 
Alla responde:
> 
> And my point is that we do not see Snape and thus we can imagine one way or another what his afterlife will be like and I think if JKR wanted to establish it for sure, she could have shown him as well, I am sure she would have found the way to be true to the story.
> 
> She could have for example show him meeting Harry briefly after his chat with Dumbledore ended or something like that.
> 
> She did not and thus she left me a room for imagining him getting what I think he deserved for abusing Harry (IMO), even if he saved his life on Dumbledore's directions and then send him to death on Dumbledore's directions as well.

Carol:
I agree that JKR left room for us to imagine the afterlife as we want to imagine it, which is what you and I are both doing now. After all, she didn't show the afterlife itself, only four people summoned by the Resurrection Stone (rather like the echoes we saw in GoF) and Dumbledore at King's Cross. What's beyond, we don't know because she chose not to show it. (Possibly, she doesn't know herself.)

It's also true, as you say, that she chose not to depict Snape in the afterlife. However, as I've said, there's no reason for him to appear in either scene. He's not one of Harry's loved ones and he's not the old mentor who will answer Harry's questions. (Snape probably has questions of his own at this point, having just died, that only Dumbledore can answer. But Harry's need is greater as he isn't really dead and has to return. Snape's questions can wait.)

What we do see is that the dead, except for Voldemort (whose future we glimpse), are healed of the griefs and burdens that plagued them in life. Dumbledore, for all his manipulativeness and the sins of his youth and his failure to check into Black's guilt after Godric's Hollow and all the many other things that he did wrong, is healed of his blackened hand. He *could* have been punished in some way, but he isn't. Apparently, his remorse is sufficient--that and five decades of opposing Voldemort. Snape's situation is similar--remorse and seventeen years (nearly half his short life) of fighting Voldemort or preparing to fight him and seven years of protecting Harry.

Voldemort, in contrast, will spend eternity in what we can call his own private hell for two reasons: He's split his soul into seven pieces (actually eight, counting the scar) so he barely has any soul left, and he's unrepentant (in contrast to Snape and Dumbledore).

So while of course you're free to imagine whatever punishment you feel is appropriate for Snape's minor sins, what evidence we have seems to indicate that it doesn't work that way. If we saw, say, Pettigrew, suffering some sort of punishment for his many sins, we might have some basis for supposing that Snape is punished, too (though only for the minor sins he didn't repent), but there's no evidence one way or the other. We only have two extremes, flawed but "good" people, at least one of whom (Dumbledore) repented, and Voldemort, who has lost most of his soul and almost all of his humanity. Surely, Snape, for all his failings, comes closer to Dumbledore than to Voldemort in this regard.

Carol, who thinks that the whole point of abandoning revenge for forgiveness (the change we see in Harry) would be lost if repentant sinners are punished in the afterlife




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue May 12 19:21:04 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 19:21:04 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gucfk6+ag5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guci70+102ib@eGroups.com>

> Magpie:
> <SNIP>
> I just tend to
> think of redemption stories as a lot more than Snape. <HUGE SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> See I am asking only out of curiosity, because I guess I am still not clear on what exactly you mean here. I mean we established that we are pretty much in agreement that Snape's redemption story does not work for both of us, yes?
> 
> But I just wonder what does the redemption story more than Snape's means for you?

Magpie:
Good question...I guess it's like...it's not really that it doesn't work for me. It works for what it is. I just think of redemption stories as being more transformative. 

Alla:

> That's it, the only difference, but to me it will make TONS of difference, that to me will be redemption story, period, you know and very well crafted too?

Magpie:
Yes, that's exactly the right kind of example. Snape had something that meant something to him, and he set himself a goal and damn but he stuck to it. And good for him that he did that, it's impressive and it had great results. But he spent as much time avoiding that kind of true understanding of himself or other people as he did focusing on that goal. He's certainly forgiven by me and I think by everyone in canon. Everybody on the good side would have to pity the guy, especially Harry, who ends HBP very angry at Snape but is kind of over it by the next book where for the first time he's not screwing himself up by focusing on that hatred of Snape. Then he announces his forgiveness of the guy after he's dead. Neither Harry or anybody else has to deal with him anymore--and also Harry finally gets that he was on his side all along and loved his mother, which is something Harry didn't get but I did. (This doesn't require any rethinking for Harry on his own behavior either.) He, like other Slytherins, has the redeeming quality of the ability to love certain people. They're none of them iredeemable except Voldemort, it seems. 

But as a redemption story in itself it's more of a "don't let this happen to you" story. I think there's a reason that for many people Snape's memories made him less rather than more. 

Alla: 
> I mean, I can't help but feel that partially what you are describing is not just him not being redeemed but his personality remaining the same and to me it is irrelevant if that make sense? I do not need him to change his personality, I just need him to acknowledge that he was wrong.
> 
> So with this hypothetical difference will you consider Snape to be redeeed or it will not be enough for you still?

Magpie:
I do consider him redeemed. He paid off his debt. He spent most of his life in the service of good. I just wouldn't hand it to somebody as an example of a redemption story, especially not based on the idea that he'll find peace in the afterlife. 

I also agree with you--it's not about his changing his personality it's about admitting he was wrong, and he seems like he stays in the same wrong mindset for the most part that got him into trouble (except that certain superfical things--like thinking Voldemort was a good idea at all--he changes, obviously). I do think it was important for Snape to see where he was wrong in ways beyond the DEs, and he didn't. He's forgiven, but he doesn't gain understanding that I like in a redemption story.

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 19:25:17 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 19:25:17 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gucfk6+ag5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guciet+h2pg@eGroups.com>

Alla wrote:
>,snip>
> I mean with Snape it is easy for me, he simply was not redeemed completely to me, but let's imagine the scenario, hypothetical one, fanfiction one where everything happens the same, Snape's personality remains the same, he does not get new friends, he is not a joy to be around, etc. The only difference is that after "look at me" and before he dies Snape tells Harry that "I was wrong Potter, you are not your father".
> 
> That's it, the only difference, but to me it will make TONS of difference, that to me will be redemption story, period, you know and very well crafted too? <snip>

Carol responds:
Now I finally understand why you don't find Snape's redemption complete or satisfactory. I'm not sure that I agree; I think that looking into Harry's eyes implies that he sees Lily in Harry and that he knows that Harry is not his father. To me, it doesn't need to be stated, and it would make the moment less poignant, not to mention less realistic since Snape is dying, to include those words. But at least I see what you're saying and understand what you thought was missing.

But I don't agree that Snape's failure to say those words, which perhaps (like Aunt Petunia unable to say "I'm sorry" before she left Harry forever), he just couldn't bring himself to say, should mean an eternity of punishment for hating Harry. We can't help our feelings, after all, and I think that Snape suffered enough on earth through bitterness and friendlessness (along with unbearable remorse) that he doesn't need more punishment in the afterlife. In fact, I think it would be appropriate for Lily and James to come forward and thank him. All his bitterness and resentment would fall away--especially if James said "I'm sorry" first.

I like happy endings, including in this case "happily ever after" taken literally. :-)

Carol, who can't imagine petty vindictiveness continued into the afterlife or punishments for minor infractions when major ones are forgiven





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 19:32:38 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 19:32:38 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <guci70+102ib@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gucism+ca77@eGroups.com>

> Magpie:
<SNIP of the whole post>
 He's forgiven, but he doesn't gain understanding that I like in a redemption story.


Alla:

I can't help but be reminded of Zuco coming to Avatar when he is wondering on the Island and lamenting - why I am so bad at being good, heh. I think that sort of encompasses it.

I think I got it, thanks.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue May 12 19:35:16 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 19:35:16 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <guci70+102ib@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gucj1k+vuds@eGroups.com>

Also, to relate it to Anakin, I wouldn't really call him redeemed either. In his case it's really just a case of two different states of being clearly laid out: the Light and Dark Side of the Force. In the first movie Vader's in the thrall of the Dark Side, obviously. In ESB you see him starting to crack--maybe he'll break free of it (i.e., also break free of acting on anger, hate, fear etc.). In RotJ Luke says he can feel the good in him, the part that would rather choose life and love and his son.

So in the end he chooses that side, he destroys the emperor and loves his son.

Is that redemption? Not really. I mean, killing the emperor is a good act that will help win the war, but it's not like he's going to get a chance to do an equally good act for everything he did. Anakin, imo, doesn't die redeemed so much as he dies free and dies a Jedi who's come back to himself. That's the way he dies, so that's how his spirit exists when Luke sees him at the end. 

I wouldn't really argue with somebody who said the Anakin arc was about fall and redemption or whatever, but I don't really think of it that way. Especially since Anakin is saved by Luke. He has to take the last step himself, of course, but I'd still say that Luke saves him (as Anakin himself says). 

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 19:38:31 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 19:38:31 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gucj1k+vuds@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gucj7n+76sv@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> Also, to relate it to Anakin, I wouldn't really call him redeemed either. In his case it's really just a case of two different states of being clearly laid out: the Light and Dark Side of the Force. In the first movie Vader's in the thrall of the Dark Side, obviously. In ESB you see him starting to crack--maybe he'll break free of it (i.e., also break free of acting on anger, hate, fear etc.). In RotJ Luke says he can feel the good in him, the part that would rather choose life and love and his son.
> 
> So in the end he chooses that side, he destroys the emperor and loves his son.
> 
> Is that redemption? Not really. I mean, killing the emperor is a good act that will help win the war, but it's not like he's going to get a chance to do an equally good act for everything he did. Anakin, imo, doesn't die redeemed so much as he dies free and dies a Jedi who's come back to himself. That's the way he dies, so that's how his spirit exists when Luke sees him at the end. 
> 
> I wouldn't really argue with somebody who said the Anakin arc was about fall and redemption or whatever, but I don't really think of it that way. Especially since Anakin is saved by Luke. He has to take the last step himself, of course, but I'd still say that Luke saves him (as Anakin himself says). 


Alla:

I think I was just concentrating on the forgiveness aspect of the redemption stories, forgiveness and paying off the debt, you know, whether it is metaphorical or direct repayment and sort of was not thinking about transformative and understanging aspect.

Thank you, your previous post REALLY helped :)




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 20:19:18 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 20:19:18 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gucbvb+g4dh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guclk6+em8d@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>

> 
> Carol responds:
> Redemption stories vary just as any type of story does. And, of course, interpretations vary. IMO only, in a story with the Christian themes of mercy and forgiveness and atonement, Snape qualifies as redeemed. If his major sins are forgiven, why wouldn't the minor ones be forgiven as well? Surely, saving Harry's life and protecting him outweighs sarcasm and unfairness. And, surely, if there's a God in the HP universe, as the Christian themes suggest, God will forgive Snape as Harry does. (Otherwise Harry, who in JKR's words is not a saint, comes off as better than God, which I'm sure was not JKR's intention.)
> 

jkoney:
I pretty much disagree with most of your points but I couldn't ignore that you think if you are forgiven for one thing you are forgiven for everything. 

The difference is that he doesn't feel any remorse for any of the other things he's done. He doesn't ask for forgiveness for these things.

Whether being an ass in class or his actions as a DE, those failures of his aren't forgiven just because he tried to atone for setting the Potters up to be killed. He needs to feel remorse for those things.

So no, I don't believe if you are remorseful for one item you are automatically given a free pass on whatever else you've done.









From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 22:15:18 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:15:18 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gucj1k+vuds@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gucsdm+khi0@eGroups.com>

> magpie:
> Also, to relate it to Anakin, I wouldn't really call him redeemed either. ...
> So in the end he chooses that side, he destroys the emperor and loves his son.
> Is that redemption? Not really. ...
> ... Especially since Anakin is saved by Luke. He has to take the last step himself, of course, but I'd still say that Luke saves him (as Anakin himself says). 

Kemper now:
Exactly.  Could Anakin have without Luke right there in his face?  Could he have gone against the Emperor alone?  No. He was saved by Luke's nigh sacrifice.

Going back to Avatar... Zuko is alone when he faces the Fire Lord.  He is not the boy he was; he is redeemed.

Kemper




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Tue May 12 23:45:08 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 23:45:08 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gucsdm+khi0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gud1m4+trc8@eGroups.com>

> Kemper now:
> Exactly.  Could Anakin have without Luke right there in his face?  Could he have gone against the Emperor alone?  No. He was saved by Luke's nigh sacrifice.
> 
> Going back to Avatar... Zuko is alone when he faces the Fire Lord.  He is not the boy he was; he is redeemed.

Kemper nower:
I forgot to talk about Snape.  While Snape worked against Voldemort, he did not face him even as he was dieing.

Kemper





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed May 13 01:04:05 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 01:04:05 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <guclk6+em8d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gud6a5+b0en@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> > Redemption stories vary just as any type of story does. And, of course, interpretations vary. IMO only, in a story with the Christian themes of mercy and forgiveness and atonement, Snape qualifies as redeemed. If his major sins are forgiven, why wouldn't the minor ones be forgiven as well? Surely, saving Harry's life and protecting him outweighs sarcasm and unfairness. And, surely, if there's a God in the HP universe, as the Christian themes suggest, God will forgive Snape as Harry does. (Otherwise Harry, who in JKR's words is not a saint, comes off as better than God, which I'm sure was not JKR's intention.)
> > 
> 
> jkoney:
> I pretty much disagree with most of your points but I couldn't ignore that you think if you are forgiven for one thing you are forgiven for everything. 
> 
> The difference is that he doesn't feel any remorse for any of the other things he's done. He doesn't ask for forgiveness for these things.
> 
> Whether being an ass in class or his actions as a DE, those failures of his aren't forgiven just because he tried to atone for setting the Potters up to be killed. He needs to feel remorse for those things.
> 
> So no, I don't believe if you are remorseful for one item you are automatically given a free pass on whatever else you've done.
>
Carol responds:
Thanks for expressing your view. IMO, a person can't possibly be sorry for everything he's done wrong, and regretting and feeling remorse for the worst thing (or things) is what matters. (I'm pretty sure, BTW, that being a DE is included in the things Snape regrets since he's opposing Voldemort from the time he says he'll do "anything" till the moment he dies and because of what about he says about saving lives instead of watching people die. Being "an ass in class," no. That's just who he is, not, in his view or mine, a sin that he needs to atone for.)

Anyway, no point in repeating my arguments since you've already stated that you disagree with them.

Carol, agreeing to disagree




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed May 13 01:13:11 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 01:13:11 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Anakin and other redemption stories (moved from Main)
In-Reply-To: <gud1m4+trc8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gud6r7+8ifs@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" <kempermentor at ...> wrote:
>
> > Kemper now:
> > Exactly.  Could Anakin have without Luke right there in his face?  Could he have gone against the Emperor alone?  No. He was saved by Luke's nigh sacrifice.
> > 
> > Going back to Avatar... Zuko is alone when he faces the Fire Lord.  He is not the boy he was; he is redeemed.
> 
> Kemper nower:
> I forgot to talk about Snape.  While Snape worked against Voldemort, he did not face him even as he was dieing.
> 
> Kemper
>
Carol responds:

I'm not sure what you mean here. He certainly faced Voldemort at the end and was killed by him, never revealing why he wanted to see Harry or that Draco was the master of the Elder Wand. He couldn't kill Voldemort himself (though we see him raise his wand as if for a moment he's tempted to try). In Snape's case, redemption has nothing to do with killing the enemy. However, he's certainly the man he was when he joined the Death Eaters.

Avatar--I have no idea, not having watched it. (It's a bit spoiled for me now. <smile>) 

Darth Vader, I agree, is not exactly redeemed, just forgiven. He just has too much to atone for and he shows no remorse for his evil deeds, only a regret for (I think?) having made the wrong choice and rejected his son. (No regrets for rejecting his daughter that I recall, but it's been about twenty years since I saw that film, so I could be remembering it incorrectly.

Carol, wondering what anyone thinks about Sidney Carton and trying to think of a good redemption story that we haven't mentioned




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed May 13 02:15:28 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 02:15:28 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <285012.97950.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gudag0+cp5n@eGroups.com>

danielle dassero  wrote:
>
> 
> Hi I was hoping for some help. I am hoping to convince my friend that Christians can love HP and still be Christians. When her daughter is old enough, I want to introduce her to the wonderful world of HP. 

Potioncat:
I can't beat what Geoff said. So I'll just agree fully that Christians can enjoy HP. Many churches use the books or movies as the basis for studies. 

But, just as a suggestion, could you suggest that you and your friend read SS/PS and discuss the Christian aspects of it? Then you'll make a fan of her, too.

Potioncat.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed May 13 03:16:02 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 03:16:02 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gudag0+cp5n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gude1i+bp9u@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
> danielle dassero  wrote:

> > Hi I was hoping for some help. I am hoping to convince my friend that Christians can love HP and still be Christians. When her daughter is old enough, I want to introduce her to the wonderful world of HP. 
> 
> Potioncat:
> I can't beat what Geoff said. So I'll just agree fully that Christians can enjoy HP. Many churches use the books or movies as the basis for studies. 
> 
> But, just as a suggestion, could you suggest that you and your friend read SS/PS and discuss the Christian aspects of it? Then you'll make a fan of her, too.

Carol adds:

And, of course, JKR herself talks about the Christian elements in the books:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572107/20071017/index.jhtml

Carol, who should get off the computer now




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Wed May 13 04:02:34 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 04:02:34 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gudag0+cp5n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gudgoq+k3p5@eGroups.com>

> danielle dassero  wrote:
> > Hi I was hoping for some help. I am hoping to convince my friend that Christians can love HP and still be Christians. When her daughter is old enough, I want to introduce her to the wonderful world of HP. 
 
> Potioncat:
> I can't beat what Geoff said. So I'll just agree fully that Christians can enjoy HP. Many churches use the books or movies as the basis for studies. 

Kemper now:
I cut out Potioncat's excellent suggestion in order to ask Christians other people of religion a question: what are your thoughts regarding the circumstances of Dumbledore's death and how does that align with the tenets of your faith?  

I realize that this might be a sensitive issue, but it hit me today on the way home from work and I don't think it's ever been discussed outside of Main.  Or maybe it has, and I didn't read.  If so, boo me.

Kemper
 




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Wed May 13 13:20:18 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 06:20:18 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Star Trek
In-Reply-To: <gua0cr+2vc6@eGroups.com>
References: <gu3ikh+de5q@eGroups.com> <gua0cr+2vc6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90905130620x7eb3c76pe340f856ae477cbb@mail.gmail.com>

>bboyminn wrote:
>J.J. Abrams calls this a 'reboot' of the Star Trek franchise,
>and I think he is absolutely right; Star Trek is reborn.

>The movie leaves you totally satisfied, but absolutely wanting
>more.

>Most important, this wasn't just a crash bang shoot'em up movie,
>I really engaged with these characters. They make me love
>Star Trek all over again.

>I can't wait for more, BUT the future depends on the writing.
>If the franchise descends into merely excuses for things to
>blow up, then I think it is over for Star Trek, but if they
>can continue to combine the actions we expect with compelling
>characters and story lines, then I think there is hope for a
>least a couple more movies in the franchise.

No.Limberger responds:
I agree with your comments.  As a long-time fan of
Star Trek myself, I have loved TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager
and the 4tth season of Enterprise.  (I didn't much
care for the first 3 seasons of Enterprise).  I also loved
half of the movies: II, IV, VI, VII, VIII.  To this, I am adding
the newest movie.

Star Trek, I would agree, definitely needed a reboot.  It
needs to draw in new fans and explore new stories in order
for the franchise to continue.  I believe that there will be
more Star Trek movies in the future, but don't know whether
this will include a new TV series.  We'll just have to wait
and see what the future holds.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Wed May 13 16:46:40 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:46:40 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gude1i+bp9u@eGroups.com>
References: <gudag0+cp5n@eGroups.com> <gude1i+bp9u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8BD6D12B35B74F7AA830AE0C6C0B5A75@FRODO>

Hi Danielle,

I'm writing here as a long-time Christian, and my husband (who is almost 22
years my senior) has been a Christian longer than I.  Both of us love the
Narnia books, the Tolkien books and, yes, Harry Potter.  In fact, it was our
preacher who started us on the HP books, giving us SS for Christmas in 1999.
He had often alluded to it in sermons, so we wanted very much to read it.
We finished the book in three days...it sure was nice to have as something
to do while we ended up golly-orful sick with the flu.

In short, we were so taken with the book that I ended up getting on Amazon
and ordering COS and POA, and we attended our first Bookstore Bash when GOF
came out.  We have been hooked on HP ever since.

Yes, I know that many extremist types consider the books evil; I know that
many of them also don't think much of Narnia or Middle Earth.  Those who
don't like HP but accept the other two seem to feel that because it's a
completely different world it's okay, but because HP has part of it's action
in "The Real World," it's promoting occultism.  Uh--I hate to remind them
that most of the Narnia books bring the children in from "The Real World"
and send them back to it, just as the HP books bring the kids to Hogwarts
and send them back from it...except for the last book which, with all their
fleeing, has them in a sort of limbo for a good part of the story.

In my opinion, the Christians who don't like HP probably don't like much
fiction.  They take the scriptures about keeping their minds on the things
of God absolutely literally; this means no imagination or thoughts which
would take one away from Scripture or prayer or doing the Lord's work.
Probably the only fiction they'd go for is family stuff like Louisa Mae
Alcott, et al.  Now, like I say, this is my opinion.

For myself, I believe that God gave us imaginations.  If he didn't, this
would be a very dull world and I believe My God is a god of many aspects.
If a Christian is not well grounded in his/her faith, yes, their could be a
problem or, at the very least, a lot of questions.  But seeing the HP books
as tools of conveyance of themes which are important to Christians and all
people with hearts for good might help to alleviate the difficulty.

Here are a couple of links I found which might help:

http://standingonshoulders.net/2009/02/15/the-christian-harry-potter/

http://www.christianitytoday.com/momsense/2000/sepoct/4.44.html

I could probably find many more, but my advice is like Geoff's; read with
your friend and discuss.  I suppose one could apply Romans 8:28:
(Rom 8:28 NIV)  "And we know that in all things God works for the good of
those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."

Perhaps you can point out that Harry is good and has been called to a mighty
purpose of upholding that which is good and right.

I've gotta sign for now, but I hope I've been of some help.

Lee :-)

Do not walk behind me,    | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead;   | N2FGC
Do not walk before me,    | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Wed May 13 16:46:40 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:46:40 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gudgoq+k3p5@eGroups.com>
References: <gudag0+cp5n@eGroups.com> <gudgoq+k3p5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3AF256236298494494D87C7C23C04609@FRODO>

[Kemper]:
| I cut out Potioncat's excellent suggestion in order to ask 
| Christians other people of religion a question: what are your 
| thoughts regarding the circumstances of Dumbledore's death 
| and how does that align with the tenets of your faith?  

[Lee]:
Maybe I'm not understanding what you seek, but it doesn't do anything.
Dumbledore died, in a manner of speaking, in the line of duty.  It was his
job to prepare Harry for what was to come.  I could also say he was the
"Moses."  Because he had sinned he didn't get to enter the promised land,
true?  so, in the same way, Dumbledore, because he was desperate to use the
resurrection stone to see his sister, didn't take time to think of the
possible consequences and shortened his life so he was unable to enter the
promised land, as it were, the time of Voldemort's downfall.

Hope this makes some sense.

Cheers,

Lee :-)

Do not walk behind me,    | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead;   | N2FGC
Do not walk before me,    | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.




From md at exit-reality.com  Wed May 13 17:28:36 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:28:36 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <8BD6D12B35B74F7AA830AE0C6C0B5A75@FRODO>
References: <gudag0+cp5n@eGroups.com> <gude1i+bp9u@eGroups.com> <8BD6D12B35B74F7AA830AE0C6C0B5A75@FRODO>
Message-ID: <002301c9d3f0$3f7e1890$be7a49b0$@com>

How do you become a Christian? I just presumed the majority where born into
it (I defected, so I'm a "recovering Christian") but I didn't think most
people thought of a time when they became one. This is not a sarcastic post.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lee Storm (God Is The
Healing Force)
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:47 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

Hi Danielle,

I'm writing here as a long-time Christian, and my husband (who is almost 22
years my senior) has been a Christian longer than I





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed May 13 18:22:35 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 18:22:35 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <002301c9d3f0$3f7e1890$be7a49b0$@com>
Message-ID: <guf35b+jp11@eGroups.com>

Nightbreed:

> How do you become a Christian? I just presumed the majority where born into
> it (I defected, so I'm a "recovering Christian") but I didn't think most
> people thought of a time when they became one. This is not a sarcastic post.

Magpie:
Many people convert to Christianity, and many people who are born into it have a moment where they truly feel they convert to it. Born again Christians date the day they became a Christian to the day they consciously accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, for instance. The day they "got saved"--so they would say "I've been a Christian since I was X age" referring to that day, even if they were born into a Christian family.

-m




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed May 13 20:00:53 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 20:00:53 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God - a personal experience
In-Reply-To: <guf35b+jp11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guf8tl+ta63@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:

Nightbreed:
> > How do you become a Christian? I just presumed the majority where born into
> > it (I defected, so I'm a "recovering Christian") but I didn't think most
> > people thought of a time when they became one. This is not a sarcastic post.
 
Magpie:
> Many people convert to Christianity, and many people who are born into it have a moment where they truly feel they convert to it. Born again Christians date the day they became a Christian to the day they consciously accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, for instance. The day they "got saved"--so they would say "I've been a Christian since I was X age" referring to that day, even if they were born into a Christian family.

Geoff:
Magpie has put it very succinctly. Perhaps I might add on to that 
something of my own personal experience. Many of you will know 
that I am an evangelical Christian and am a member of a Baptist 
church in the West of England.

I grew up first in Lancashire and, from the age of nine, South London. 
My parents were very nominally Christian and packed me off to Sunday 
School on Sunday afternoons (for a bit of peace I suspect!) and I grew up 
believing that because Christ had gone to the cross and risen again, we 
were all automatically Christians. Hence,  didn't need to be active in 
churchgoing or anything like that.

However, in my late teens, I came to the realisation that this just wasn't 
true and started looking for a meaning in life. I went to college to train as 
a teacher and, in my second year, got into contact with members of the 
Christian Union whom I found to be very attractive people for some reason 
which I could not work out at that point. 

Eventually, a conversation with one of them led me to see that you became 
a Christian when you accepted and truly believed the fact that Jesus had 
died for us individually and risen from the dead to give us eternal life.

I underwent what Christinas call a "Damascus Road" conversion; that is,
a sudden out of the blue acceptance of Christ as Saviour - a phrase which 
takes its name from the conversion of St,Paul in the New Testament.

I have on several occasions summarised Christian belief using two 
statements of Christ:

"God so loved the world that He gave his only Son so that whoever
believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
(Gospel of John, chapter 3 verse 16)

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
 except through me."
(Gospel of John, chapter 14 verse 6)

That decision, made in May 1961, has guided and influenced my life 
ever since.




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Wed May 13 20:21:03 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:21:03 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guf35b+jp11@eGroups.com>
References: <002301c9d3f0$3f7e1890$be7a49b0$@com> <guf35b+jp11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <5F16722AC5E84ED0BFF306CAA5DC43DA@FRODO>

[Magpie]:
| Many people convert to Christianity, and many people who are 
| born into it have a moment where they truly feel they convert 
| to it. Born again Christians date the day they became a 
| Christian to the day they consciously accepted Jesus Christ 
| as their savior, for instance. The day they "got saved"--so 
| they would say "I've been a Christian since I was X age" 
| referring to that day, even if they were born into a Christian family.

[Lee]:
that's about right.  Being a Christian is a very Personal decision!  Even if
one is born into a Christian family, that doesn't mean that the person is a
Christian.  The Christian parents are charged to provide a good foundation,
but God did give us minds and the power of choice.  The idea of being "Born
Again" simply refers to making that personal decision and commitment, being
"Born of the Spirit," a rebirth into the family of fellow Christians or the
Family Of Christ.  Some denominations believe in infant baptism, but that
flies in the face of what the Bible teaches.  Any references one can find to
Baptism refer to personal decisions made which an infant cannot make.  There
are refs to what could be called an age of reason; this is where one really
comprehends right from wrong and is able to accept the teachings and make a
personal decision and commitment.  The Apostles are charged to go into the
world "teaching and baptizing," so it only follows that one can and should
only commit after hearing the Word and *understanding* it.

I'm not trying to preach here, just to give as detailed an answer as I can
from a Christian's perspective.

Peace,

Lee :-)

Do not walk behind me,    | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead;   | N2FGC
Do not walk before me,    | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed May 13 20:42:34 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 20:42:34 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <5F16722AC5E84ED0BFF306CAA5DC43DA@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gufbbq+utp@eGroups.com>

Lee:
> I'm not trying to preach here, just to give as detailed an answer as I can
> from a Christian's perspective.

Magpie:
Or from a Christian of a particular denomination's perspective--since as you say, some denominations do do infant baptisms. Presumably if you were, for instance, Catholic you wouldn't consider it to go against the Bible because it would be part of your tradition. (Though of course Catholicism has infant baptism and then later confirmation, which is where the person has reached the age to commit with their own voice.)

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed May 13 20:46:05 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 20:46:05 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <3AF256236298494494D87C7C23C04609@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gufbid+70rk@eGroups.com>

Kemper aksed:
> | I cut out Potioncat's excellent suggestion in order to ask  Christians other people of religion a question: what are your | thoughts regarding the circumstances of Dumbledore's death and how does that align with the tenets of your faith?  
> 
Lee responded:
> Maybe I'm not understanding what you seek, but it doesn't do anything. Dumbledore died, in a manner of speaking, in the line of duty.  It was his job to prepare Harry for what was to come.  <snip> Dumbledore, because he was desperate to use the resurrection stone to see his sister, didn't take time to think of the possible consequences and shortened his life so he was unable to enter the promised land, as it were, the time of Voldemort's downfall.
> 
> Hope this makes some sense.

Carol responds:

I'm not sure, but I think that Kemper may be asking what Christians and others who hold strong religious beliefs think about the way Dumbledore died, especially his choice to be killed by a particular person rather than his shortening his (long) life by using the Resurrection Stone. We know that Dumbledore was already dying from the curse on the ring, which Snape said could not be contained for longer than about a year. We know that DD drank the horrible potion, further weakening himself, which might, in combination with the ring curse, have caused him to die that very night if he could not get Snape's help, which Draco's arrival on the tower made impossible. (We see DD getting so weak that he can no longer stand, slipping down the wall. Amycus remarks that "Dumby" looks like he's dying.) Dumbledore is wandless and helpless, and Draco, though he can't bring himself to kill DD, has brought in Death Eaters whose only cause for hesitation is that Draco is supposed to do it. If Snape hadn't entered when he did, almost certainly the Carrows or Fenrir Greyback would have done it. (Even Yaxley might have yielded to necessity rather than insisting that Draco do it.) And then Snape enters and, unless Snape breaks his word to both DD and LV, not to mention breaking the Unbreakable Vow, which would probably kill him, DD's death becomes inevitable. But it's still *his choice* to die by Snape's hand rather than Draco's or one of the real DEs. We know his reasons, all but one of which he told to Snape (and that reason has literally gone out the window, but he still begs Snape to kill him--though everyone else present assumes that he's begging for his life).

Dumbledore chooses to die by the hand of a trusted associate, a coup de grace and/or euthanasia rather than be murdered (and just possibly pass the power of the Elder Wand to the DE who killed him). Whether he could have chosen to die from the combination or the curse and the potion, allowing weakness to overcome him, I don't know. He seems not to have wanted that to happen ("Severus, please!), perhaps either way, ring or potion, he'd have been killed by Voldemort and perhaps that would make Voldemort the master of the Elder Wand, or a valid contender in the wand's view, even though Draco has Disarmed DD. (Either that or he's desperately making sure that Snape survives to follow through with his--DD's--plans, which can't happen if Snape falls dead from the broken UV.

Is that what you mean by "the circumstances of Dumbledore's death," Kemper? Are you asking how a Christian or other religious person views Dumbledore's choice to die in that particular way rather than in the various other ways available to him (dying at the teeth of Fenrir Greyback being clearly the least desirable option)? He didn't have the choice of not dying--he was going to die no matter what--but he did choose the way in which he died. Are you asking whether that particular choice amounts to suicide in the eyes of a religious person? Or are you concerned about the implications for Snape, who's forced by his own word and by circumstances to kill a helpless old man because the consequences of not doing so would be worse? I think we all agree that Snape isn't a murderer, but he certainly performed a kind of assisted suicide. DD was going to die, anyway, but he chose the method and the man who killed him. And Snape, too, has a choice, but a terrible one. In terms of the story itself, setting aside religious implications, it was the right choice.

Carol, who hasn't offered any views on the matter because she's just trying to clarify the question





From n2fgc at arrl.net  Wed May 13 20:51:12 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:51:12 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gufbbq+utp@eGroups.com>
References: <5F16722AC5E84ED0BFF306CAA5DC43DA@FRODO> <gufbbq+utp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <F216B2D9FB8C479F872DC656DF7E13EB@FRODO>

| Lee:
| > I'm not trying to preach here, just to give as detailed an 
| answer as I can
| > from a Christian's perspective.
| 
| Magpie:
| Or from a Christian of a particular denomination's 
| perspective--since as you say, some denominations do do 
| infant baptisms. Presumably if you were, for instance, 
| Catholic you wouldn't consider it to go against the Bible 
| because it would be part of your tradition. (Though of course 
| Catholicism has infant baptism and then later confirmation, 
| which is where the person has reached the age to commit with 
| their own voice.)

[Lee]:
Okay, I suppose that's true.  But Catholics have a lot of tradition as you
pointed out which is held, sometimes, in as high an esteem as Scripture.  I
am what's known as a "Bible Only" Christian, a non-denominational ( or
Undenominational) Christian.

Smile,

Lee :-)




From wendymatchen at att.net  Wed May 13 20:06:00 2009
From: wendymatchen at att.net (wendy)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 15:06:00 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gude1i+bp9u@eGroups.com>
References: <gude1i+bp9u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <5778A5748E2F49DEB9D36C3A05D3801F@DuckmanPC>


>> danielle dassero  wrote:
>
>> > Hi I was hoping for some help. I am hoping to convince
> my friend that Christians can love HP and still be Christians. 
> When her daughter is old enough, I want to introduce her to 
> the wonderful world of HP.
>>
>> Potioncat:
>> I can't beat what Geoff said. So I'll just agree fully that 
>> Christians can enjoy HP. Many churches use the books or
>> movies as the basis for studies.
>>
>> But, just as a suggestion, could you suggest that you and 
>> your friend read SS/PS and discuss the Christian aspects 
>> of it? Then you'll make a fan of her, too.


Hey there!  Have you read the book "What's a Christian to do 
with Harry Potter?"  It is a really great book if you like 
Harry Potter. It is not totally biased, it is a great tool; I 
keep right on the shelves next to HP. My bil won't let his 
kids read/watch either...........they were, ohhh like 9 and 6 
at the time  ..............I'm like oh yeah don't let them 
watch that, but slap in American Pie or something and leave 
to watch that crap.  Anyhow try that book.

Wendy

child of the king
wife and best friend to James
mom to 11 so far
http://Writing.Com/authors/ladyblackheart
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/conansangel
www.myspace.com/heartsuntamed
http://ladyblackhearts.blogspot.com/



From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Wed May 13 21:24:43 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 21:24:43 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gufbid+70rk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gufdqr+bgsr@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Kemper asked:
> > | I cut out Potioncat's excellent suggestion in order to ask  Christians other people of religion a question: what are your | thoughts regarding the circumstances of Dumbledore's death and how does that align with the tenets of your faith?  

> Carol responds:
> ...big snip...
> Is that what you mean by "the circumstances of Dumbledore's death," Kemper? Are you asking how a Christian or other religious person views Dumbledore's choice to die in that particular way rather than in the various other ways available to him (dying at the teeth of Fenrir Greyback being clearly the least desirable option)? He didn't have the choice of not dying--he was going to die no matter what--but he did choose the way in which he died. Are you asking whether that particular choice amounts to suicide in the eyes of a religious person? Or are you concerned about the implications for Snape, who's forced by his own word and by circumstances to kill a helpless old man because the consequences of not doing so would be worse? I think we all agree that Snape isn't a murderer, but he certainly performed a kind of assisted suicide. DD was going to die, anyway, but he chose the method and the man who killed him. And Snape, too, has a choice, but a terrible one. In terms of the story itself, setting aside religious implications, it was the right choice.

Kemper now:
Yes.  Snape's roll in a Christian/religous construct.
DD's request in the Christian/religious construct.

I a God and Harry book group, how is this addressed to align within the tenets of Christianity (or any other faith of the big three) or religion (or any other institution of the big three).  
(ei,Christianity is the faith in which Catholicism is the institution for this purpose).

Thanks for summing the scene up Carol!

Kemper




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed May 13 21:57:59 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 21:57:59 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gufdqr+bgsr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guffp7+10gs6@eGroups.com>

Kemper asked:
> > > | I cut out Potioncat's excellent suggestion in order to ask  Christians other people of religion a question: what are your | thoughts regarding the circumstances of Dumbledore's death and how does that align with the tenets of your faith?  
> 
Carol responded:
> > ...big snip...
> > Is that what you mean by "the circumstances of Dumbledore's death," Kemper? Are you asking how a Christian or other religious person views Dumbledore's choice to die in that particular way rather than in the various other ways available to him (dying at the teeth of Fenrir Greyback being clearly the least desirable option)? He didn't have the choice of not dying--he was going to die no matter what--but he did choose the way in which he died. Are you asking whether that particular choice amounts to suicide in the eyes of a religious person? Or are you concerned about the implications for Snape, who's forced by his own word and by circumstances to kill a helpless old man because the consequences of not doing so would be worse? I think we all agree that Snape isn't a murderer, but he certainly performed a kind of assisted suicide. DD was going to die, anyway, but he chose the method and the man who killed him. And Snape, too, has a choice, but a terrible one. In terms of the story itself, setting aside religious implications, it was the right choice.
> 
Kemper again:
> Yes.  Snape's roll in a Christian/religous construct.
> DD's request in the Christian/religious construct.
> 
> I a God and Harry book group, how is this addressed to align within the tenets of Christianity (or any other faith of the big three) or religion (or any other institution of the big three).  
> (ei,Christianity is the faith in which Catholicism is the institution for this purpose).
> 
> Thanks for summing the scene up Carol!

Carol again:

You're welcome. Glad you liked my summary!

Carol, who really hasn't thought about it from a religious perspective but is interested in hearing others' views




From drdara at yahoo.com  Wed May 13 23:16:50 2009
From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <8BD6D12B35B74F7AA830AE0C6C0B5A75@FRODO>
References: <gudag0+cp5n@eGroups.com> <gude1i+bp9u@eGroups.com> <8BD6D12B35B74F7AA830AE0C6C0B5A75@FRODO>
Message-ID: <662365.40710.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>





Thanks for the great suggestions so far guys. I have tried to get my friend to read the books but she's not into what she calls the fantasy/sci fi area. She only read the Narnia books as a kid because her mom made her. She liked them ok but not as much as plain ole fiction. 

DAnielle


      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From drdara at yahoo.com  Wed May 13 23:21:21 2009
From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <002301c9d3f0$3f7e1890$be7a49b0$@com>
References: <gudag0+cp5n@eGroups.com> <gude1i+bp9u@eGroups.com> <8BD6D12B35B74F7AA830AE0C6C0B5A75@FRODO> <002301c9d3f0$3f7e1890$be7a49b0$@com>
Message-ID: <333657.19162.qm@web65413.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

MD, I think the simplest explanation is that you accept Jesus into your heart. At least that's part of what it means to me. I was saved in high school myself over 10 yrs ago. I have recently decided to be baptized. I struggled a long time with how I could be a Christian and believe the things I believe. My pastor's mother day speech gave me some clarity. The last part of his sermon talked about accountability and I realized that it does't matter what other Christians feel about my choices and beliefs, what matters is that I am only accountable to God and that God knows and understands whats in my heart.

Danielle




________________________________
From: Nightbreed <md at exit-reality.com>
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:28:36 AM
Subject: RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God





How do you become a Christian? I just presumed the majority where born into
it (I defected, so I'm a "recovering Christian") but I didn't think most
people thought of a time when they became one. This is not a sarcastic post.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter@ yahoogroups. com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Lee Storm (God Is The
Healing Force)
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:47 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

Hi Danielle,

I'm writing here as a long-time Christian, and my husband (who is almost 22
years my senior) has been a Christian longer than I





      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu May 14 00:53:16 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 00:53:16 -0000
Subject: Favorite couples (OLD POST REPOST)
Message-ID: <gufq1s+7etd@eGroups.com>

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/25

Alla:

So I realised that while I did poke my head in the very old posts on main, I never did so here. This post by Ebony I thought could be fun to peruse for another round.

So what are your favorite couples, be it fictional or historical?

I do love some couples from Ebony's list, especially Elisabeth and Darcy and really cannot stand one couple (tzar Nicolas and his wife - but am biased of course, I feel they contributed tooo much to the possibility of revolution happening).

Am going to add some of my own:

Jack Aubrey and Steven Maturin from Patrick's O'Brien Aubrey-Maturin series.

Andrey Bolkonskiy and Natasha Rostova from War and Peace (oh Natasha you absolute dolt)

I hope I am not sounding wierd by saying this but I think our (american) president and his wife are absolutely stunning couple.

Oh, of course Pericle and Aspasia.

Hmmm, Snape and Sirius (oh wait not in the book lol)

Will tell you when I remember more.

Alla




From md at exit-reality.com  Thu May 14 02:03:41 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 22:03:41 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gufbid+70rk@eGroups.com>
References: <3AF256236298494494D87C7C23C04609@FRODO> <gufbid+70rk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c9d438$345d8110$9d188330$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:46 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

Dumbledore chooses to die by the hand of a trusted associate, a coup de
grace and/or euthanasia rather than be murdered (and just possibly pass the
power of the Elder Wand to the DE who killed him). Whether he could have
chosen to die from the combination or the curse and the potion, allowing
weakness to overcome him, I don't know. He seems not to have wanted that to
happen ("Severus, please!), perhaps either way, ring or potion, he'd have
been killed by Voldemort and perhaps that would make Voldemort the master of
the Elder Wand, or a valid contender in the wand's view, even though Draco
has Disarmed DD. (Either that or he's desperately making sure that Snape
survives to follow through with his--DD's--plans, which can't happen if
Snape falls dead from the broken UV. 

:::::::::::::::::
The Elder Wand passed to the person who disarmed him, Draco, not his killer.
By choosing to die that night he saved Draco from either being a murderer or
from getting killed and he cemented Snape's position with Voldy making his
death an act of sacrifice for the good of others.

md




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Thu May 14 12:04:58 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 08:04:58 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <001d01c9d438$345d8110$9d188330$@com>
References: <3AF256236298494494D87C7C23C04609@FRODO> <gufbid+70rk@eGroups.com> <001d01c9d438$345d8110$9d188330$@com>
Message-ID: <CB162290AC0840869495C5CEBB5E3A69@FRODO>

[Carol wrote]:
| Dumbledore chooses to die by the hand of a trusted associate, 
| a coup de
| grace and/or euthanasia rather than be murdered (and just 
| possibly pass the
| power of the Elder Wand to the DE who killed him). Whether he 
| could have
| chosen to die from the combination or the curse and the 
| potion, allowing
| weakness to overcome him, I don't know. He seems not to have 
| wanted that to
| happen ("Severus, please!), perhaps either way, ring or 
| potion, he'd have
| been killed by Voldemort and perhaps that would make 
| Voldemort the master of
| the Elder Wand, or a valid contender in the wand's view, even 
| though Draco
| has Disarmed DD. (Either that or he's desperately making sure 
| that Snape
| survives to follow through with his--DD's--plans, which can't 
| happen if
| Snape falls dead from the broken UV. 
| 

[MD]:
| The Elder Wand passed to the person who disarmed him, Draco, 
| not his killer.
| By choosing to die that night he saved Draco from either 
| being a murderer or
| from getting killed and he cemented Snape's position with 
| Voldy making his
| death an act of sacrifice for the good of others.

[Lee]:
I can agree with that.  As to what it does for my faith?  well, can we say
"Martyr?"  Dumbledore knew that if Snape didn't protect Draco he (Snape)
would die, as Carol pointed out.  Dumbledore has the long view, so to speak.
He knows things Snape does not and knows what's needed to fulfill the
prophecy.  He's pieced the puzzle together.  Perhaps one could say that his
need to use the resurrection stone was predestined because it gave Snape a
way to protect Draco an still have the final act fulfilled--the death of
Dumbledore.  Obviously, Dumbledore was hoping that Snape would gain the
wand, but it didn't turn out that way.

And, perhaps, that's a good thing; we don't know if such power would have
tipped the balance if Snape gained the elder wand; we can only believe that
things happened the way they were *meant* to happen.

IMO, this means that, knowing how the prophecy must end, Dumbledore
willingly became a martyr to the cause.

So, from a Christian perspective, we are all tools of God to be used by Him;
in that light, Dumbledore knew that he and Snape and Draco were tools to be
used in whatever way was necessary to fulfill the prophecy.  Dumbledore was
a willing participant.  Snape was more resistant until the end when he
realized his importance and then gave all that he had to Harry...not just
what Dumbledore wanted him to know, but *Everything*!

How many times does God want something of us and we respond with kicking and
screaming rather than praying and giving over?  More times than we want to
admit, I'm afraid.  It's a human response to not liking having someone else
know more and be in more control...true? :)

Peace,

Lee :-)




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Thu May 14 14:27:13 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:27:13 -0000
Subject: Christian perspective on DD's death was Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <CB162290AC0840869495C5CEBB5E3A69@FRODO>
Message-ID: <guh9o1+3bg2@eGroups.com>

> [Lee]:
>  
> So, from a Christian perspective, we are all tools of God to be used by Him; in that light, Dumbledore knew that he and Snape and Draco were tools to be used in whatever way was necessary to fulfill the prophecy.  Dumbledore was a willing participant.  Snape was more resistant until the end when he realized his importance and then gave all that he had to Harry...not just what Dumbledore wanted him to know, but *Everything*!
> 
> How many times does God want something of us and we respond with kicking and screaming rather than praying and giving over?  More times than we want to admit, I'm afraid.  It's a human response to not liking having someone else know more and be in more control...true? :)

Kemper now:
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Lee!





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu May 14 16:55:54 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:55:54 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <662365.40710.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <guhieq+ag5g@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, danielle dassero <drdara at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the great suggestions so far guys. I have tried to get my friend to read the books but she's not into what she calls the fantasy/sci fi area. She only read the Narnia books as a kid because her mom made her. She liked them ok but not as much as plain ole fiction. 
> 
> DAnielle
> 
Carol responds:

Maybe you could convince her to watch one of the Harry Potter films--painless and fun--to prove to her that they're harmless. If she's still not interested in the series, at least she'll know that they don't promote witchcraft among us Muggles. As both the books and the films make clear, nonmagical people (that is, real people like us as opposed to her fictional characters) can't perform magic, and, as she's said in interviews, she doesn't believe in magic, anyway. It's just a device that she uses in the plot of the story. Reading SS/PS, for example, is no more harmful than reading "Cinderella."

If that doesn't work, I would give up on getting her to read the books and just ask her not to condemn them unread.

Carol, out of suggestions for the moment




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu May 14 17:19:02 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 17:19:02 -0000
Subject: Favorite couples (OLD POST REPOST)
In-Reply-To: <gufq1s+7etd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guhjq6+tr4k@eGroups.com>

Alla:
> 
> So I realised that while I did poke my head in the very old posts on main, I never did so here. This post by Ebony I thought could be fun to peruse for another round.
> 
> So what are your favorite couples, be it fictional or historical?
<snip>

Carol responds:

I second Elizabeth Bennett and Fitzwilliam Darcy (what a name!) and Pericles and Aspasia. I would add a tragic real-life couple, Richard III and his wife, Anne Neville, and--I hear some people laughing in the background--Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah in "Splash." Love that movie!

In the HP books, the only couple I really like (individually and as a couple) is Mr. and Mrs. Weasley. I have mixed feelings about Ron and Hermione, mostly because I like him better than her (I do think that once he gains his self-confidence, he can deal with her and will be happy). I don't like the Harry/Ginny pairing at all, mostly because I can't stand Ginny.

How about Kreacher and Mrs. Black? (Just joking.)

I'm trying to think of a Shakespearean couple that I really like, individually and as a couple, but I can't think of one. Romeo and Juliet don't have much personality, I can't stand either Portia or Antonio in "The Merchant of Venice," and I remember the heroines much more clearly than the heroes in the comedies.

Anyway, fun question and harder than it seems!

Carol, adding Eowyn and Faramir from LOTR (the book version) as an afterthought even though we don't see much of them




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu May 14 17:43:05 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 17:43:05 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guhieq+ag5g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guhl79+2c6g@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Maybe you could convince her to watch one of the Harry Potter 
> films--painless and fun--to prove to her that they're harmless. 
> If she's still not interested in the series, at least she'll 
> know that they don't promote witchcraft among us Muggles.



In this case don't start with PoA, because those hanging talking heads may convince her otherwise :-).


zanooda, hating the heads ... :-)




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu May 14 18:38:09 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:38:09 -0000
Subject: Favorite couples (OLD POST REPOST)
In-Reply-To: <guhjq6+tr4k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guhoeh+54p9@eGroups.com>

> Carol responds:
<SNIP>
> I'm trying to think of a Shakespearean couple that I really like, individually and as a couple, but I can't think of one. Romeo and Juliet don't have much personality, I can't stand either Portia or Antonio in "The Merchant of Venice," and I remember the heroines much more clearly than the heroes in the comedies.
> 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Hm, hard for me as well. I do enjoy Beatriche and Benedict, however, I wonder if they will make it as a couple, I mean I enjoy their chemistry and bickering (especially in the movie), but long term, am not sure.

And yes, cannot stand Portia or Antonio myself.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu May 14 18:56:57 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:56:57 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <001d01c9d438$345d8110$9d188330$@com>
Message-ID: <guhphp+87i0@eGroups.com>

Carol eralier:
> Dumbledore chooses to die by the hand of a trusted associate, a coup de grace and/or euthanasia rather than be murdered (and just possibly pass the power of the Elder Wand to the DE who killed him). Whether he could have chosen to die from the combination or the curse and the potion, allowing weakness to overcome him, I don't know. He seems not to have wanted that to happen ("Severus, please!), perhaps either way, ring or potion, he'd have been killed by Voldemort and perhaps that would make Voldemort the master of the Elder Wand, or a valid contender in the wand's view, even though Draco has Disarmed DD. (Either that or he's desperately making sure that Snape survives to follow through with his--DD's--plans, which can't happen if Snape falls dead from the broken UV. 
> 
md:
> The Elder Wand passed to the person who disarmed him, Draco, not his killer. By choosing to die that night he saved Draco from either being a murderer or from getting killed and he cemented Snape's position with Voldy making his death an act of sacrifice for the good of others.

Carol responds:
First, Dumbledore didn't choose to die that night. He was going to die, regardless. What he chose was to go through with the plan and have Snape kill him even though he had the other options that I mentioned. And, yes, of course, that plan saved Draco's soul, but so would the other options. And, yes, of course, that plan cemented Snape's position, but he could have gone with the Death Eaters and gotten them and Draco out of Hogwarts even if, say, Amycus Carrow had killed Dumbledore. (Granted, of course, Dumbledore specifically did not want Fenrir Greyback to kill him and Snape's doing so prevented that. And, of course, there's the Unbreakable Vow, which you don't mention. If Snape allowed himself to drop dead by refusing to "do the deed" when Draco didn't, that part of the plan would also go out the window.) So, yes, of course, I understand all that. But I'm asking whether there's more to Dumbledore's desperate plea for Snape to kill him than Snape himself knew even though the plan had already gone wrong.

And second, you say that the Elder wand passed to Draco, who Disarmed Dumbledore, and not to his killer, which, of course, is true as far as it goes. But what I'm concerned with here is Dumbledore's thought process and what might have happened even after Draco's Expelliarmus if someone other than Snape had killed DD. Dumbledore knew, of course, that the wand would not pass to Snape regardless of whether Draco had first Disarmed him because Snape was acting on his orders. The idea was to rob the wand of all its powers when Snape killed him, which did not happen because Draco Disarmed him first. Yet DD still wants Snape and no one else to kill him even though that part of the plan has failed.

Did Dumbledore *know* that the mastery of the wand would pass to Draco, who merely Disarmed him, rather than to his killer (other than Snape)? I'm not sure that he did. Did he know how easily that mastery could be taken away from a weak Wizard like Draco (simply by snatching his own wand from his hand)? Did he fear that it might be taken away more forcefully if someone else (other than Snape) killed Dumbledore? More on that in a moment.

What I'm saying is that Dumbledore's *primary* reason for having Snape kill him, the one he concealed from Snape and the whole reason he concocted the plan in the first place, seems to have no longer existed once Draco Disarmed him. ("Well, Draco's the master of the wand now. So much for that. Might as well just drop dead now since I no longer need Severus to kill me or save him the pain of killing me and let Amycus do it.") But Dumbledore still makes sure, with a bit of astute psychological manipulation, that Draco not only doesn't kill him but knows that he's not a killer even though Draco is now at least the temporary master of the Elder Wand, and he still chooses to have Snape and no one else perform the Avada Kedavra even though that act will no longer rob the Elder Wand of its power. 

Obviously, the reasons that you give are important. For the most part, they're the same ones that Dumbledore gave Snape or that Snape himself understood as Dumbledore's motivation--to save Draco's soul and prevent him from being killed (which was also Snape's motivation for taking the Unbreakable Vow once he'd already promised Dumbledore to "do the deed") and to ensure that Snape became Voldemort's right-hand man so that he could become headmaster and protect the students at Hogwarts (and continue to aid Portrait!Dumbledore in helping Harry destroy Voldemort). Dumbledore had also told Snape (or strongly implied) that if he saved a dying old man from a terrible death at the hands of Death Eaters or the teeth of Greyback, his own soul would be safe. The act would not, in other words, be murder. Snape, of course, also knew that if he failed to do as Dumbledore begged him to do, he would almost certainly die from breaking the Unbreakable Vow and Dumbledore's plans would fall apart. Harry would never know about the soul bit in his scar and Voldemort would win. So *Snape's* motivation is clear.

But, though the reasons that Dumbledore gave Snape are all valid (and highly effective in persuading Snape to do what he really doesn't want to do), DD had, as you know, another motivation that he concealed from Snape, and that motivation literally went out the window when Draco Disarmed him. It was now clear (to DD) that the Elder Wand would not lose its power when Snape killed him. That being the case, Dumbledore had the choice of letting Snape off the hook. Why not let another Death Eater kill him or just let the potion and the ring curse kill him rather than making Snape look like a murderer in front of Harry, who would make sure that the whole WW heard the story? For one thing, as you say, the parts of the plan that he'd told Snape still applied. It was still important for Snape himself to kill him for the reasons that Snape himself knew. In fact, for Snape himself, nothing has changed. It's only Dumbledore who knows about the flaw in the plan.

But was there more to Dumbledore's desperation ("Severus, please!") than the plans involving Snape, important though they were? I think that Dumbledore *may* have feared that the Elder Wand could choose to go to a stronger, more evil Wizard than Draco, a more suitable master, if that Wizard murdered Dumbledore rather than having the loyal Snape kill him. And why not let the combined ring curse and poison kill him? He was going to die, anyway, and dying that way would let Snape off the hook. The third provision of the Unbreakable Vow would no longer apply--Snape would only need to protect and watch over Draco until the mission was safely accomplished--that is, until he got off the Hogwarts grounds. Snape could still masquerade as a loyal Death Eater, though perhaps not as Voldemort's right-hand man, if another DE killed Dumbledore or if the combined curse and potion killed him. 

I agree that Snape's mission was very important and probably crucial, but (despite what he told Snape), it was never Dumbledore's main motivation for putting Snape in the terrible position of having to kill him. That primary motivation was the Elder Wand. So I'm trying to account for Dumbledore's desperate plea to Snape to kill him and for his failing to choose those other options after the Elder Wand plan falls apart. Why not just die from the poison or let one of the Carrows kill him since they didn't seem inclined to torture him first? Why insist that Snape go through with the plan to kill him if doing so would not destroy the power of the Elder Wand?

I think there was more to it than he had told Snape. Important as those reasons were (and, of course, they were the only reasons that Snape knew of--he didn't know about the Elder Wand or the flaw in the plan), I can't help thinking that there was something more, a fear on Dumbledore's part that the wand wouldn't recognize Draco as its master if a stronger Wizard killed Dumbledore. And that would include Voldemort, who made the potion and placed the curse on the ring, if Dumbledore died from those causes.

I realize that Draco's being the master of the wand seems simple and straightforward, but perhaps that's only because Dumbledore insisted that Snape go through with the original plan. Maybe the wand itself would have chosen someone stronger than Draco if that person had succeeded in killing Dumbledore--Snape again being the exception because he was acting on Dumbledore's orders for humanitarian reasons. Ollivander says that a wand chooses its master and that it's not always a simple choice. Dumbledore, who set up his whole complex plan primarily because of the Elder Wand, would have known that. And once the plan went wrong, I think he wanted to prevent collateral damage. He wanted to be sure that it didn't choose one of the DEs on the tower or Voldemort himself. And having Snape kill him ensured that it would not--at least until someone Disarmed, killed, or overcame Draco (which, again, was a reason for making sure that Snape carried out the original plan).

Or as you say, his sole reason for continuing with the original plan, the sole reason for the desperation in his voice, may simply be the importance of Snape's role. Part of DD's plan failed, but the rest was still intact, and certainly he wanted it carried out. I'm just not sure that the mastery of the Elder Wand wasn't still involved in some way.

Carol, by no means denying that Snape's role was crucial but still thinking that Dumbledore may have had other fears




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu May 14 20:56:07 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 20:56:07 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guhphp+87i0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gui0h7+i9kk@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> First, Dumbledore didn't choose to die that night. He was going to die, regardless. What he chose was to go through with the plan and have Snape kill him even though he had the other options that I mentioned. And, yes, of course, that plan saved Draco's soul, but so would the other options. And, yes, of course, that plan cemented Snape's position, but he could have gone with the Death Eaters and gotten them and Draco out of Hogwarts even if, say, Amycus Carrow had killed Dumbledore. (Granted, of course, Dumbledore specifically did not want Fenrir Greyback to kill him and Snape's doing so prevented that. And, of course, there's the Unbreakable Vow, which you don't mention.  <snip>

Carol again:

Sorry--I'm tripping over the complexity of my own thoughts again. What I'm trying to account for is Dumbledore's desperation. Even though the plan to strip the Elder Wand of its power has failed, Dumbledore still pleads with Snape to kill him, disregarding all the other forms of death available to him. Obviously, "Severus, please!" means "Severus, please kill me as you promised to do." But why is it still just as important as it was before Draco Disarmed Dumbledore?

On one level, of course, "Severus, please!" means exactly what Snape knows that it means: "Please kill me for the reasons we've agreed on and so that we can carry out our plan." But if that's all it means, why would Dumbledore be pleading, his soft voice more terrifying to Harry than anything else he has heard that night? The Elder Wand part of the plan has already failed, and Snape's action won't prevent Draco from becoming at least the temporary master of the wand.

Is DD afraid that if he dies in some other way than by Snape's hand, Snape won't become headmaster or won't be able to give his message to Harry? that seems unlikely given Snape's loyalty and ingenuity. Is it Snape's dying from the Unbreakable Vow if he doesn't get on with killing him that DD is worried about? I think that's part of it. He desperately needs Snape, perhaps more than Snape realizes. Obviously, the whole plan (as opposed to just the Elder Wand part) will fail if Snape dies, and Snape surely knows that.

But are the plan and the UV sufficient to account for Dumbledore's pleading tone, or could he also mean something that Snape doesn't understand, something related to the Elder Wand? 

If so, one possibility is the one I mentioned earlier, that the wand itself might choose the killer rather than the Disarmer of Dumbledore if that person isn't Snape, the man he requested (or coerced or ordered) to kill him. Obviously, it didn't and wouldn't choose Snape because Snape is doing DD's bidding, not defeating him. The whole idea as I understand it was to end the wand's power, not to make Snape its master. 

But here's another thought. What if DD is afraid that if Snape dies from breaking the Unbreakable Vow, Draco will be without protection and Voldemort will kill him, becoming the master of the Elder Wand in the process.

That would explain his pleading with Snape to hurry up and kill him. But, of course, he also needs Snape alive for other reasons, and the plan will work best if he's Voldemort's right-hand man even if that means killing DD in front of Harry.

Carol, just wondering if there's more to Dumbledore's desperation than meets the eye




From md at exit-reality.com  Thu May 14 22:32:09 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:32:09 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guhl79+2c6g@eGroups.com>
References: <guhieq+ag5g@eGroups.com> <guhl79+2c6g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00d801c9d4e3$d1de6ed0$759b4c70$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of zanooda2
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:43 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God



In this case don't start with PoA, because those hanging talking heads may
convince her otherwise :-).


zanooda, hating the heads ... :-)



------------------------------------
JK likes the heads, it's her story, so I support them.

ms




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu May 14 23:44:19 2009
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 23:44:19 -0000
Subject: Favorite couples (OLD POST REPOST)
In-Reply-To: <guhoeh+54p9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guiacj+rcev@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Carol responds:
> <SNIP>
> > I'm trying to think of a Shakespearean couple that I really like, individually and as a couple, but I can't think of one. Romeo and Juliet don't have much personality, I can't stand either Portia or Antonio in "The Merchant of Venice," and I remember the heroines much more clearly than the heroes in the comedies.
> > 
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Hm, hard for me as well. I do enjoy Beatriche and Benedict, however, I wonder if they will make it as a couple, I mean I enjoy their chemistry and bickering (especially in the movie), but long term, am not sure.
> 
> And yes, cannot stand Portia or Antonio myself.

a_svirn:
And they aren't even a couple! Antonio and Bassanio make for some interesting dynamic, though. As for constant bickering ? Ron and Hermione lasted long enough to make it to the epilogue, and they bicker just as furiously as Benedick and Beatrice ever did. Never thought of it before, but yes, I agree that it's probably Shakespeare's most likable couple.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 00:33:01 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 00:33:01 -0000
Subject: Favorite couples (OLD POST REPOST)
In-Reply-To: <guiacj+rcev@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guid7t+uj33@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> > <SNIP>
> > > I'm trying to think of a Shakespearean couple that I really like, individually and as a couple, but I can't think of one. Romeo and Juliet don't have much personality, I can't stand either Portia or Antonio in "The Merchant of Venice," and I remember the heroines much more clearly than the heroes in the comedies.

Alla responded:
> > 
> > Hm, hard for me as well. I do enjoy Beatriche and Benedict, however, I wonder if they will make it as a couple, I mean I enjoy their chemistry and bickering (especially in the movie), but long term, am not sure.
> > 
> > And yes, cannot stand Portia or Antonio myself.
> 
> a_svirn:
> And they aren't even a couple! Antonio and Bassanio make for some interesting dynamic, though. 

Carol responds:

Oi! My fault. I didn't even remember Bassanio, only that I hated the other two and felt great sympathy for Shylock.

Carol, who was going to mention Benedick and Beatrice as an *interesting* couple, but, like Alla, I'm not sure they'll have a happy marriage




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 00:57:41 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 00:57:41 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <00d801c9d4e3$d1de6ed0$759b4c70$@com>
Message-ID: <guiem5+ghd8@eGroups.com>

> zanooda:
> In this case don't start with PoA, because those hanging talking heads may convince her otherwise :-).
>
> zanooda, hating the heads ... :-)
 
> ms:
> JK likes the heads, it's her story, so I support them.

Kemper now:
If JKR has the best General Tso Chicken recipe and another cook prepares the same recipe but adds a chunk of Valveeta to the dish and JKR likes it, then I would not eat it nor would I support others in eating it.

Kemper




From md at exit-reality.com  Fri May 15 02:02:50 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 22:02:50 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guiem5+ghd8@eGroups.com>
References: <00d801c9d4e3$d1de6ed0$759b4c70$@com> <guiem5+ghd8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <010501c9d501$4017e080$c047a180$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kempermentor
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:58 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
> ms:
> JK likes the heads, it's her story, so I support them.

Kemper now:
If JKR has the best General Tso Chicken recipe and another cook prepares the
same recipe but adds a chunk of Valveeta to the dish and JKR likes it, then
I would not eat it nor would I support others in eating it.

MD:

That's completely different. If it's JKR's house and she loves her window
dressing and someone else suggest a valance that she thinks just sets it off
perfectly, then I say "hey, it's her house!"

The same director also added the clock tower, no one bitches about that.

md




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 03:24:14 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 03:24:14 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <010501c9d501$4017e080$c047a180$@com>
Message-ID: <guin8u+kq4s@eGroups.com>

MD wrote:
> <snip>
> The same director also added the clock tower, no one bitches about that.

Carol responds:

We all have the right to like or dislike any aspect of the films or books. It really doesn't matter to me whether JKR likes the talking heads or not. They're uncanonical and, to me, unfunny. Now if JKR were writing about or Cuaron were filming the WW in Jamaica, I wouldn't mind as much, except that the canonical shrunken heads are Dark objects and these are meant to be humorous.

The clock tower, OTOH, is a nice touch since time is an important motif in PoA. So, IMO, is the use of the Whomping Willow to show the change of seasons.

A director can add whatever he likes, within reason, to a film adaptation of a book. They're different media. But the viewers are under no obligation to like the additions any more than they necessarily like the director's (and writer's) choice of scenes to delete or the reassignment of lines from one character to another.

You like the shrunken heads. But no matter how many times you tell us that you like them and JKR likes them, those of us who dislike them aren't going to change our minds, any more than we're going to start thinking that Ginny is Harry's ideal wife just because JKR says so just because JKR holds that view.

Carol, agreeing with zanooda that the talking heads detract from the film and not at all impressed by JKR's statement that she likes them





From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 04:03:48 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 04:03:48 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <010501c9d501$4017e080$c047a180$@com>
Message-ID: <guipj4+nc15@eGroups.com>

> md wrote earlier:
> JK likes the heads, it's her story, so I support them.
> 
> Kemper responded:
> If JKR has the best General Tso Chicken recipe and another cook prepares the
> same recipe but adds a chunk of Valveeta to the dish and JKR likes it, then
> I would not eat it nor would I support others in eating it.

> MD then replied:
> That's completely different. If it's JKR's house and she loves her window dressing and someone else suggest a valance that she thinks just sets it off perfectly, then I say "hey, it's her house!"

Kemper now:
It's the same.  Book is to recipe as story-distracting new scene is to vomit-inducing new ingredient.


> md:
> The same director also added the clock tower, no one bitches about that.

Kemper now:
Really?  Let me be the first.  The clock tower is lame but not as lame as the racist heads.

Kemper




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 06:09:21 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 06:09:21 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <00d801c9d4e3$d1de6ed0$759b4c70$@com>
Message-ID: <guj0uh+baa4@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:

> JK likes the heads, it's her story, so I support them.


I really didn't intend to start another heads discussion :-). I know very well that you like them, and you know that I don't :-). All I  wanted to say is that it wouldn't be a good idea to show the heads to someone whom you want to convince that HP books and movies don't promote witchcraft, like Carol suggested. They are human heads, for crying out loud :-)! They are cut-off human heads reanimated by magic (kind of like mini-Inferi :-)) - definitely a promotion of Dark magic, to me. I agree though that this is a matter of personal opinion, so nothing to argue about :-). Take care,

zanooda




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri May 15 06:43:16 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 06:43:16 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <00d801c9d4e3$d1de6ed0$759b4c70$@com>
Message-ID: <guj2u4+achk@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:
 
> -----Original Message-----
> To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

Zanooda: 
> >In this case don't start with PoA, because those hanging talking heads may
> >convince her otherwise :-).
 
> >zanooda, hating the heads ... :-)

MS:
> JK likes the heads, it's her story, so I support them.

Geoff:
I'm inclined to agree with Zanooda. We've had the scriptwriters on the 
DVDs talking about theneed to pick out the main ingredients of the 
story because of the film time constraints. As a result, some bits get 
omitted and then we get these talking heads. My question is, what 
relevance do they have to the story? 

Not a lot. IMO, they are a waste of space.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri May 15 06:50:15 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 06:50:15 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guipj4+nc15@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guj3b7+nb02@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" <kempermentor at ...> wrote:

md:
> > The same director also added the clock tower, no one bitches about that.
 
Kemper:
> Really?  Let me be the first.  The clock tower is lame but not as lame as the racist heads.

Geoff:
Actually, I would disagree with you on that one. The clock tower is a clever 
visual and brief way of dealing with the time-turning.




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 07:29:29 2009
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:29:29 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <662365.40710.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <guj5kp+6i11@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, danielle dassero <drdara at ...> wrote:
> Thanks for the great suggestions so far guys. I have tried to get my friend to read the books but she's not into what she calls the fantasy/sci fi area. She only read the Narnia books as a kid because her mom made her. She liked them ok but not as much as plain ole fiction. 

Tonks:

I am coming into this discussion rather late. I have been threating to write a book about the Harry Potter books for sometime now. I see all sorts of Christian symbols in the books. I see the whole series as a retelling of the Gospels.

As to the discussion on Dumbledore and the tower. I wasn't able to read all of the post. I will just say this. Good Friday has never been the same for me. Now I see Jesus on the cross and DD on the tower, and it breaks my heart twice as much. DD is under the skull, that it the place where Jesus died. John Granger does a nice job of suming up a lot of the rest of it, with the cave and rest. He has a website. 

Tonks_op




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 07:43:40 2009
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:43:40 -0000
Subject: Michael Savage banded from the UK
Message-ID: <guj6fc+e1eb@eGroups.com>

Friends across the pond. What is the deal? What do you know from your end? 

Never heard of him, I am sure. He is just a consertive radio talk show guy here. Not a threat to anyone. Kind of a nice guy if you listen to him long enough. If you only hear him once or twice and on a bad day, he will sound like a radical nut. But he isn't. He talks about his childhood, his little dog, Teddy. His big thing is Boundaries, Language, and Culture. In other words, only legal aliens, English is our language, and we have an American culture which new people should learn and try to fit into. He makes sense. He is not really a nut case. We have lots of them, but they have not been bans from traveling to the UK.

Apparently there is some woman, Jackie Smith, who is responsible for this. Just wondered what the perspect is on your side. What have you heard over there?? And who is Jackie Smith?? 
 
Also:
Is this forum website really slow now or it is my computer. I haven't been here for awhile. And I am stopped trying to check spelling too. Sorry about that.

Tonks_op




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri May 15 10:20:48 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 10:20:48 -0000
Subject: Michael Savage banded from the UK
In-Reply-To: <guj6fc+e1eb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gujfm0+2vjd@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:

Tonks:
> Apparently there is some woman, Jackie Smith, who is responsible for this. Just wondered what the perspect is on your side. What have you heard over there?? And who is Jackie Smith?

Geoff;
Some woman? Tut, tut.

Jackie Smith is the Home Secretary and, as such, is one of the 
most important members of the Cabinet.

The Home Office is the government department responsible, 
inter alia, for immigration and passports, drugs policy, 
counter-terrorism and the police.







From md at exit-reality.com  Fri May 15 12:56:52 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 08:56:52 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guj0uh+baa4@eGroups.com>
References: <00d801c9d4e3$d1de6ed0$759b4c70$@com> <guj0uh+baa4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006901c9d55c$9ea60e00$dbf22a00$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of zanooda2
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 2:09 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:

> JK likes the heads, it's her story, so I support them.


I really didn't intend to start another heads discussion :-). I know very
well that you like them, and you know that I don't :-). 
:::::::::::::::::::

Actually, I'm completely indifferent. I can't believe how people keep
beating on them as if the five minutes in the film ruin the experience. Of
course, I think 3 & 5 are the best films and I was so happy to see Columbus
out of the director's chair and a real film maker adding style and validity
to the series -- as well as making the films about characters and not just
plot -- that I could have forgiven the heads either way. Now, the shrunken
head in the DVD extra's -- that's annoying!!! (and stupid beyond reproach,
imo.)

My only thing is, as a writer, I don't want people second-guessing my
choices in my world. I think, the moment JKR decided to use "magician's"
wands which, IIRC, have never been part of any major wizard lore (wizards
carry staffs, if anything, only charlatans and illusionist use "wands") she
had made a decision to break with traditional genres and conventions. 

What I don't understand is the need to respond negatively to these things,
and often, not at all constructively.

md




From md at exit-reality.com  Fri May 15 13:00:05 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:00:05 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guj2u4+achk@eGroups.com>
References: <00d801c9d4e3$d1de6ed0$759b4c70$@com> <guj2u4+achk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006a01c9d55d$119f57e0$34de07a0$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 2:43 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:
My question is, what 
relevance do they have to the story? 

Not a lot. IMO, they are a waste of space.



------------------------------------
See, that's constructive, and I agree. It's the one fault I had with Cuaron
is that for everything he "omitted" to streamline the story, he seemed to
add something completely irrelevant. I think the heads where his way of
adding "comic relief" for the children in the audience in such an otherwise
dark story. 

md




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Fri May 15 13:36:07 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 06:36:07 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Michael Savage banded from the UK
In-Reply-To: <guj6fc+e1eb@eGroups.com>
References: <guj6fc+e1eb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90905150636t335d7eejb3db30d2a594940d@mail.gmail.com>

>Tonks wrote
>He is just a conservative radio talk show guy here.

No.Limberger responds:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/michael-savage-banned-fro_n_196631.html
Good for the UK!  People like Michael Savage who use
the media to spread their hate and intolerance are just
pathetic.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Fri May 15 13:53:38 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 06:53:38 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guj5kp+6i11@eGroups.com>
References: <662365.40710.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	 <guj5kp+6i11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90905150653g107a0bcdo845aacb31345a12e@mail.gmail.com>

>Tonks wrote:
> I see the whole series as a retelling of the Gospels.

No.Limberger responds:
I don't.  Lily Potter was not impregnated as a virgin, so
Harry was not born of a virgin.  Jesus' parents (according
to the new testament) were not killed by a dark wizard or
anyone else for that matter, whereas Harry's parents were.
Jesus didn't grow up living under a staircase and being
generally mistreated, whereas Harry was.  Harry never
walked on water, fed thousands from nothing, raised
the dead, restored vision to the blind, etc. as the gospels
claim that Jesus did; nor was Harry out to preach &
convert followers to a new religion.  Harry was human,
imperfect and even attempted to curse people; whereas
the new testament claims that Jesus was divine,
perfect and never did anything wrong to anyone.

Thus, I have never seen the fictional Harry Potter
novels as a retelling of Christian mythology or any
other religion's mythology for that matter.  It, like any
other hero-based story, is an example of "the hero's
journey" as described by Joseph Campbell.  While
there is nothing wrong with seeing some Christian
imagery in Harry Potter (or Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish
or any other religious imagery), Harry Potter as a
"retelling of the gospels" is not supported by the text.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri May 15 14:15:05 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:15:05 -0000
Subject: Humor in Harry Potter...and beyond
Message-ID: <gujtd9+qarh@eGroups.com>

Carol started a thread over at main about humor in Harry Potter. (Not to be confused with the balance or imbalance of humours within the boy Harry Potter)

But I thought I'd bring it over here to move the topic beyond canon. Here's a post that I'm actually responding to:

In 186571 (I think)
 Geoff replied

Also, have you missed out on CSL? There are some quite funny moments
there too.

There is a saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" - this could
be restated as "humour...."


Potioncat:
Which CS Lewis books would you recommend especially for humor? I've read two Narnia books. I preferred one very much to the other, but I don't remember the name of it. Lion Witch and Wardrobe was my less favorite.

My husband and son took a long car trip and took a couple of audio books with them. I next used the car, saw a CS Lewis book "Surprised by Joy" and popped it in. Loved it. I thought it was very amusing.

So when I got home that evening I asked my husband's opinion. "Oh, it was so dry Michael and I couldn't stand it and we turned it off pretty quick."

I'm now on the second disc, still enjoying it, but now my impression is contaminated by by husband's opinion.

I've moved the thread over here just to discuss humor in general and to ask about CS Lewis in particular. Oh, does anyone remember the name of the movie that was based on him?








From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 14:19:12 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:19:12 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <006901c9d55c$9ea60e00$dbf22a00$@com>
Message-ID: <gujtl0+rbht@eGroups.com>

> md:
> 
> Actually, I'm completely indifferent. I can't believe how people keep
> ... Of
> course, I think 3 & 5 are the best films and I was so happy to see Columbus out of the director's chair and a real film maker adding style and validity to the series -- as well as making the films about characters and not just plot 

Kemper now:
I cannot agree with you more.  The first two were like fresh zombies, looking like the original but without souls.  Columbus is overrated
I'll take the racist heads over the first two movies any night.


> md:
> My only thing is, as a writer, I don't want people second-guessing my choices in my world. 

Kemper now:
As a reader, I don't think the writer has that right.  You could always keep a private journal that no one has the right to read.  Being a fan does not mean nor require constructive criticism.  If you have fans bitching about what you wrote or condoned, you would still have fans.  No need to be an ungrate writer to them.

Kemper






From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri May 15 14:43:02 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:43:02 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gujtl0+rbht@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gujv1m+5c55@eGroups.com>

> > md:
> > My only thing is, as a writer, I don't want people second-guessing my choices in my world. 
> 
> Kemper now:
> As a reader, I don't think the writer has that right.  You could always keep a private journal that no one has the right to read.  Being a fan does not mean nor require constructive criticism.  If you have fans bitching about what you wrote or condoned, you would still have fans.  No need to be an ungrate writer to them.

Magpie:
Got to agree there. People are always going to second-guess a writer's choices if they're inclined, which is not always a bad thing. But I don't have a problem with negative reactions either. Sometimes I get something out of that sort of discussion, sometimes I don't.

-m




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 14:51:02 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:51:02 -0000
Subject: Michael Savage banded from the UK
In-Reply-To: <guj6fc+e1eb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gujvgm+lc2r@eGroups.com>

> Tonks:
> Never heard of him, I am sure. He is just a consertive radio talk show guy here. Not a threat to anyone. Kind of a nice guy if you listen to him long enough. If you only hear him once or twice and on a bad day, he will sound like a radical nut. But he isn't. 

Kemper now:
I don't know why he's banned from the UK, but he is a hatemonger regardless of how sweetly he talks about his dog or kids.  

What does he mean by American Culture?  Culture changes with the times.  That's why there's no legal slavery, women can vote and that there are no longer any smoking sections at high schools.  It's why gay rights are slowly becoming a 'duh' issue.  Michael Wiener Savage protests quite a bit about gay rights.  Kind of like Larry Craig only more vocal.


Kemper




From md at exit-reality.com  Fri May 15 16:18:11 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 12:18:11 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gujv1m+5c55@eGroups.com>
References: <gujtl0+rbht@eGroups.com> <gujv1m+5c55@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c9d578$be4e15b0$3aea4110$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sistermagpie
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 10:43 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

Magpie:
Got to agree there. People are always going to second-guess a writer's
choices if they're inclined, which is not always a bad thing. But I don't
have a problem with negative reactions either. Sometimes I get something out
of that sort of discussion, sometimes I don't.

-m


WARNING!!! SPOLIERS FOLLOW!!!


































------------------------------------
I have issues with everything I've ever read / seen at some point or
another, sure, there's always something in every story. I wanted Harry to
flourish as a wizard, after his quick mastery of the patronus I found it
really suffocating to have him seem so helpless against death eaters and
Hermione out-matches him in skill endlessly right up to the end. I really
wanted it to be about Harry finding power within himself to knock arrogant
Vodly on his ass rather than the half-hearted "expelliarmus" I think JKR
really thought it out too far and over-reached for the conclusion, but Harry
really, IMO, had a "Molly" moment (not my daughter, you bitch -- bam, dead
Belatrix!) but it never came.

So there's, that's my bitch. But, it's not my story, so I don't bitch, I
take the ride as a trip and I enjoyed the trip.

As for the films, after what Columbus did, anything was better.

md




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 17:01:02 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 17:01:02 -0000
Subject: Discussions about books and movies WAS: Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <003e01c9d578$be4e15b0$3aea4110$@com>
Message-ID: <guk74e+47oo@eGroups.com>

md:
> ------------------------------------
> I have issues with everything I've ever read / seen at some point or
> another, sure, there's always something in every story. I wanted Harry to
> flourish as a wizard, after his quick mastery of the patronus I found it
> really suffocating to have him seem so helpless against death eaters and
> Hermione out-matches him in skill endlessly right up to the end. I really
> wanted it to be about Harry finding power within himself to knock arrogant
> Vodly on his ass rather than the half-hearted "expelliarmus" I think JKR
> really thought it out too far and over-reached for the conclusion, but Harry
> really, IMO, had a "Molly" moment (not my daughter, you bitch -- bam, dead
> Belatrix!) but it never came.
> 
> So there's, that's my bitch. But, it's not my story, so I don't bitch, I
> take the ride as a trip and I enjoyed the trip.
> 
> As for the films, after what Columbus did, anything was better.
> 
> md
>


Alla:

The thing is though, that's what we do here and on main list, and by saying that it is not my story, so I don't bitch, it feels, I don't know, dismissive of what the list, especially main list of course is about, but such discussions happen on this one as well.

We nitpick everything, everything, everything, different people nitpick different things. We critique everything, again, of course it is different for everybody.

And if we were only to praise everything, there will be no need for discussion, I think.

I love the books in general, but I certainly had my fair share of doing nitpicking and enjoy every second of it and certainly do not think of it as bitching.

JMO,

Alla




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 18:20:58 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 18:20:58 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <006901c9d55c$9ea60e00$dbf22a00$@com>
Message-ID: <gukbqa+ffsf@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:


> My only thing is, as a writer, I don't want people second-guessing 
> my choices in my world. 


zanooda:

But it wasn't "her choice" and even "her world". Her saying that she liked the heads contradicts her own books, where shrunken heads are called Dark Objects. I suppose talking shrunken heads are even darker :-). If I have to chose between her interviews and her books, I'll always go with the books. *They* are her world :-). 

I also really wish you stopped telling people what to criticize and what not to criticize, especially in a rude way. To you my objection is not constructive, but to me it is. And once more, the purpose of my post was not to complain an endless time about the heads. I was just asking not to show the heads to a person who is afraid that HP promotes witchcraft, that's all. It was an advice, nothing more. Don't pay so much attention to the signature line, it's usually just rambling... :-).






From n2fgc at arrl.net  Fri May 15 18:48:46 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:48:46 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gujtl0+rbht@eGroups.com>
References: <006901c9d55c$9ea60e00$dbf22a00$@com> <gujtl0+rbht@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <769CD6E5A2D94D728382C9C573FFCCCF@FRODO>

| Kemper now:
| I cannot agree with you more.  The first two were like fresh 
| zombies, looking like the original but without souls.  
| Columbus is overrated
| I'll take the racist heads over the first two movies any night.

[Lee]:
interesting, because I loved SS, COS, and OOTP.  I truly didn't like POA and
despised GOF with a passion!  It will be interesting to see what they do
with HBP.

Cheers,

Lee :-)





From n2fgc at arrl.net  Fri May 15 18:48:46 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:48:46 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Humor in Harry Potter...and beyond
In-Reply-To: <gujtd9+qarh@eGroups.com>
References: <gujtd9+qarh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <92BFFDE7667E4A16BA933CF84CEE20E1@FRODO>

[potioncat
| I've moved the thread over here just to discuss humor in ]:
| general and to ask about CS Lewis in particular. Oh, does 
| anyone remember the name of the movie that was based on him?

[Lee]:
Shadow Lands.  In the last Narnia book, "The Last Battle," that phrase is
used.

Cheers,

Lee :-)




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 19:58:45 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 19:58:45 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <769CD6E5A2D94D728382C9C573FFCCCF@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gukhhl+3uu3@eGroups.com>

> [Lee]:
> interesting, because I loved SS, COS, and OOTP.  I truly didn't like POA and despised GOF with a passion!  It will be interesting to see what they do with HBP.

Kemper now:
I agree with GOF, but it was also her worst book, I think.  I believe she was writing it at the time where she was coming to realize that Harry was bigger than her, so that has to mess with anyone's head a bit.  I think it's why she took so long with OP, adjusting and getting back in control of the story.

I'm actually hopeful for the HBP movie as my expectations are lowered for it.  For me, nothing will be better than Star Trek this summer, so if something comes close, I will be all sorts of stoked!

Kemper




From md at exit-reality.com  Fri May 15 20:01:55 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 16:01:55 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Discussions about books and movies WAS: Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guk74e+47oo@eGroups.com>
References: <003e01c9d578$be4e15b0$3aea4110$@com> <guk74e+47oo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001601c9d597$ff4d16f0$fde744d0$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dumbledore11214
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1:01 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Discussions about books and movies WAS: Re: Harry
Potter and God



Alla:

The thing is though, that's what we do here and on main list, and by saying
that it is not my story, so I don't bitch, it feels, I don't know,
dismissive of what the list, especially main list of course is about, but
such discussions happen on this one as well.

We nitpick everything, everything, everything, different people nitpick
different things. We critique everything, again, of course it is different
for everybody.

And if we were only to praise everything, there will be no need for
discussion, I think.

I love the books in general, but I certainly had my fair share of doing
nitpicking and enjoy every second of it and certainly do not think of it as
bitching.

JMO,

Alla



------------------------------------
I think you're missing my point which is the intensity and severity of the
reaction some people have to different things not that they express their
opinions.

md




From md at exit-reality.com  Fri May 15 20:07:42 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 16:07:42 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gukbqa+ffsf@eGroups.com>
References: <006901c9d55c$9ea60e00$dbf22a00$@com> <gukbqa+ffsf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001701c9d598$ce482670$6ad87350$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of zanooda2
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 2:21 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God


zanooda:

But it wasn't "her choice" and even "her world". Her saying that she liked
the heads contradicts her own books, where shrunken heads are called Dark
Objects. I suppose talking shrunken heads are even darker :-). If I have to
chose between her interviews and her books, I'll always go with the books.
*They* are her world :-). 

I also really wish you stopped telling people what to criticize and what not
to criticize, especially in a rude way. To you my objection is not
constructive, but to me it is. And once more, the purpose of my post was not
to complain an endless time about the heads. I was just asking not to show
the heads to a person who is afraid that HP promotes witchcraft, that's all.
It was an advice, nothing more. Don't pay so much attention to the signature
line, it's usually just rambling... :-).





------------------------------------
I most certainly did not tell anyone what to or to not criticize, I only
implied that I felt the reactions in general to that specific thing that,
while not intended by Rowling was pre-approved, not just okayed after, and
that the idea that it was out of place in her world is an idea that's really
up to her as it is her world. I also made sure to include that my opinions
where my opinions.

I haven't been rude in any way, I'm sorry you've taken my comments that way.

Didn't realize people where so easily offended.

md




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 20:27:56 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 20:27:56 -0000
Subject: Discussions about books and movies WAS: Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <001601c9d597$ff4d16f0$fde744d0$@com>
Message-ID: <gukj8c+q388@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:
> ------------------------------------
> I think you're missing my point which is the intensity and severity of the
> reaction some people have to different things not that they express their
> opinions.
> 
> md
>


Alla:

My point is still the same though - everything in the books and movies is a fair game for the critique on these lists as far as I am aware of. And it really really does not matter how passionate (or visceral) the reactions are, you know?

For example, I used to hate Severus Snape quite passionately before DH came out. I pretty much hate him with the same passion after DH came out.  And I would (hypothetically) really not react well if you or anybody else tell me that there is something WRONG with the intensity of my reactions, even if you were to graciously allow me the right to have them in the first place, you know? 


And it applies to any character or event, really.

 

JMO,

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 21:30:01 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 21:30:01 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guj5kp+6i11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gukmsp+k3la@eGroups.com>

Tonks wrote:
> 
> I am coming into this discussion rather late. I have been threating to write a book about the Harry Potter books for sometime now. I see all sorts of Christian symbols in the books. I see the whole series as a retelling of the Gospels.
> 
> As to the discussion on Dumbledore and the tower. I wasn't able to read all of the post. I will just say this. Good Friday has never been the same for me. Now I see Jesus on the cross and DD on the tower, and it breaks my heart twice as much. DD is under the skull, that it the place where Jesus died. John Granger does a nice job of suming up a lot of the rest of it, with the cave and rest. He has a website. 

Carol responds:

I haven't read the books and don't have time to go to the website, so I just want to ask a quick question. Is Granger presenting *Dumbledore* as a Christ figure? Harry I can see in that role, but Dumbledore?

Carol,who no longer finds DD's death distressing after reading DH





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri May 15 21:36:06 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 21:36:06 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <001701c9d598$ce482670$6ad87350$@com>
Message-ID: <gukn86+2sec@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:

zanooda:
> I also really wish you stopped telling people what to criticize and what not
> to criticize, especially in a rude way. To you my objection is not
> constructive, but to me it is. And once more, the purpose of my post was not
> to complain an endless time about the heads. I was just asking not to show
> the heads to a person who is afraid that HP promotes witchcraft, that's all.
> It was an advice, nothing more. Don't pay so much attention to the signature
> line, it's usually just rambling... :-).
 
md:
> I most certainly did not tell anyone what to or to not criticize, I only
> implied that I felt the reactions in general to that specific thing that,
> while not intended by Rowling was pre-approved, not just okayed after, and
> that the idea that it was out of place in her world is an idea that's really
> up to her as it is her world. I also made sure to include that my opinions
> where my opinions.
> 
> I haven't been rude in any way, I'm sorry you've taken my comments that way.
> 
> Didn't realize people where so easily offended.

Geoff:
I think the problem is that when we are not face to face and can only 
interpret a person's views and feelings from their written comments, 
there is always a possibility that misunderstandings will occur.

I am not being rude (I hope) but you have a style of writing which is 
sometimes abrasive and quite curt. This can produce an impression 
of impatience and impoliteness.

There were occasions back in January when, in one of your previous 
OTC incarnations- as Cabal - there was a discussion on Shakespeare 
and whether a particular quote was attributable to him. I believe that 
I am fairly thick-skinned, having taught teenagers for over 30 years 
but once or twice, the wording of your replies grated with me and I felt 
that we, as a group supposedly joining in an amicable exchange of 
thoughts and views should be able to do so without ruffling other 
contributors' feathers.

The aim of this group, as I see it,  is not to score points off each other 
but to raise ideas which interest us and see whether others on the group 
view it in the same way. Since we are not tied down to the restrictions of 
canon, then each of us is entitled to hold our own view. 

Changing the subject completely, is there a reason why the headers on 
your replies differ and carry a lot more unwanted information than the 
regular ones?For example, I snipped about four lines of data from the 
top of your post before adding my reply to the bottom. Perhaps your ISP 
treats headers differently to usual?










From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri May 15 21:44:21 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 21:44:21 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guj5kp+6i11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guknnl+hrl8@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:
 
Tonks: 
> John Granger does a nice job of suming up a lot of the rest of it, with the cave and rest. He > has a website. 

Geoff:
But I am concerned by the fact that he attempts to tie Christianity 
in with alchemical theory, which certainly isn't part of Christian belief.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 21:50:10 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 21:50:10 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <006901c9d55c$9ea60e00$dbf22a00$@com>
Message-ID: <guko2i+pmfm@eGroups.com>

Nightbreed wrote:
>
> Actually, I'm completely indifferent. I can't believe how people keep beating on them as if the five minutes in the film ruin the experience. Of course, I think 3 & 5 are the best films and I was so happy to see Columbus out of the director's chair and a real film maker adding style and validity to the series -- as well as making the films about characters and not just plot -- that I could have forgiven the heads either way. Now, the shrunken head in the DVD extra's -- that's annoying!!! (and stupid beyond reproach, imo.)
> 
> My only thing is, as a writer, I don't want people second-guessing my choices in my world. I think, the moment JKR decided to use "magician's" wands which, IIRC, have never been part of any major wizard lore (wizards carry staffs, if anything, only charlatans and illusionist use "wands") she had made a decision to break with traditional genres and conventions. 
> 
> What I don't understand is the need to respond negatively to these things, and often, not at all constructively.
> 
> md
>
Carol responds:
I've never seen anyone criticizing JKR's use of "magician's wands," but I do recall thinking when I first read the books that they seemed a bit odd in combination with brooms and pointed witches' hats. Once I saw the kids using them in Flitwick's Charms class (to comic effect), I never gave it another thought.

But no one is criticizing JKR in this instance (except her, IMO, questionable taste in liking the heads). We're just saying that we, as viewers, find the heads annoying (or whatever)--not just in the extras, but in the films themselves. And the fact that JKR likes them isn't going to persuade us otherwise. It's like trying to persuade us that giving Dudley a pig's tail is funny. JKR thinks it is, but if we don't think it's funny ourselves, nothing is going to change our minds.

But JKR's genre bending? Who's criticizing her for that? All we're talking about is the liberties that Cuaron took with the book, including those uncanonical shrunken heads (which, in the books, don't speak and aren't intended to be comical). I'm quite surprised that she like them, frankly.

Anyway, you seem to be talking apples and oranges here. JKR's decision to use wands in her books is an entirely different from Cuaron's decision to alter the book in including a "comical" Dark object advising Ernie how to drive the Knight Bus. Three minutes or three seconds, it's too much.

OTOH, I thought that Cuaron's having Aunt March float out of the garden and over the neighborhood like a giant hot air balloon was hilarious.

Carol, who would (almost) rather eat a cockroach cluster than watch and listen to the shrunken heads




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 22:12:18 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 22:12:18 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <006a01c9d55d$119f57e0$34de07a0$@com>
Message-ID: <gukpc2+tigi@eGroups.com>

md:
> See, that's constructive, and I agree. It's the one fault I had with Cuaron is that for everything he "omitted" to streamline the story, he seemed to add something completely irrelevant.

Carol responds:
I think that criticism applies to most of the directors (the extended dragon scene in GoF, for example), but it's also one of the reasons that most of us don't like the talking heads. They're uncanonical, they add nothing, and in the books, Dark objects are unfunny. (Let's hope that Draco's Hand of Glory stays silent in HBP!)

md:
> I think the heads where his way of adding "comic relief" for the children in the audience in such an otherwise dark story. 

Carol responds:
Possibly. But we don't need comic relief at that point. Viewers have just had the Aunt Marge scene, and now they get Stan Shunpike and Ernie to offset any qualms they may feel about the mysterious "murderer" Sirius Black.

There's plenty of comedy in the book that Cuaron (and Kloves) could have used. The heads are unnecessary.

And this is the OT list, after all. I see no reason why we should hesitate to express our dislike of or appreciation for any element in the books or films that we see fit, whether it's the shrunken heads or "chest monsters." (If we didn't like the books a great deal more than we dislike some of their elements, regardless of what we think of the films, we wouldn't still be members of this list.)

Carol, who did think that Cuaron and his team did an amazing job with the Dementor on the train






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri May 15 22:37:19 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 22:37:19 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gujtl0+rbht@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gukqqv+9b2a@eGroups.com>

 md:
> > My only thing is, as a writer, I don't want people second-guessing my choices in my world. 
> 
> Kemper now:
> As a reader, I don't think the writer has that right.  You could always keep a private journal that no one has the right to read.  Being a fan does not mean nor require constructive criticism.  If you have fans bitching about what you wrote or condoned, you would still have fans.  No need to be an ungrate writer to them.

Carol responds:

Right. That's what literary criticism (in the sense of literary analysis but occasionally involving evaluation as well) is all about. A writer's intentions, even insofar as the writer is aware of them and has expressed them, can only take us so far in the understanding of his or her works. Sometimes, as in JKR's statements about Christianity in the books or her describing Dumbledore as "the epitome of goodness" or Harry as "pure" (and many more), many readers think that she failed to carry out her intentions.

At any rate, no two readers will read a book in exactly the same way, and no reader will see a book or its characters exactly as the author sees them. It's humanly impossible. Once the book is in print and in the hands of the readers, interpretation passes from the author to the readers. The author can say, "This is what I meant. This is what I intended you to see." But the reader is free to look at the same passage and interpret it differently. As I said on the main list, any interpretation that can be supported by the text itself is a valid interpretation, whether the author intended the book to be seen in that way or not.

And there's always much more to a book (unless it's a ten-page book for two-year-olds) than the author intends--values and beliefs that come through despite the author's intentions, reflections of a particular culture at a particular time, even mistakes and contradictions that undermine the author's intentions.

No two readers see Snape or Dumbledore or Harry or House Elves in exactly the same way. We react as individuals based on our own education and experience. JKR knew that when she allowed Cuaron to bring those annoying talking heads into his adaptation of her books. Too bad she forgot it later when she called Dumbledore "my character" and mistook the Dumbledore of her imagination for the Dumbledore depicted in the books, who is a different character for everyone who reads him. (He's also a different character for those who've read DH and those who've only read the first three books, but that's another matter.)

The Fair Use doctrine has been added to copyright law for a reason: the author does not control the interpretation of his or her own texts, and other writer have the right to interpret it as they see fit.

Carol, noting that authors need a thick skin because critics aren't always kind and can often be brutal, whether they recognize the author's intentions or ignore them altogether






From n2fgc at arrl.net  Fri May 15 23:42:22 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 19:42:22 -0400
Subject: Stories & Movies (was RE: Harry Potter and God)
In-Reply-To: <gukhhl+3uu3@eGroups.com>
References: <769CD6E5A2D94D728382C9C573FFCCCF@FRODO> <gukhhl+3uu3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <03679E3F85754107911E9C671C2C65F5@FRODO>

I'm changing the subject line here; we're way off the original one. :-)

[Lee (Earlier)]:
| > interesting, because I loved SS, COS, and OOTP.  I truly 
| didn't like POA and despised GOF with a passion!  It will be 
| interesting to see what they do with HBP.
| 
| Kemper now:
| I agree with GOF, but it was also her worst book, I think.  I 
| believe she was writing it at the time where she was coming 
| to realize that Harry was bigger than her, so that has to 
| mess with anyone's head a bit.  I think it's why she took so 
| long with OP, adjusting and getting back in control of the story.

[Lee]:
Hmm--I liked GOF.  Harry was very human and both Art and I could relate to
his being a member of the Procrastinator's Club. :-)

What I didn't like in the movie were things like the way they handled the
First Task; it was a real waste of film, IMHO, and having Hermione remind
him of what to do while he was in the task just wasn't, if you know what I
mean.  There were other things, too, but I won't get into them.  I'll only
say that the waltzing Neville was another complete waste of film which could
have been devoted to the real story parts.

Again, just my opinion.

Cheers,

Lee :-)




From md at exit-reality.com  Sat May 16 02:47:11 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 22:47:11 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gukpc2+tigi@eGroups.com>
References: <006a01c9d55d$119f57e0$34de07a0$@com> <gukpc2+tigi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001101c9d5d0$9ce00250$d6a006f0$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 6:12 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

And this is the OT list, after all. I see no reason why we should hesitate
to express our dislike of or appreciation for any element in the books or
films that we see fit, 

:::::::::::::::::::::
I don't see why people seem to think I'm trying to censor them. 

I was just taken back by the intensity people seem to have, I think
expressing opinions negative and positive is a good thing, but the whole "I
hate that so much" and "it ruins the movie" type comments just seem a little
strong.

My thing was just to say, wow, okay, but it's an not end-of-the-world issue,
nor does it make a bad director or movie, just possibly a cringe inducing
moment.

md




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat May 16 04:16:22 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 04:16:22 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <001701c9d598$ce482670$6ad87350$@com>
Message-ID: <gulemm+ie6f@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:


> I haven't been rude in any way, I'm sorry you've taken my 
> comments that way.


zanooda:

Oh, of course I know very well that you didn't mean it that way :-)! I hope we can leave the heads behind us :-). I only want to add that rudeness is often not in the words, but in the general tone - irritated, impatient and condescending. It sounds as if your reactions and your take on things are the right ones, and those who feel differently are, as you say, "bitching". You just don't notice how it comes out :-).

Our reactions are very individual, and we can't always control them. I have no idea why those heads make me react so strongly. I can't even look at them - when they are on TV, I have to close my eyes or leave the room. I find them disgusting, ugly, gross, and terrifying, and I can't even imagine how they can be seen as "comic relief" :-). I don't know what makes me feel this way - maybe some bad memory from another life, LOL?  





From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Sun May 17 04:13:46 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 22:13:46 -0600
Subject: I Am So Annoyed
Message-ID: <0B1B2DC08E1048CA8F5D6F90CA9D2D51@Marianne>

Ok.  The Harry Potter movies has been on tv, about every other week.  Goblet of Fire just ended.

HBP trailers have been on.  The trailers have ended with the movie being playing in IMAX theaters, 3D.

This is where I'm annoyed.  I don't have access to a IMAX theatre.  At least one that isn't 40 miles away.  So I hope they'll put it in other theatres?????  Which brings one question.  What is the difference between  IMAX  and a regular theatre.

The only 3D movie I've seen is U2 3D.  It was in a closer theatre, not IMAX, and I did get the 3D experience.  Only one word for that.  WOW!!!!!!!!!!!  But I love U2.  But they've never released U2 on DVD, and they've said it will never be released.  But I say never say never.  I can't image HBP not being released on DVD - I'm sure there would be a mass riot if it didn't.

Does anyone have any idea how this release will work?

Sorry this is so long.  I have a habit of rambling.

Marianne

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From predigirl1 at yahoo.com  Sun May 17 05:19:21 2009
From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 22:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Star Trek
Message-ID: <271947.50812.qm@web63706.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

I always respect your opinions, so I am rather more favorably inclined toward this movie now. As a person with a Klingon tattoo on her shoulder, I tend to be very picky about all things Star Trek. Thank you for the review.
?
Alex Hogan
?
?
--- On Wed, 5/13/09, No Limberger <no.limberger at gmail.com> wrote:


From: No Limberger <no.limberger at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Star Trek
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 8:20 AM








>bboyminn wrote:
>J.J. Abrams calls this a 'reboot' of the Star Trek franchise,
>and I think he is absolutely right; Star Trek is reborn.

>The movie leaves you totally satisfied, but absolutely wanting
>more.

>Most important, this wasn't just a crash bang shoot'em up movie,
>I really engaged with these characters. They make me love
>Star Trek all over again.

>I can't wait for more, BUT the future depends on the writing.
>If the franchise descends into merely excuses for things to
>blow up, then I think it is over for Star Trek, but if they
>can continue to combine the actions we expect with compelling
>characters and story lines, then I think there is hope for a
>least a couple more movies in the franchise.

No.Limberger responds:
I agree with your comments. As a long-time fan of
Star Trek myself, I have loved TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager
and the 4tth season of Enterprise. (I didn't much
care for the first 3 seasons of Enterprise). I also loved
half of the movies: II, IV, VI, VII, VIII. To this, I am adding
the newest movie.

Star Trek, I would agree, definitely needed a reboot. It
needs to draw in new fans and explore new stories in order
for the franchise to continue. I believe that there will be
more Star Trek movies in the future, but don't know whether
this will include a new TV series. We'll just have to wait
and see what the future holds.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

















      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Sun May 17 07:04:58 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 07:04:58 -0000
Subject: Stories & Movies (was RE: Harry Potter and God)
In-Reply-To: <03679E3F85754107911E9C671C2C65F5@FRODO>
Message-ID: <guocuq+qod3@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm \(God Is The Healing Force\)" <n2fgc at ...> wrote:
>
> I'm changing the subject line here; we're way off the original one. :-)
> 
> [Lee (Earlier)]:
> | > interesting, because I loved SS, COS, and OOTP.  I truly 
> | didn't like POA and despised GOF with a passion!  It will be 
> | interesting to see what they do with HBP.
> | 
> | Kemper now:
> | I agree with GOF, but it was also her worst book, I think.  I 
> | believe she was writing it at the time where she was coming 
> | to realize that Harry was bigger than her, so that has to 
> | mess with anyone's head a bit.  I think it's why she took so 
> | long with OP, adjusting and getting back in control of the story.

Marianne:

I liked OOTP.  I didn't particularly like the death eater scene in the beginning of the book.  It just seemed too long to listen to.  But I'm just starting to actually read the books.  I skimmed through the DH.  I don't consider reading that.  I've listened to the books on my IPod a couple of times.  Reading and listening to the books are so different.
> 
> [Lee]:
> Hmm--I liked GOF.  Harry was very human and both Art and I could relate to
> his being a member of the Procrastinator's Club. :-)
> 
> What I didn't like in the movie were things like the way they handled the
> First Task; it was a real waste of film, IMHO, and having Hermione remind
> him of what to do while he was in the task just wasn't, if you know what I
> mean.  There were other things, too, but I won't get into them.  I'll only
> say that the waltzing Neville was another complete waste of film which could
> have been devoted to the real story parts.
> 
> Again, just my opinion.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Lee :-)


Having just finished watching GOF tonight I must admit that the dragon scene was too long, and it didn't come close to the book.  I would have liked to seen it more in tune with the original story.  Course, it might have been just as long and drawn out too.

My DIL and I was disussing the movie tonight.  We didn't like the death eater's masks or Sirius in the fire.  We preferred the DE masks and Sirius in the fire in OOTP.  Having only watched OOTP once, well it was more listening to the movie, while I was working on my computer, I didn't see much of the DE masks but I did see Sirius.  DIL said this was her least favorite movie.

Marianne






From md at exit-reality.com  Sun May 17 14:15:38 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 10:15:38 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I Am So Annoyed
In-Reply-To: <0B1B2DC08E1048CA8F5D6F90CA9D2D51@Marianne>
References: <0B1B2DC08E1048CA8F5D6F90CA9D2D51@Marianne>
Message-ID: <005d01c9d6f9$f452aef0$dcf80cd0$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wildirishrose
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:14 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I Am So Annoyed

Ok.  The Harry Potter movies has been on tv, about every other week.  Goblet
of Fire just ended.

HBP trailers have been on.  The trailers have ended with the movie being
playing in IMAX theaters, 3D.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

IMAX is a different format altogether, it's a huge screen that engulfs your
entire view and is always in 3-D. True IMAX films are shot on special
cameras that are large and difficult to use because they create a much
larger print. Unlike the U2-3D, which was most people saw in Digital 3D,
IMAX is not digital, it's still film. 

Often they open the IMAX a few days before the standard films show a film,
so the trailers may say IMAX because it might be something like IMAX on the
15th and nationwide on the 17th.

md




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun May 17 17:42:27 2009
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 17 May 2009 17:42:27 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/17/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1242582147.527.2608.m4@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday May 17, 2009
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2009 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20090517/e764ebd5/attachment.html>

From catlady at wicca.net  Mon May 18 00:53:37 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 00:53:37 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guknnl+hrl8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guqbih+fum4@eGroups.com>

Geoff wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39310>:

<< But I am concerned by the fact that [John Granger] attempts to tie Christianity in with alchemical theory, which certainly isn't part of Christian belief. >>

As best I understand it, while alchemy is not part of Christian belief, Christian belief is part of alchemy, having been put there not by John Granger but by the European medieval alchemists. All that messing around with chemicals and lab equipment was supposed to affect the alchemist, apparently by making him more Christ-like (to borrow a phrase you have used in previous comments). Maybe it helps the alchemist to restrain/reduce his impulses to anger, lust, fear, greed, etc, and to strengthen his impulses to faith, prayer, helpfulness, patience, courage, etc. That seems to be how Granger views it. 
 





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon May 18 20:05:14 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 20:05:14 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guqbih+fum4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gusf1q+m3pm@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
>
> Geoff wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39310>:
> 
> << But I am concerned by the fact that [John Granger] attempts to tie Christianity in with alchemical theory, which certainly isn't part of Christian belief. >>

Catlady:
> As best I understand it, while alchemy is not part of Christian belief, Christian belief is part of alchemy, having been put there not by John Granger but by the European medieval alchemists. All that messing around with chemicals and lab equipment was supposed to affect the alchemist, apparently by making him more Christ-like (to borrow a phrase you have used in previous comments). Maybe it helps the alchemist to restrain/reduce his impulses to anger, lust, fear, greed, etc, and to strengthen his impulses to faith, prayer, helpfulness, patience, courage, etc. That seems to be how Granger views it.

Geoff:
Your reply highlights certain points which are contributory to my 
concern that John Granger is often held up as an example of a 
Christian who supports Harry Potter, a point of view which I find 
very suspect when allied to alchemical thinking.

Your very phrase "while alchemy is not part of Christian belief,
Christian belief is part of alchemy" rings personal alarm bells for 
me, If you had written something along the lines of "while alchemy 
is not part of Christian belief, it draws on aspects of Christian 
teaching in its structure" I would have felt much more at ease.

Christian faith is not part of any other belief; it is complete in 
itself. Personally, attempts to tie in these two together remind me 
too much of Gnosticism, which arose within the early Church and 
taught that adherents had to have "special knowledge" in order to 
belong; knowledge to which the ordinary believer did not have 
access.

A couple of years or so ago, there was a long thread on Main on 
the subject of alchemy. As a practising, evangelical Christian, I 
took umbrage that, on occasions, I was basically told that, to 
complete that view of life, I should be including alchemical 
thinking in my faith. If followers of the alchemical way wish to 
include Christ's teaching in their practice - to become more "Christ
-like" as you remark -  then there is no copyright on the fruit of the 
Spirit outlined by St.Paul in his letter to the Galatians 5:22-23. 
However,  it is not within their remit to tell Christians that they 
should do the reverse in respect of their own faith. 








From md at exit-reality.com  Mon May 18 21:51:21 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 17:51:21 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gusf1q+m3pm@eGroups.com>
References: <guqbih+fum4@eGroups.com> <gusf1q+m3pm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c9d802$c88f79b0$59ae6d10$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:05 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

Christian faith is not part of any other belief; it is complete in 
itself. 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Really, because many of the stories in the Bible where told for thousands of
years before they happened in the bible, like the Virgin Mother, The Flood,
etc and many Christian holidays are actually on Pagan holidays with
Christian stories added on top, as well, the story of Mohammad and Jesus
have many similarities. 

I'm not jumping on the Christian religion, or trying to debunk faith, I'm
just saying there's no way Christianity is a unique, self-contained thing,
even Christians share many different beliefs. 

md




From wendymatchen at att.net  Mon May 18 22:30:23 2009
From: wendymatchen at att.net (wendy)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 17:30:23 -0500
Subject: Question about hp and curriculum
Message-ID: <2A4D90D2658B44CAB7E32763B20084E3@DuckmanPC>

I was wondering if you all know of anyone who has ever used HP to base a homeschool curriculum on. I did a small one on my own with LOTR before. 
 I cant ask anyone in my homeschool group because I get that....omg you read HP books look and stuff.  So someone suggested I might post and ask here without fear of being burned at the stake so to speak. lol  
Wendy
child of the king
wife and best friend to James
mom to 11 so far
http://Writing.Com/authors/ladyblackheart
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/conansangel
www.myspace.com/heartsuntamed
http://ladyblackhearts.blogspot.com/



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From jillily3g at yahoo.com  Tue May 19 02:21:44 2009
From: jillily3g at yahoo.com (Beth)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 02:21:44 -0000
Subject: Question about hp and curriculum
In-Reply-To: <2A4D90D2658B44CAB7E32763B20084E3@DuckmanPC>
Message-ID: <gut53o+e16v@eGroups.com>

"wendy"  wrote:
>
> I was wondering if you all know of anyone who has ever used HP to base a homeschool curriculum on. I did a small one on my own with LOTR before. 
>  I cant ask anyone in my homeschool group because I get that....omg you read HP books look and stuff.  So someone suggested I might post and ask here without fear of being burned at the stake so to speak. lol  

There's actually a Yahoo! group for that purpose:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HogwartsSCS/?yguid=142593766
is the address of the HogwartsSummerCorrespondenceSchool and it has several "subsidiary" groups pertaining to individual classes. 

Good luck,
Beth






From md at exit-reality.com  Tue May 19 03:37:08 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 23:37:08 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Question about hp and curriculum
In-Reply-To: <gut53o+e16v@eGroups.com>
References: <2A4D90D2658B44CAB7E32763B20084E3@DuckmanPC> <gut53o+e16v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002101c9d833$168c8790$43a596b0$@com>

But you're referring to external things, I was speaking internally. You're
speaking to semantics, external stimuli, I'm speaking to the heart and soul
of the person. What I'm saying is that gender, race and sexual orientation
aside, people are going to react / act the same to a given situation.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Beth
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:22 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Question about hp and curriculum

"wendy"  wrote:
>
> I was wondering if you all know of anyone who has ever used HP to base a
homeschool curriculum on. I did a small one on my own with LOTR before. 
>  I cant ask anyone in my homeschool group because I get that....omg you
read HP books look and stuff.  So someone suggested I might post and ask
here without fear of being burned at the stake so to speak. lol  

There's actually a Yahoo! group for that purpose:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HogwartsSCS/?yguid=142593766
is the address of the HogwartsSummerCorrespondenceSchool and it has several
"subsidiary" groups pertaining to individual classes. 

Good luck,
Beth





------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links







From ajalwag at yahoo.com  Tue May 19 20:27:57 2009
From: ajalwag at yahoo.com (gryffindoras)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 20:27:57 -0000
Subject: Azkatraz
Message-ID: <guv4od+f1t2@eGroups.com>

Is anyone going to AZKATRAZ this year?

gryffindoras



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue May 19 23:26:42 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 23:26:42 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <001d01c9d802$c88f79b0$59ae6d10$@com>
Message-ID: <guvf7i+mg3c@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:

Geoff:
> Christian faith is not part of any other belief; it is complete in 
> itself. 

md
> Really, because many of the stories in the Bible where told for thousands of
> years before they happened in the bible, like the Virgin Mother, The Flood,
> etc and many Christian holidays are actually on Pagan holidays with
> Christian stories added on top, as well, the story of Mohammad and Jesus
> have many similarities. 

Geoff:
I think that you forget that many of the earliest sections of the Old 
Testament covering God's creation of the world and the emergence 
of human society are also thousands of years old and are thus 
contemporaneous with the parallel writings which you cite.

In the early church, the festivals and holidays took place at the same 
time as other celebrations because many believers were slaves or in 
occupations where they could not take time off and therefore - certainly 
in Roman times- these holy days coincided with major public holidays.

md
> I'm not jumping on the Christian religion, or trying to debunk faith, I'm
> just saying there's no way Christianity is a unique, self-contained thing,
> even Christians share many different beliefs. 

Geoff:
Of course it is. In the same way that Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism are 
unique, self-contained things. I disagree strongly with a contributor who 
suggested that Christian belief is part of alchemy. I wonder what the 
reaction would be if you suggested, for example, that Islam was part of 
Christianity of Hinduism was part of Buddhism? I think that, in some of 
those cases, you would be heading for the hills for your own safety 
because of the ire you would arouse.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Christians share many different beliefs". 
I interpret this as referring to different practices followed by different 
denominations. This gives me the impression that you are not a Christian 
nor sympathetic towards believers because our faith is founded on a 
number of statements made by Christ. Any other additional rites or 
practices are peripheral to our basic belief that salvation comes from 
accepting Christ into our hearts and lives. Hence, any linking of Christian 
faith to alchemical teaching sends out all the wrong messages.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed May 20 01:43:18 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 01:43:18 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gukhhl+3uu3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guvn7m+ft1p@eGroups.com>

Kemper wrote:
> I agree with GOF, but it was also her worst book, I think.  I believe she was writing it at the time where she was coming to realize that Harry was bigger than her, so that has to mess with anyone's head a bit.  I think it's why she took so long with OP, adjusting and getting back in control of the story. <snip>

Carol responds:
I loved GoF (the book); I was so excited that I rushed out to buy OoP even though it wasn't out in paperback yet. Unfortunately, I was disappointed by OoP, possibly *because* my expectations were so high but also, I think, because I loathe Umbridge. The GoF film had some good parts (Nagini was well done, for one, and poor Cedric's death made me cry (but maybe that's just because I like Cedric). But it was also episodic and the long scene with the dragon was overdone and overly long. Too many changes in both it and the OoP film. (Just how a viewere who hasn't read the books is supposed to know that Snape sent the Order to the MoM, I can't guess.)

As I said earlier in this thread, no two people will react in the same way to the books or interpret them the same way. The same applies to the films (though there's less to interpret).

Carol, who really likes HBP (the book) and hopes that the film at least comes close to following the complex plot





From md at exit-reality.com  Wed May 20 02:39:48 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 22:39:48 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guvf7i+mg3c@eGroups.com>
References: <001d01c9d802$c88f79b0$59ae6d10$@com> <guvf7i+mg3c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002401c9d8f4$3e960a10$bbc21e30$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:27 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God


I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Christians share many different
beliefs". 
I interpret this as referring to different practices followed by different 
denominations. This gives me the impression that you are not a Christian 
nor sympathetic towards believers because our faith is founded on a 
number of statements made by Christ. Any other additional rites or 
practices are peripheral to our basic belief that salvation comes from 
accepting Christ into our hearts and lives. Hence, any linking of Christian 
faith to alchemical teaching sends out all the wrong messages.

::::::::::::::;

I was raised Baptist, attended protestant church, decided god was a
construct and defected to atheism, but I believe in things that have not
been scientifically proven, so I don't have any anti-"god" sentiments, I do
not however, believe in any way, shape or form in organized religious
practices where a small group interprets a document and tells the many what
it means and what they are to do, to me, that's the largest problem in
society, organized religion, not god.

md



------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links






From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Wed May 20 03:30:06 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 03:30:06 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guvn7m+ft1p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <guvtfu+50tm@eGroups.com>

> Kemper wrote:
> I agree with GOF, but it was also her worst book, I think....  

> Carol responded:
> I loved GoF (the book); ... Unfortunately, I was disappointed by OoP, possibly *because* my expectations were so high but also, I think, because I loathe Umbridge. ...
> 
> As I said earlier in this thread, no two people will react in the same way to the books or interpret them the same way. The same applies to the films (though there's less to interpret).


Kemper now:
Don't get me wrong! I enjoyed reading GOF and rereading it and rereading it and ....  OP is the most difficult book for me to read because of PTSD!Harry... and Grawp.  God blessed it, that chapter is long!  Out of my 5 or 6 reads of the book, I've only read it once.

But back to topic.  OP, imo, is a structurally well put together story with few if any blaring plot holes that one might stumble on and twist the ankle.  GOF has a huge one for me.  Moody!CrouchJr and Voldemort waiting until the last task to whisk away Harry when they could've easily done in on September 2nd.  I know it's been argued that LV is a famewhore, but still.  I don't buy it.  

So, Carol, as someone in the print world, which book do you think is tighter as far as story goes?  

Kemper




From s_ings at yahoo.com  Wed May 20 03:55:38 2009
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 20:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Azkatraz
Message-ID: <235165.42399.qm@web63403.mail.re1.yahoo.com>



gryffindoras:
> Is anyone going to AZKATRAZ this
> year?
> 

Sheryll:

I wish I could! I've already taken 2 vacations in this first part of the year. I think my boss would kill me if I took another so soon.

I'll be going to Sirens in Vail in the fall. Not HP but a general women in fantasy conference. Should be lots of fun if their website is any indication (http://www.sirensconference.org/)

Sheryll


      __________________________________________________________________
The new Internet Explorer? 8 - Faster, safer, easier.  Optimized for Yahoo!  Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/



From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed May 20 06:07:12 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 06:07:12 -0000
Subject: Some SnapeArt for Carol and Potioncat/ Was: Redemption of Anakin
In-Reply-To: <gubo67+g328@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv06mg+j639@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:

> Instead of sending it to Carol off list, please post link---
> if you come across it again.  ;-)


zanooda:

It took me a long time to find this picture again :-). The point is, I'm not interested in fan-fiction or fan-art. I've never read one single fanfic, and I only saw some pictures in the Lexicon articles :-). I saw this picture by accident and found the concept amusing, so I mentioned it to Carol, although I didn't like the picture itself, because Snape looks too much like Rickman, and I prefer more originality :-).

Anyway, while I was looking for this "Snape-with-Wings" picture, I saw many others, and here are my observations:

1. Alan Rickman greatly influenced SnapeArt :-).
2. Snape in the pictures is often much more handsome than in the book :-).
3. Snape in the pictures is much more often shirtless than in the book (which is never :-)).
4. Many artists believe that Snape and Lily belong together, which I personally find not very realistic, although JKR said it was possible.

Anyway, here is that picture of Snape-the-guardian-angel. I'm sorry the pictures are from a Russian site - it was easier for me to look there, because they have them all sorted by characters and themes (fan-art themes are sometimes really weird, like, for example, "Snape and Hermione" - ???!). 

http://keep4u.ru/full/080702/d297ccbf7442828da5/jpg


A couple more pictures, to illustrate my other points:

Shirtless Snape, LOL:

http://keep4u.ru/full/2009/05/15/5a36fb928ca2fd6331a8407b982f5ffb/jpg


Snape with Lily and their baby (?!!):

http://radikal.ru/F/i042.radikal.ru/0711/db/64ffb3cb27ee.jpg.html


And one more picture that I just found touching ;-( :

http://radikal.ru/F/s60.radikal.ru/i169/0904/cb/711bc9aa2254.jpg.html





From n2fgc at arrl.net  Wed May 20 13:45:45 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:45:45 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guvtfu+50tm@eGroups.com>
References: <guvn7m+ft1p@eGroups.com> <guvtfu+50tm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <DD5318D74F4940C48F80E72BE47B737C@FRODO>

| Kemper now:
| Don't get me wrong! I enjoyed reading GOF and rereading it 
| and rereading it and ....  OP is the most difficult book for 
| me to read because of PTSD!Harry... and Grawp.

[Lee]:
Maybe my brain is not yet awake, but what is "PTSD?"

Cheers,
Lee




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed May 20 14:18:20 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:18:20 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guvtfu+50tm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv13fc+tjsp@eGroups.com>

> Kemper now:
> Don't get me wrong! I enjoyed reading GOF and rereading it and rereading it and ....  OP is the most difficult book for me to read because of PTSD!Harry... and Grawp.  God blessed it, that chapter is long!  Out of my 5 or 6 reads of the book, I've only read it once.
> 
> But back to topic.  OP, imo, is a structurally well put together story with few if any blaring plot holes that one might stumble on and twist the ankle.  GOF has a huge one for me.  Moody!CrouchJr and Voldemort waiting until the last task to whisk away Harry when they could've easily done in on September 2nd.  I know it's been argued that LV is a famewhore, but still.  I don't buy it.  

Magpie:
I had more trouble with that in OotP. In GoF the plot inconsistancies didn't pull me up until after I'd finished, where with OotP I felt five steps ahead of everyone throughout the book. So I wound up just thinking, "Just tell him X, stupid!" 

-m




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed May 20 14:19:05 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:19:05 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <DD5318D74F4940C48F80E72BE47B737C@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gv13gp+libs@eGroups.com>

> [Lee]:
> Maybe my brain is not yet awake, but what is "PTSD?"

Magpie:
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

-m




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Wed May 20 14:22:24 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:22:24 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <DD5318D74F4940C48F80E72BE47B737C@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gv13n0+6djh@eGroups.com>

> | Kemper now:
> | Don't get me wrong! I enjoyed reading GOF and rereading it 
> | and rereading it and ....  OP is the most difficult book for 
> | me to read because of PTSD!Harry... and Grawp.
> 
> [Lee]:
> Maybe my brain is not yet awake, but what is "PTSD?"

Kemper now:
Good morning! 
PTSD: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Kemper




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Wed May 20 15:22:55 2009
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (Barb)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 15:22:55 -0000
Subject: Azkatraz
In-Reply-To: <guv4od+f1t2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv178f+jrjd@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "gryffindoras" <ajalwag at ...> wrote:
>
> Is anyone going to AZKATRAZ this year?
> 
> gryffindoras
>

I haven't been around here for a while, but my daughter and I are registered for Azkatraz and I'm presenting a paper and running a round table.  Our whole family is going, actually.  It's been about 20 years since my husband and I have been to San Francisco and we're very excited to be going back!  Even though he and our son aren't registered for Azkatraz, I was able to purchase meals for them at the Welcome and Leaving Feasts, so we can all eat together at those times.  We're also planning to make time to do some touristy things in SF, in addition to all of the amazing presentations I'm looking forward to attending.  (Sadly, one of our favorite places to eat, China Moon, has closed since we were last there.)

As an HPEF board member, I'm also very excited that, following through on our prison theme, one of the charities we'll be raising money for is Books Behind Bars, which provides books to prisoners.  (Think of poor Sirius up in Azkaban with no books to keep him company!)

I hope to see a lot of you at Azkatraz!

--Barb





From n2fgc at arrl.net  Wed May 20 16:17:30 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:17:30 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gv13gp+libs@eGroups.com>
References: <DD5318D74F4940C48F80E72BE47B737C@FRODO> <gv13gp+libs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7041556E14E242C6A2D5247CAC00D0B9@FRODO>

| > [Lee]:
| > Maybe my brain is not yet awake, but what is "PTSD?"
| 
| Magpie:
| Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

[Lee]:
Tanks!  I was never good with those abbreviations things. :)

Peace,
Lee
(Who begs for prayer for Art and herself because something just came up
which may cause us *Very* big problems!  Any good lawyers on the list in
NJ?)




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Wed May 20 16:59:23 2009
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 16:59:23 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gv13fc+tjsp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv1ctb+k6gu@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > Kemper now:
> > Don't get me wrong! I enjoyed reading GOF and rereading it and rereading it and ....  OP is the most difficult book for me to read because of PTSD!Harry... and Grawp.  God blessed it, that chapter is long!  Out of my 5 or 6 reads of the book, I've only read it once.
> > 
> > But back to topic.  OP, imo, is a structurally well put together story with few if any blaring plot holes that one might stumble on and twist the ankle.  GOF has a huge one for me.  Moody!CrouchJr and Voldemort waiting until the last task to whisk away Harry when they could've easily done in on September 2nd.  I know it's been argued that LV is a famewhore, but still.  I don't buy it.  
> 
> Magpie:
> I had more trouble with that in OotP. In GoF the plot inconsistancies didn't pull me up until after I'd finished, where with OotP I felt five steps ahead of everyone throughout the book. So I wound up just thinking, "Just tell him X, stupid!" 
> 
> -m
>

Annemehr:

Me too.  I still think there's a decent chance that Portkeys are blocked at Hogwarts, so Crouch!Moody had to wangle a situation for DD to lift the ward, but JKR just forgot to write that fact in.

Actually, the whole Hogwarts transportation situation is pretty sketchy.  It seems none of the kids ever use the floo, so mustn't the fireplaces be blocked?  But in HBP, it seems not being able to fly in on a broom is new security, which makes me wonder why people like Fred and George seemed only to use secret passages.

It just seems strange if, normally, only apparition is blocked.  What would be the point?

Annemehr





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed May 20 17:41:56 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 17:41:56 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <guvtfu+50tm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv1fd4+lcje@eGroups.com>

Kemper now:
> Don't get me wrong! I enjoyed reading GOF and rereading it and rereading it and ....  OP is the most difficult book for me to read because of PTSD!Harry... and Grawp.  God blessed it, that chapter is long!  Out of my 5 or 6 reads of the book, I've only read it once.
> 
> But back to topic.  OP, imo, is a structurally well put together story with few if any blaring plot holes that one might stumble on and twist the ankle.  GOF has a huge one for me.  Moody!CrouchJr and Voldemort waiting until the last task to whisk away Harry when they could've easily done in on September 2nd.  I know it's been argued that LV is a famewhore, but still.  I don't buy it.  
> 
> So, Carol, as someone in the print world, which book do you think is tighter as far as story goes?
  
Carol responds:

That's a good question and not one I can answer to my own satisfaction without closely examining the two books again. GoF does rely to some degree on the TWT as an organizational device, but not as blatantly as the movie does, because it also (like all the books, even, to a slight degree, DH) is organized around the school year, meaning that other plot elements, such as the DADA-teacher subplot, can unfold naturally. OoP, of course, does the same thing, minus the TWT, with the DADA teacher turned High Inquisitor taking a rather larger than usual portion of the story. The new 12 GP setting is brought in quite naturally in summer and at Christmas, again because of the organization around the school year.

But, speaking as a reader and not as an editor or literary critic, I was caught up in the GoF story in a way that I wasn't with OoP (with exceptions--I loved the Occlumency lessons and the glimpses they gave of Snape's true loyalties, such as his anger when Harry sees the door to the Department of Mysteries, the very thing they're trying to keep him from knowing about). But even though I didn't like "Moody" (I'm one of those readers who found his teaching and disciplinary techniques disturbing, as well as his helping Harry to cheat on the TWT), I was completely fooled and reacted exactly as Harry did when "Moody" said that he'd put Harry's name in the cup. In terms of clues and red herrings and "who done it," the mystery portion of the novel was perfectly structured. My only question is who the other death (mentioned by Voldemort in the opening chapter) had to be. Were they planning to murder Mr. Crouch from the beginning? That doesn't make sense. He was already Imperiused.

I don't agree that the kidnapping could have been done at any time. It had to be when Wormtail's potion was ready (it wasn't just blood, bone, and flesh). I don't know whether he could just conjure a big stone cauldron, either. Maybe he somehow had to obtain that. Meanwhile, the WW could feel deludedly safe and Voldemort could plan what he intended to do once he called the very surprised DEs to him in the graveyard. I'm sure that Barty Jr. liked the plan, too, since it enabled him to use his cleverness and feel important.

At any rate, just calling Harry into his office and handing him a portkey at whatever time he could manage wouldn't work unless Voldemort and Wormtail were waiting in the graveyard with the potion ready. It wouldn't do to have Harry transported to the graveyard when they weren't there or just transported to the Riddle's house to lie around and be tortured while Wormtail did whatever he needed to do to get that potion ready. Some potions, as you know, take months to brew. Most likely this one, which, after all, restores Voldemort to his own body, must have been extremely complicated.

Carol, not at all bothered by that particular "plot hole"




From md at exit-reality.com  Wed May 20 17:54:48 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 13:54:48 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gv1ctb+k6gu@eGroups.com>
References: <gv13fc+tjsp@eGroups.com> <gv1ctb+k6gu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c9d974$11684690$3438d3b0$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Annemehr
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:59 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God


It just seems strange if, normally, only apparition is blocked.  What would
be the point?

Annemehr




-----------------------------------

Could have sworn it was that you couldn't enter Hogwarts by magical means
and the fireplaces would have to be added one at a time to the flo network,
so they wouldn't work automatically. He had to get Harry in the maze to use
a portkey and had to assure that Harry and no one else would touch it since
it was activated by touch. I also figured the idea was that Harry would be
protected, or Voldy and Co. would presume as much and that's why such a
complex plan was hatched.

md 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed May 20 17:56:43 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 17:56:43 -0000
Subject: Some SnapeArt for Carol and Potioncat/ Was: Redemption of Anakin
In-Reply-To: <gv06mg+j639@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv1g8r+me6t@eGroups.com>

zanooda wrote:
> 
> It took me a long time to find this picture again :-). <snip> I saw this picture by accident and found the concept amusing, so I mentioned it to Carol, although I didn't like the picture itself, because Snape looks too much like Rickman, and I prefer more originality :-). <snip>

Carol responds:
Thanks, zanooda! Poor Snape. No rest for the weary; even in the afterlife, he has to watch over and protect a Potter kid! The black wings look like they belong to a crow, but I suppose they fit with the idea of the *living* Snape. I like like to think that Dead!Snape would finally wear the sort of green-and-silver headmaster's robes that Phineas Nigellus wears in his portrait. And I think of him as happy, too, reconciled with Lily and even on civil terms with James, forgiveness being the norm in the afterlife and resentment and vindictiveness having no place there.

Wonder why the artist has Harry wearing what looks like a greenish version of Hogwarts school robes. Whatever Aurors wear, I'm sure it isn't that. And even if snape looks like Rickman, couldn't they at least dispense with the frock coat and trousers and give him robes and a cloak?

Carol, who also finds the doe Patronus picture touching but wonders why Snape is holding his wand in his left hand rather than his right




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Wed May 20 18:32:07 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:32:07 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <002401c9d8f4$3e960a10$bbc21e30$@com>
References: <001d01c9d802$c88f79b0$59ae6d10$@com> <guvf7i+mg3c@eGroups.com>
	 <002401c9d8f4$3e960a10$bbc21e30$@com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90905201132m196a5da6xdfb5f28140b9ab55@mail.gmail.com>

>md wrote:
>I do not however, believe in any way, shape or form in organized religious
>practices where a small group interprets a document and tells the many what
>it means and what they are to do, to me, that's the largest problem in
>society, organized religion, not god.

No.Limberger responds:
I couldn't agree more.  When something has been experimentally demonstrated
or repeated multiple times, or when there is overwhelming scientifically-
gathered data to support a theory, then there should be no issues in
accepting
these as being sound.

-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed May 20 22:01:57 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 22:01:57 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <002401c9d8f4$3e960a10$bbc21e30$@com>
Message-ID: <gv1ukl+8drt@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:

Geoff:
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Christians share many different
> beliefs". 
> I interpret this as referring to different practices followed by different 
> denominations. This gives me the impression that you are not a Christian 
> nor sympathetic towards believers because our faith is founded on a 
> number of statements made by Christ. Any other additional rites or 
> practices are peripheral to our basic belief that salvation comes from 
> accepting Christ into our hearts and lives. Hence, any linking of Christian 
> faith to alchemical teaching sends out all the wrong messages.

md:
> I was raised Baptist, attended protestant church, decided god was a
> construct and defected to atheism, but I believe in things that have not
> been scientifically proven, so I don't have any anti-"god" sentiments, I do
> not however, believe in any way, shape or form in organized religious
> practices where a small group interprets a document and tells the many 
> what it means and what they are to do, to me, that's the largest problem in
> society, organized religion, not god.

Geoff:
That clarifies your viewpoint. However, it also suggests from your 
biographical detail that you were never introduced to the real Christian 
faith. That, by the way, is not a criticism of any sort ? it is just an 
observation. Let me explain a little further.

A few years ago, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, was 
being interviewed on the BBC "Breakfast" programme. In response to a 
point raised by the presenter, he replied "Ah, but you are confusing 
Christianity with `Churchianity'". In the UK, if you go round and ask 
people what their religion is, 80% or more will reply "Christian" ? or 
possibly "C of E" (Church of England). If you then press them further, it 
is often revealed that, for many of them,  the only time they attend 
church is for a christening, marriage or funeral (the famous "hatched, 
matched or despatched" trio). But there are also a large number of people 
attending church because they were brought up that way and go through 
the routines of their denomination ? such as prayer meetings, mass, 
confession, Bible studies and such like ? since they appear on the church 
diary. Obviously, the items mentioned do not actually belong to one 
specific church. If you tackle them about personal Christian experience, 
they may look surprised having gone through the sort of progression 
which you mention and believe that that is the sum total of faith.

At the risk of being boring, I have said on many occasions that the 
bedrock of real Christian faith lies with some comments made by Christ 
when he was on earth. "For God so loved the world that he gave his 
only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal 
life" (John's gospel chapter 3 verse 16) and "I am the way and the truth 
and the life. No one comes to the father except through me" (John 
chapter 14 verse 6). This all hinges on "belief". I can believe that if I get 
on a train at Taunton railway station, it will take me to Paddington 
Station in London but  I will not get to London until I put that belief into 
practice and actually board the train.

Looking further at the question of what we are expected to do as 
Christians, another analogy struck me,. Let's consider playing tennis. 
As youngsters, we know nothing about the game initially. Then perhaps 
we see the game or a friend or relative talks about it and we begin to 
learn how to play. It may be played with a cheap racket on a public 
tarmac court while we wear ordinary trousers and jumpers and perhaps 
trainers. Others who want to go further may want to join a club and be 
coached, play on good quality clay or grass courts, get the right clothing, 
buy expensive rackets and so on. The fact remains that the trainer-
wearing guys playing on the public courts and rescuing their own balls 
after serving are just as much tennis players as the well-to-do and the 
famous.

I have never not believed in God. As a teenager, I had a very hazy belief 
that we were all Christians because of Jesus and we would just get to 
heaven in the end(!) 

In my last year at teacher training college, I became close friends with a 
guy who was the president of the Christian Union; we met playing chess 
? against each other and also side by side for the college. As a result I got 
to know many CU members and there was something about their life style 
which was attractive. As a result, I became a Christian ? I spoke about 
having a "Damascus Road" style of meeting with God in a recent post. 
For the next couple of months until I left to start teaching, I mixed with 
Anglicans, Salvation Army, Methodist, Baptists, Free Evangelicals, 
Congregationalists to mention but a few. Despite them having different 
ways of worship within their own churches we all got on together because 
we all accepted the two things said by Christ which I quoted.

I have been a member of the Baptist Church for the almost half century 
since that day; but that does *not* mean that I think this church has all 
the answers. It is merely the place where I believe God has led me to 
worship and be of service to other around me. As any real Christian 
should, I consider myself a Christian first and a Baptist second (for 
Baptist, substitute whatever church you attend).

To some extent, we actually have a measure of agreement!

No.Limberger:
(in response to md's post)
> I couldn't agree more.  When something has been experimentally 
> demonstrated or repeated multiple times, or when there is overwhelming 
> scientifically-gathered data to support a theory, then there should be no 
> issues in accepting these as being sound.

Geoff:
I'm not quite sure I see the tie-in with what md wrote but what you 
are highlighting are concrete, measureable facts.

You cannot use this approach when you dealing with things which 
cannot be quantified in this way. you cannot use scientifically gathered 
data to deal with concepts such as love, faith, conscience or hope ? to 
name but a handful.






From no.limberger at gmail.com  Thu May 21 01:12:36 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 18:12:36 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gv1ukl+8drt@eGroups.com>
References: <002401c9d8f4$3e960a10$bbc21e30$@com> <gv1ukl+8drt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90905201812t73557baboa573864225b4c7fd@mail.gmail.com>

>Geoff wrote (to md):
> (SNIP) it also suggests from your biographical detail that you
>were never introduced to the real Christian faith.

No.Limberger responds:
Which Christian denomination represents the "real Christian
faith"?  Let's see, that could be one of the following:
Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian,
Mormon, Church of Christ, Church of God, Evangelical,
Pentecostal, Baptist, Southern Baptist, and the list
just goes on and on and on ad nauseum.

The bottom line: every Christian denomination or sect views
itself as the "real Christian faith" and says that the others
are not.  So, while you may claim that your beliefs are
the "real Christian faith", the vast majority of Christians
would disagree not only with you, but with each other as
well.

>No.Limberger wrote:
>(in response to md's post)
> I couldn't agree more. When something has been experimentally
> demonstrated or repeated multiple times, or when there is overwhelming
> scientifically-gathered data to support a theory, then there should be no
> issues in accepting these as being sound.

>Geoff wrote:
>I'm not quite sure I see the tie-in with what md wrote but what you
>are highlighting are concrete, measureable facts.

>You cannot use this approach when you dealing with things which
>cannot be quantified in this way. you cannot use scientifically gathered
>data to deal with concepts such as love, faith, conscience or hope ? to
>name but a handful.

No.Limberger responds:
If you believe in something that cannot be tested and
qualified, then you have no idea whether it is factual.
Some Christians are bent on the teaching of creationism
as if that mythological belief has, in any way, any scientific
foundation as evolution does.  Some Christians refuse to
obtain medical care for themselves and/or their children
because it goes against their belief that they have to pray
to be cured.  Some Christians are determined to deny
equal civil treatment of gay and lesbian couples as
heterosexual couples because of their personal
Christian-inspired homophobia.   If Christians are going
to impose their beliefs on entire populations, then
the validity of those beliefs should be scientifically
measured and tested.   Would you want any drug
company to be permitted to sell untested prescription
medications to the public without having been tested
to ensure that the medications actually work and are
not harmful, or would you prefer that a group of clergy
pray over the medications and declare them safe
for human consumption?  Would you want to board
a commercial airline jet that had not been tested, but
had instead been prayed over or had holy water
splashed on it as a way to guarantee your personal
safety?   This is the difference between science and
faith: science has a much better track record of safety
and success than faith.  Whereas faith has lead to such
notions as suicide bombings, the Inquisition, witch
burnings, the Crusades, etc.  Amazingly, all the
people who committed such acts all believed that
they too had the one and only "true faith".  Of course,
so do the Slytherins in JK Rowliing's "Harry Potter"
novels: believing that only "true bloods" should
be permitted to be taught and use magic.

-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu May 21 02:43:50 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 02:43:50 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90905201812t73557baboa573864225b4c7fd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gv2f56+p9ud@eGroups.com>


> No.Limberger responds:
> If you believe in something that cannot be tested and
> qualified, then you have no idea whether it is factual.
> Some Christians are bent on the teaching of creationism
> as if that mythological belief has, in any way, any scientific
> foundation as evolution does. 

Alla:

Yes. And some christians don't.

 Some Christians refuse to
> obtain medical care for themselves and/or their children
> because it goes against their belief that they have to pray
> to be cured.

Alla:

Oh yes. And some christians don't.

> Some Christians are determined to deny
> equal civil treatment of gay and lesbian couples as
> heterosexual couples because of their personal
> Christian-inspired homophobia.  

Alla:

Absolutely and some non-christians also do that and also because of their personal non-christian inspired homophobia. And some christians fight for the equal civil treatment for gay and lesbian couples.


No.Limberger:
>If Christians are going
> to impose their beliefs on entire populations, then
> the validity of those beliefs should be scientifically
> measured and tested. 

Alla:

How could you test and measure faith? But it is absolutely my belief that faith and state should stay as far apart from each other as possible.

No.Limberger:
> Would you want any drug
> company to be permitted to sell untested prescription
> medications to the public without having been tested
> to ensure that the medications actually work and are
> not harmful, or would you prefer that a group of clergy
> pray over the medications and declare them safe
> for human consumption?  Would you want to board
> a commercial airline jet that had not been tested, but
> had instead been prayed over or had holy water
> splashed on it as a way to guarantee your personal
> safety?   This is the difference between science and
> faith: science has a much better track record of safety
> and success than faith. 

Alla:

Depends on where you look really. There are occasions where doctors could do nothing for the patients and good thoughts/ or prayers helped them. No, I cannot claim that anything like that happened to me. But I personally know a person to whose relative something like that happened.
 Of course science is a GREAT thing and I will be the first one to say that church should stay the heck away from science as far as possible, but while science gave us antibiotics, science also gave as such lovely inventions as nuclear bombs, which in my view humanity will be much better off without.

So I would not just go ahead and say that science created only useful things for humanity.

No_limberger:
> Whereas faith has lead to such
> notions as suicide bombings, the Inquisition, witch
> burnings, the Crusades, etc.  Amazingly, all the
> people who committed such acts all believed that
> they too had the one and only "true faith".  Of course,
> so do the Slytherins in JK Rowliing's "Harry Potter"
> novels: believing that only "true bloods" should
> be permitted to be taught and use magic.
> 
> -- 
> "Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


Alla:

For the longest time I could not reconcile my deep respect for Christianity's ideas  and the deaths of millions jews in the Inquisition hands and through the centuries and all in the name of God of Love.

But then I realized something - Jesus never called for that. People committed horrible atrocities in his name, however why should we blame him if people chose to do evil instead of love each other in his name? Just saying.




From md at exit-reality.com  Thu May 21 02:45:30 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 22:45:30 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90905201812t73557baboa573864225b4c7fd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002401c9d8f4$3e960a10$bbc21e30$@com> <gv1ukl+8drt@eGroups.com> <7ef72f90905201812t73557baboa573864225b4c7fd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c9d9be$34f69a40$9ee3cec0$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of No Limberger
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:13 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

>Geoff wrote (to md):
> (SNIP) it also suggests from your biographical detail that you
>were never introduced to the real Christian faith.

No.Limberger responds:
Which Christian denomination represents the "real Christian
faith"?  Let's see, that could be one of the following:
Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian,
Mormon, Church of Christ, Church of God, Evangelical,
Pentecostal, Baptist, Southern Baptist, and the list
just goes on and on and on ad nauseum.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::

MD Shrugs:
I had every manner of religious faith around me, we were baptized and taught
to pray and told bible stories, my Grandmother is deeply religious and my
mother insist my Atheism is a phase I'll grow out of (hmm, I'll be 36 this
year, after 20 years you'd think I'd grow out of it already!) Had a
girlfriend who was trying to find a church and we tried them all. 

I could of course argue that Christians have never been truly introduced to
logic and reason because faith clouds their minds. I don't, because I am
respectful of other peoples beliefs and ideas so long as they don't impose
on my own, and I'm willing to say that if one day someone proves god exist,
I'll shrug and go "okay, you got me." I would also say that I don't believe
in the above statement, I believe that some people need faith an so as long
as they need it I wouldn't argue that it's wrong, only that I don't share
it.

md




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Thu May 21 03:56:39 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 23:56:39 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gv1fd4+lcje@eGroups.com>
References: <guvtfu+50tm@eGroups.com> <gv1fd4+lcje@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <F9DDD1DAEF184CBC987A4FF617539FF4@FRODO>

[Carol]:
| My only question is who the other death (mentioned by Voldemort 
| in the opening chapter) had to be. Were they planning to 
| murder Mr. Crouch from the beginning? That doesn't make 
| sense. He was already Imperiused.

[Lee]:
I thought he was referring back to Bertha.  I'll have to read that chapter
again.

[Carol]:
| I don't agree that the kidnapping could have been done at any 
| time. It had to be when Wormtail's potion was ready (it 
| wasn't just blood, bone, and flesh). I don't know whether he 
| could just conjure a big stone cauldron, either. Maybe he 
| somehow had to obtain that. Meanwhile, the WW could feel 
| deludedly safe and Voldemort could plan what he intended to 
| do once he called the very surprised DEs to him in the 
| graveyard. I'm sure that Barty Jr. liked the plan, too, since 
| it enabled him to use his cleverness and feel important.

[Lee]:
I also don't believe Harry could have been kidnapped from the Hogwarts
Express without some commotion and, once he reached Hogwarts, he would be
very hard to kidnap unless it was done in a manner which looked like an
accident.  Barty Jr. fulfilled all that by tweaking things, so to speak.

[Carol]:
| At any rate, just calling Harry into his office and handing 
| him a portkey at whatever time he could manage wouldn't work 
| unless Voldemort and Wormtail were waiting in the graveyard 
| with the potion ready. It wouldn't do to have Harry 
| transported to the graveyard when they weren't there or just 
| transported to the Riddle's house to lie around and be 
| tortured while Wormtail did whatever he needed to do to get 
| that potion ready. Some potions, as you know, take months to 
| brew. Most likely this one, which, after all, restores 
| Voldemort to his own body, must have been extremely complicated.

[Lee]:
And if he did Portkey Harry at the wrong time, here's that commotion thing
again and a posse would no doubt go forth.

Cheers,

Lee :-)

Do not walk behind me,    | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead;   | N2FGC
Do not walk before me,    | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu May 21 19:23:07 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 19:23:07 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God - GOF
In-Reply-To: <gv1fd4+lcje@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv49mr+dn0s@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:


> My only question is who the other death (mentioned by 
> Voldemort in the opening chapter) had to be. Were they 
> planning to murder Mr. Crouch from the beginning? That 
> doesn't make sense. He was already Imperiused.


zanooda:

I've also wondered about the other death, but it just can't be anyone but Crouch Sr. He was not Imperiused in the first chapter, they didn't get to him yet. Maybe LV planned to kill him, but then decided it would be better to try and use the Imperius curse on him.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu May 21 19:58:59 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 19:58:59 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <000001c9d9be$34f69a40$9ee3cec0$@com>
Message-ID: <gv4bq3+frha@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger <no.limberger at ...> wrote:

> >Geoff wrote (to md):
> > (SNIP) it also suggests from your biographical detail that you
> >were never introduced to the real Christian faith.
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> Which Christian denomination represents the "real Christian
> faith"?  Let's see, that could be one of the following:
> Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian,
> Mormon, Church of Christ, Church of God, Evangelical,
> Pentecostal, Baptist, Southern Baptist, and the list
> just goes on and on and on ad nauseum.
> 
> The bottom line: every Christian denomination or sect views
> itself as the "real Christian faith" and says that the others
> are not.  So, while you may claim that your beliefs are
> the "real Christian faith", the vast majority of Christians
> would disagree not only with you, but with each other as
> well.

Geoff:
My answer to your question "Which Christian denomination
 represents the `real Christian faith'?" would be "most of them".

If you look at Christian churches, they nearly all have a basic 
statement of faith in which  they acknowledge that Christ was 
God in human form, was crucified and carried the sins of mankind, 
rose from the dead and granted eternal life to those who believe 
in him.

I agree that in some cases ? the Catholics and high Anglicans 
come to mind ? basic statements have rather buried  in routines 
and rituals to which they attach great store. This is reminiscent 
of my tennis analogy in that they have got the fine courts and 
best rackets etc. whereas we should mainly be concerned with 
those who can actually play the game. That also harks back to 
my comments yesterday on what we mean by "believe".

> >No.Limberger:
> >(in response to md's post)
> > I couldn't agree more. When something has been experimentally
> > demonstrated or repeated multiple times, or when there is overwhelming
> > scientifically-gathered data to support a theory, then there should be no
> > issues in accepting these as being sound.
> 
> >Geoff:
> >I'm not quite sure I see the tie-in with what md wrote but what you
> >are highlighting are concrete, measureable facts.
> 
> >You cannot use this approach when you dealing with things which
> >cannot be quantified in this way. you cannot use scientifically gathered
> >data to deal with concepts such as love, faith, conscience or hope ? to
> >name but a handful.
> 
> No.Limberger:
> If you believe in something that cannot be tested and
> qualified, then you have no idea whether it is factual.

Geoff:
You therefore do not believe in the existence of love, faith, hope, 
conscience since these cannot be qualified or quantified?

That seems to suggest  a very austere and loveless life style.

No.Limberger:
> Some Christians are bent on the teaching of creationism
> as if that mythological belief has, in any way, any scientific
> foundation as evolution does.  

Geoff:
Many scientists raise questions about the total validity of 
evolutionary theory. I am currently in the middle of reading 
a book called "The Selfless Gene: Living with God and Darwin" 
written by Charles Foster, a Christian. On the one hand he 
looks at the ultra-evolutionary theories proposed by such 
people as Richard Dawkins and conversely the neo-creationist
ideas propounded by what I would call the fundamentalist 
Christian right. On the one hand, he points out that the Dawkins 
camp have chosen to ignore many of the provisos put forward 
by Darwin himself in his writings and glossed over gaps in the 
theory while he then uses to great advantage a scholarly analysis 
of the first couple of chapters of Genesis  to show that evolution 
can just as easily been at the command of God. If you are not 
entrenched totally in one camp or the other, it is a fascinating 
read, but not a light or easy one.

No.Limberger:
> Some Christians refuse to
> obtain medical care for themselves and/or their children
> because it goes against their belief that they have to pray
> to be cured.  

Geoff:
I have a suspicion that you might be referring to the Jehovah's
 Witnesses, who are not usually considered a Christian group.

The rest of your comments have been very succinctly commented 
on by Alla and I leave those replies without further addition from 
me.

md:
> I had every manner of religious faith around me, we were baptized and taught
> to pray and told bible stories, my Grandmother is deeply religious and my
> mother insist my Atheism is a phase I'll grow out of (hmm, I'll be 36 this
> year, after 20 years you'd think I'd grow out of it already!) Had a
> girlfriend who was trying to find a church and we tried them all. 

Geoff:
This goes back to George Carey's Christianity and "Churchianity", 
to which I referred yesterday. People *can* be deeply religious, 
baptised etc. but if they do not have belief (and also love according 
to Paul) that is not the answer.

I must commend your faith in atheism. I think that to believe that 
this life with all its imperfections, its manmade unfairness and 
uncertainty is all there is, which would create an utterly bleak 
and Sartre-like world demands a very firm, unwavering and 
humourless stand.

md:
> I could of course argue that Christians have never been truly introduced to
> logic and reason because faith clouds their minds. 

Geoff:
If you look at some of the leading scientists in today's world who 
are also evangelical Christians, I think that your comment is an 
insult to these logical, reasoning -  and faith-filled ? intellects.

Following my earlier remarks in this post, I believe that faith, hope,
love etc, cannot be analysed by logic and reason because you cannot 
define their parameters. 






From md at exit-reality.com  Thu May 21 20:56:34 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 16:56:34 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gv4bq3+frha@eGroups.com>
References: <000001c9d9be$34f69a40$9ee3cec0$@com> <gv4bq3+frha@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001301c9da56$a022af00$e0680d00$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:59 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

md:
> I could of course argue that Christians have never been truly introduced
to
> logic and reason because faith clouds their minds. 

Geoff:
If you look at some of the leading scientists in today's world who 
are also evangelical Christians, I think that your comment is an 
insult to these logical, reasoning -  and faith-filled - intellects.

------------------------------------

As I state that I "could" argue that but that I don't because it's not what
I think which is why it's not insulting and I made that VERY clear in my
original post.

md




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu May 21 21:50:13 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 21:50:13 -0000
Subject: Legal Term: Inheritance to the Eldest Son?
Message-ID: <gv4ial+81r5@eGroups.com>

When we were discussing years ago if, when, and how Harry would
inherit Grimmauld Place, some one provided a legal term for the
process by which the Eldest son always inherits everything.

Can someone tell me what that term is?

Steve/bluewizard




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Thu May 21 21:51:30 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:51:30 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gv4bq3+frha@eGroups.com>
References: <000001c9d9be$34f69a40$9ee3cec0$@com> <gv4bq3+frha@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <49405A79D1AA42B2AE537404CD04D517@FRODO>

| Geoff:
| I have a suspicion that you might be referring to the Jehovah's
|  Witnesses, who are not usually considered a Christian group.

[Lee]:
Yes, and "Christian Science" people also prefer to not go to medical
professionals.  You're right, Geoff, in that these two systems (Jehovah's
Witnesses and Christian Scientists) are not really considered Christians as
they tend away from true New Testament teaching.

| md:
| > I could of course argue that Christians have never been 
| truly introduced to
| > logic and reason because faith clouds their minds. 
| 
| Geoff:
| If you look at some of the leading scientists in today's world who 
| are also evangelical Christians, I think that your comment is an 
| insult to these logical, reasoning -  and faith-filled - intellects.

[Lee]:
Indeed! my husband, who worked at AT&T Bell Laboratories for almost 40
years, is a Christian as well as a metallurgist with a degree in physics who
also did some crystallography and X-Ray diffraction stuff intermingled with
time as a systems administrator for various UNIX computers and designed hard
and software for controlling experiments with emphasis on solder bump strain
experiments.  I would say all this qualifies him as a logical, reasonable,
scientific mind, yet he's been a Christian for almost as long as I've been
alive!  (He's almost 22 years my senior and we both left AT&T just after it
became Lucent in 1996.)

I can say it was a privilege to work in an environment surrounded by
brilliant minds and, in fact, many Christians!

Cheers,

Lee :-)




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu May 21 22:12:13 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 22:12:13 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <001301c9da56$a022af00$e0680d00$@com>
Message-ID: <gv4jjt+h6g0@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:
 
md:
> > I could of course argue that Christians have never been truly introduced
> to
> > logic and reason because faith clouds their minds. 

Geoff:
> If you look at some of the leading scientists in today's world who 
> are also evangelical Christians, I think that your comment is an 
> insult to these logical, reasoning -  and faith-filled - intellects.

md:
> As I state that I "could" argue that but that I don't because it's not what
> I think which is why it's not insulting and I made that VERY clear in my
> original post.

Geoff:
Yes, so you did. My apologies, but the implication of your wording is that 
the thought has crossed your mind.

PS Have you solved the problem of why your posts arrive with all the 
irelevant data at the heading? No one else seems to have this occurrence 
and the Elves also commented at the end of one of your recent posts about 
snipping out unwanted material.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu May 21 23:33:11 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 23:33:11 -0000
Subject: Some SnapeArt for Carol and Potioncat/ Was: Redemption of Anakin
In-Reply-To: <gv06mg+j639@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv4obn+ldp4@eGroups.com>

 
> zanooda:
>
> 
> Anyway, while I was looking for this "Snape-with-Wings" picture, I saw many others, and here are my observations:
> 
> 1. Alan Rickman greatly influenced SnapeArt :-).
> 2. Snape in the pictures is often much more handsome than in the book :-).
> 3. Snape in the pictures is much more often shirtless than in the book (which is never :-)).
> 4. Many artists believe that Snape and Lily belong together, which I personally find not very realistic, although JKR said it was possible.
> 
> Anyway, here is that picture of Snape-the-guardian-angel. I'm sorry the pictures are from a Russian site - it was easier for me to look there, because they have them all sorted by characters and themes (fan-art themes are sometimes really weird, like, for example, "Snape and Hermione" - ???!). 

Potioncat:
This shirtless fan art was more realistic than most. Some fans seem to picture Snape with long silky hair and a buff bod. Sort of a dark haired Fabio.

While I don't particularly go looking for Fan art, I haven't seen as much that are Rickman based, though all of these seem to be. In fact, the winged one looks like photo-shop or something. Sort of reminds me of Rickman as Metatron (Dogma).

I can accept the Severus/Lily budding romance, but I cannot imagine adult Severus and Lily. oh, the shirtless one and the Snape with family just screamed "emo!"

Thanks for looking and for posting!







From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri May 22 00:18:23 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 00:18:23 -0000
Subject: Some SnapeArt for Carol and Potioncat/ Was: Redemption of Anakin
In-Reply-To: <gv4obn+ldp4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv4r0f+fnid@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:


> This shirtless fan art was more realistic than most. Some 
> fans seem to picture Snape with long silky hair and a buff 
> bod. Sort of a dark haired Fabio.


zanooda:

LOL! No, I don't like that :-). I like realistic pictures, and if the book says Snape has a hooked nose, he should have it in the picture, otherwise it's just not Snape :-). Here is an even more realistic shirtless Snape for you:

http://radikal.ru/F/s54.radikal.ru/i146/0904/64/cfb6f94e4d0e.jpg.html


About Rickman's influence - maybe you are right, that was my first ever encounter with fan-art, and I only looked through one website. I suppose they are all intense Rickman fans, because their selection definitely includes a lot of Rickman-influenced pictures. But it may be different elsewhere :-).





From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com  Fri May 22 02:04:25 2009
From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra Pan)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 02:04:25 -0000
Subject: Azkatraz
In-Reply-To: <guv4od+f1t2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv5179+m1e0@eGroups.com>

"gryffindoras" <ajalwag at ...> wrote:
> Is anyone going to AZKATRAZ this year?
 
Petra, raising her hand:
Me - it'll be my first convention.  I've never been 
able to spare the expense of going to a convention 
before but since Azkatraz is coming to my hometown, 
how I can resist?!
 
 
Sheryll:
> I wish I could!
 
Petra:
Wait a minute - I'm going to the convention but YOU
are not?  What is this world coming to?!  :p
 
 
Barb, whose whole family is going to Azkatraz:
> It's been about 20 years since my husband and I
> have been to San Francisco and we're very excited
> to be going back!  <snip>  We're also planning to
> make time to do some touristy things in SF, in
> addition to all of the amazing presentations I'm
> looking forward to attending.  (Sadly, one of our
> favorite places to eat, China Moon, has closed
> since we were last there.)
 
Petra:
Tell me what you liked to order there - maybe I can 
introduce you to a new favorite place to eat.
 
Petra
a
n  :)
 
 
 




From md at exit-reality.com  Fri May 22 02:34:45 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 22:34:45 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gv4jjt+h6g0@eGroups.com>
References: <001301c9da56$a022af00$e0680d00$@com> <gv4jjt+h6g0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001501c9da85$dea3ebc0$9bebc340$@com>



-----Original Message-----

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:

Geoff:
Yes, so you did. My apologies, but the implication of your wording is that 
the thought has crossed your mind.
:::::::::::::::::

That's like saying because I wrote a story with a pedophile in it, it must
have crossed my mind to molest children. Or maybe the wording suggest that I
think of what others think rather than just myself.

md





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri May 22 03:53:27 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 03:53:27 -0000
Subject: Question about Merlin's pants.
Message-ID: <gv57jn+g1n9@eGroups.com>

Hi guys! Please help me with English once more. OK, Merlin's pants are mentioned several times in DH (that's "pants" in the British sense of the word, right?), but my question is actually about this unfinished sentence: "So why in the name of Merlin's saggy left..." (p.92 Am. or p.81 UK). What the ending of this sentence may be? Please give me some idea. I'm not asking just out of curiosity, this is needed for a translation :-).


zanooda




From md at exit-reality.com  Fri May 22 03:59:24 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 23:59:24 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Question about Merlin's pants.
In-Reply-To: <gv57jn+g1n9@eGroups.com>
References: <gv57jn+g1n9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002801c9da91$b1ff9540$15febfc0$@com>

Um... testicle.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of zanooda2
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:53 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Question about Merlin's pants.

Hi guys! Please help me with English once more. OK, Merlin's pants are
mentioned several times in DH (that's "pants" in the British sense of the
word, right?), but my question is actually about this unfinished sentence:
"So why in the name of Merlin's saggy left..." (p.92 Am. or p.81 UK). What
the ending of this sentence may be? Please give me some idea. I'm not asking
just out of curiosity, this is needed for a translation :-).


zanooda



------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links






From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Fri May 22 04:45:25 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 04:45:25 -0000
Subject: Question about Merlin's pants.
In-Reply-To: <gv57jn+g1n9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv5al5+s6rs@eGroups.com>

> zanooda:
> Hi guys! Please help me with English once more. OK, Merlin's pants are mentioned several times in DH (that's "pants" in the British sense of the word, right?), but my question is actually about this unfinished sentence: "So why in the name of Merlin's saggy left..."

Kemper now:
'ball' 'gonad' 'marble' 'nad' 'nard' 'nut' 'pea' 'teste'




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri May 22 05:19:36 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 05:19:36 -0000
Subject: Question about Merlin's pants.
In-Reply-To: <002801c9da91$b1ff9540$15febfc0$@com>
Message-ID: <gv5cl8+ahck@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:

> Um... testicle.


OMG :-)! I had a feeling it might be something like this, but I thought it was just my dirty mind .. :-). Thanks! This is it, then? No other options :-)?


zanooda 
 





From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Fri May 22 05:30:13 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 05:30:13 -0000
Subject: Question about Merlin's pants.
In-Reply-To: <gv5cl8+ahck@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv5d95+plch@eGroups.com>

 
> Zanooda:
> OMG :-)! I had a feeling it might be something like this, but I thought it was just my dirty mind .. :-). Thanks! This is it, then? No other options :-)?

Kemper now:
That's it.  Unless Merlin was really a woman, then I would go with 'boob' or perhaps 'tittay'.

Kemper




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Fri May 22 05:50:01 2009
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 05:50:01 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God - long
In-Reply-To: <gusf1q+m3pm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv5ee9+t5jf@eGroups.com>

Limberger said:
Lily Potter was not impregnated as a virgin, so Harry was not 
born of a virgin. Jesus' parents (according to the new testament) were not killed by a dark wizard or anyone else for that matter, whereas Harry's parents were. Jesus didn't grow up living under a staircase and being generally mistreated, whereas Harry was. Harry never walked on water, fed thousands from nothing, raised
the dead, restored vision to the blind, etc. as the gospels
claim that Jesus did; nor was Harry out to preach & convert followers to a new religion. Harry was human, imperfect and even attempted to curse people; whereas the new testament claims that Jesus was divine, perfect and never did anything wrong to anyone.

Tonks:
When I said that HP is a retelling of the Gospel, I mean that in a broader way. The Gospel is the good news that we can be (saved) or  transformed into something better than we are. We can become Love.

We can not look at this too literally. One needs to listen with their right brain. The story is strong metaphor with a great deal of symbolism. Only the right brain will understand it. One needs to listen for the global significance, not specific.

It is not that Harry was born of a virgin. His mother's name is Lily (the Easter flower) for those raised in a Christian country, this will take your subconscious on an internal search for the relationship... 

I don't know how to tell people to get in touch with that part of themselves (right brain)... smoke a little weed or something, I suppose. I have never smoked so I don't know if that is the answer. But do whatever opens up that part of your mind to see the bigger picture and connections. That is how to read the HP books, if IMO, you want to get the full meaning of what Rowling was after.

Because when you start with the first chapter of SS/PS you see 3 magi (the plural form of magus, which means wizard) adoring the child sent to the "Muggle" world. That is not literal. It is suppose to invoke an image in your mind that takes you back to another story, also in your mind, and weaves them together, for another, deeper purpose. And the whole book is full of this sort of thing. Lily. The mark on Harry's forhead. How it got there. The effect it had on him, etc. All pointing to something else, at the same time just telling a nice little story to the children.


Geoff Bannister wrote:
>
> > << But I am concerned by the fact that [John Granger] attempts to tie Christianity in with alchemical theory, which certainly isn't part of Christian belief. >>
>Snip)
> Your reply highlights certain points which are contributory to my 
> concern that John Granger is often held up as an example of a 
> Christian who supports Harry Potter, a point of view which I find 
> very suspect when allied to alchemical thinking.
 
Tonks:

Alchemy. Alchemy was an ancient art that occurred in many parts of the world at the same time, and came up with the same ideas even though those parts of the world were very separate from each other and had no means of communication between them. This is suppose to point to the fact that there lies a deep, universal truth within Alchemy. This truth was incorporated into Christianity in the middle ages by many famous Christians, including a few Saints. 

Alchemy as a spiritual discipline of Christianity is the process of taking our soul (of lead) and with the stone (Christ) transforming or (to use a term from the bible, which Rowling uses in a slightly different manner) 'transfiguring' into the gold (image of Christ). The Orthodox church teaching that "God became man so that man may become as God". (before I get a fight on this point, let me remind you that the Orthodox Church is the keeper of the faith as it was from the beginning of the Church, before the church at Rome split off from it. Disagree if you wish, but this IS the teaching of the Church with a Capital C.) 

Following this line of thinking, it follows that DD, being an Alchemist, was working to transform himself and especially Harry into 'Christ'. Not Jesus, but Christ. There is a significant difference. There was only one Jesus. But we are all called to be as Christ. That is the goal and purpose of the spiritual life, to be one with God. There are many ways to say it. Some say to be one with God. Some to follow the teaching of Jesus. Some to die and rise with Christ, Jesus. But the underlying idea is the same. We are to be transformed from the sinful man, the man that is not in communion with God to a person in union with God. For a Christian this mean by and through Jesus, who was the Christ. Jesus, Who was the 'Son of Man' which means perfect man. And we are to be transfigured into Christ, through the death and Resurrection of Jesus and by the power of the Spirit.  Whatever road you take to the Highest Self, the goal is the same. One end, the Omega point, but many paths.


Geoff said:
 
> Christian faith is not part of any other belief; it is complete in 
> itself. 

Tonks:
I agree. In the study of world religions the Truth, which we Christians call God, is called "Ultimate Reality" There is only one Ultimate Reality. Many of the world's religions have some similar concepts when studied closely. And these can be brought together in such a way that while there are many paths the final goal is the same. And that can be through Christ. 

I recommend a book by a Christian monk who lived in India. His name is Bede Griffiths and the book is "A New Vision of Reality". Whatever your religion, or non-religion, you will find this an interesting book and worth the reading. It is not an easy book because he covers science, philosophy, psychology, and all of the major religions. If you read one book in your life, other than HP, of course, this is the one. It will change your perspective on who  we are, and where are we going and what we are to do to bring mankind as a whole to the next step in our evolution. Whatever your beliefs, you will be very surprised by the end of this book. Many of you will be shocked to find yourself agreeing with him. (Amazon has it.) 

Tonks_op





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri May 22 06:14:34 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 06:14:34 -0000
Subject: Question about Merlin's pants.
In-Reply-To: <gv57jn+g1n9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv5fsa+iu92@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:

zanooda:
> Hi guys! Please help me with English once more. OK, Merlin's pants are mentioned several times in DH (that's "pants" in the British sense of the word, right?), but my question is actually about this unfinished sentence: "So why in the name of Merlin's saggy left..." (p.92 Am. or p.81 UK). What the ending of this sentence may be? Please give me some idea. I'm not asking just out of curiosity, this is needed for a translation :-).

Geoff:
The answers you have received to this seem to agree in that there is a
questionable word omitted....
:-)

However, I've never come across such an expression myself. Having worked 
professionally with teenagers for 32 years in the classroom and also until 
four years ago as a boys' club leader in our church, I reckon to have a good 
working knowledge of "interesting" male phrases!

Another oddity about this unfinished comment of Ron's is that he uses it - 
or starts to use it - in the presence of his mother. Molly promptly jumps on 
him about it but knowing that she runs a tight ship in terms of her family's
politeness etc., I wonder whether Ron would have really dared to express
something as explicit as other contributors have suggested. It might have 
been something blander such as "buttock"....

I wonder whether JKR just threw this in without contemplating the ending.

One of life's unanswered mysteries perhaps.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri May 22 06:27:59 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 06:27:59 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <001501c9da85$dea3ebc0$9bebc340$@com>
Message-ID: <gv5glf+jank@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:

Geoff:
> Yes, so you did. My apologies, but the implication of your wording is that 
> the thought has crossed your mind.

md: 
> That's like saying because I wrote a story with a pedophile in it, it must
> have crossed my mind to molest children. Or maybe the wording suggest that I
> think of what others think rather than just myself.

Geoff:
I don't think that is a valid analogy.

If you wrote a story with a paedophile as a character, that in no way implies 
that you fit the category. After all, your story might well have a heavy drinker 
or an obsessive stalker in it, none of which presumably fit you.

Your comment was: 
"I could of course argue that Christians have never been truly introduced to
logic and reason because faith clouds their minds. I don't, because I am
respectful of other peoples beliefs and ideas..."

With respect, I would argue that it had crossed your mind, otherwise you 
wouldn't have made the comment.....




From md at exit-reality.com  Fri May 22 06:32:38 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 02:32:38 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Question about Merlin's pants.
In-Reply-To: <gv5fsa+iu92@eGroups.com>
References: <gv57jn+g1n9@eGroups.com> <gv5fsa+iu92@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003201c9daa7$1a1001a0$4e3004e0$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 2:15 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Question about Merlin's pants.

I wonder whether JKR just threw this in without contemplating the ending.

One of life's unanswered mysteries perhaps.



-------------------------------

I've heard the expression, she didn't just make it up, nor did I it's
conclusion.

md




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Fri May 22 06:41:25 2009
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 06:41:25 -0000
Subject: Christian perspective on DD's death
In-Reply-To: <guh9o1+3bg2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv5hel+tprl@eGroups.com>

I have posted on this many times a couple of years ago on the main list.

I will be very brief here.

There is a Psalm (22) read at Good Friday. It goes like this:


7 All who see me mock me; 
  they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 

11 Do not be far from me, 
       for trouble is near 
       and there is no one to help. 

 12 Many bulls surround me; 
       strong bulls of Bashan encircle me. 

 13 Roaring lions tearing their prey 
       open their mouths wide against me. 

 14 I am poured out like water, 
       and all my bones are out of joint. 
       My heart has turned to wax; 
       it has melted away within me. 

 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, 
       and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; 
       you lay me in the dust of death. 

 16 Dogs have surrounded me; 
       a band of evil men has encircled me, 

I can not hear that on Good Friday without thinking of both Jesus and DD. Perhaps this Psalm was in Rowlings mind when she wrote the events on the tower.

Also there is a theory among some theologians that Judas and Jesus may have had a "plan". This fits with what we see acted out in Snape and DD, where it seems that Snape betrayed DD when he was, in fact, doing what they had prearranged if it came to this moment. 

Also there is a moment when DD is suspended in mid-air. Rowling said "and he was suspended under the shinning skull". Jesus was killed at the "place of the skull".

The whole cave experience before the tower, conjures up many images from the bible and the fit with ideas of Jesus descending into Hell and taking on the sins of the world. In fact Granger covers this very point, which I thought about when reading it too. Granger went a bit farther and noticed that it was 12 cups of poison that DD drank. 12 is an important symbol. 12 tribes of Israel and the number of completeness. 

As to why DD, the man, would willing die. Same reason as Jesus. Love.





From md at exit-reality.com  Fri May 22 07:00:36 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 03:00:36 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gv5glf+jank@eGroups.com>
References: <001501c9da85$dea3ebc0$9bebc340$@com> <gv5glf+jank@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c9daab$0270f5f0$0752e1d0$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 2:28 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

With respect, I would argue that it had crossed your mind, otherwise you 
wouldn't have made the comment.....


:::::::::::::

It's interesting to know that you can read my mind and know what I think
better than I.

Amazing!

md




From drednort at alphalink.com.au  Fri May 22 07:43:15 2009
From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 17:43:15 +1000
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Legal Term: Inheritance to the Eldest Son?
In-Reply-To: <gv4ial+81r5@eGroups.com>
References: <gv4ial+81r5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <09BC4FBECE884BD1901A4ED5355960F8@ShaunPC>

From: "Steve" <bboyminn at yahoo.com>


> When we were discussing years ago if, when, and how Harry would
> inherit Grimmauld Place, some one provided a legal term for the
> process by which the Eldest son always inherits everything.
> 
> Can someone tell me what that term is?

Are you thinking of primogeniture?

That's what comes to my mind.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri May 22 10:23:58 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 10:23:58 -0000
Subject: Question about Merlin's pants.
In-Reply-To: <003201c9daa7$1a1001a0$4e3004e0$@com>
Message-ID: <gv5ufu+7aiv@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:

Geoff: 
> I wonder whether JKR just threw this in without contemplating the ending.
 
> One of life's unanswered mysteries perhaps.

md:
> I've heard the expression, she didn't just make it up, nor did I it's
> conclusion.

Geoff:
It's possibly of those UK/US differences that crop up from time to time.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri May 22 10:30:53 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 10:30:53 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <003e01c9daab$0270f5f0$0752e1d0$@com>
Message-ID: <gv5ust+lurp@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:
 
md: 
> It's interesting to know that you can read my mind and know what I think
> better than I.
> 
> Amazing!

Geoff:
I'm not mind reading. Legilimency is not one of my talents.
:-)

I'm merely looking at the evidence left at the scene of the crime.

<quote>
I could of course argue that Christians have never been truly introduced to
logic and reason because faith clouds their minds. I don't...
</quote>

(a) If you don't intend to argue, why make the comment in the first place?

(b) How can you offer to not argue if the idea of arguing hasn't crossed 
your mind?

Your turn.
:-)




From md at exit-reality.com  Fri May 22 12:23:11 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 08:23:11 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gv5ust+lurp@eGroups.com>
References: <003e01c9daab$0270f5f0$0752e1d0$@com> <gv5ust+lurp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002d01c9dad8$12f02950$38d07bf0$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 6:31 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:
\

(a) If you don't intend to argue, why make the comment in the first place?

(b) How can you offer to not argue if the idea of arguing hasn't crossed 
your mind?

Your turn.
:-)



------------------------------------
I could of course argue that Atheist are simply people who are still
searching for the truth and only await the proper moment to embrace God to
realize that they are wrong and that they are only skeptical because they
have not yet seen the way.

md




From alexisnguyen at gmail.com  Fri May 22 13:29:18 2009
From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 09:29:18 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Question about Merlin's pants.
In-Reply-To: <gv5fsa+iu92@eGroups.com>
References: <gv57jn+g1n9@eGroups.com> <gv5fsa+iu92@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b6e131bf0905220629h3477ff5cqbd6aaa820a17bc11@mail.gmail.com>

Geoff:
> It might have
> been something blander such as "buttock"....

I've actually only ever heard the phrase in terms of "Merlin's saggy
left bottom" when said completely, so maybe that's what Ron (thereby
JKR) was going for.

~Ali



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri May 22 18:28:39 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 18:28:39 -0000
Subject: Legal Term: Inheritance to the Eldest Son?
In-Reply-To: <09BC4FBECE884BD1901A4ED5355960F8@ShaunPC>
Message-ID: <gv6qsn+356v@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" <drednort at ...> wrote:
>
> From: "Steve" <bboyminn at ...>
> 
> 
> > ... a legal term for the  process by which the Eldest son
>  always inherits everything.
> > 
> > Can someone tell me what that term is?
> 
> Are you thinking of primogeniture?
> 
> That's what comes to my mind.
> 
> Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
> Shaun Hately 

Right, that it.

Thanks Shaun.

Steve/bboyminn




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri May 22 18:32:17 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 18:32:17 -0000
Subject: Question about Merlin's pants.
In-Reply-To: <b6e131bf0905220629h3477ff5cqbd6aaa820a17bc11@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gv6r3h+h06c@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen" <alexisnguyen at ...> wrote:

> I've actually only ever heard the phrase in terms of "Merlin's saggy
> left bottom"
 

"Left bottom" is the same as "left buttock", right :-)? I had no idea it was a real expression. I thought it was something JKR made up. Thanks, everybody :-).

zanooda




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri May 22 19:54:23 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 19:54:23 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <002d01c9dad8$12f02950$38d07bf0$@com>
Message-ID: <gv6vtf+an4p@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:

Geoff:
Heigh ho, more snipping....

Geoff (earlier):
> (a) If you don't intend to argue, why make the comment in the first place?
> 
> (b) How can you offer to not argue if the idea of arguing hasn't crossed 
> your mind?
> 
> Your turn.
> :-)

md;
> I could of course argue that Atheist are simply people who are still
> searching for the truth and only await the proper moment to embrace God to
> realize that they are wrong and that they are only skeptical because they
> have not yet seen the way.

Geoff:
You could indeed.

I just hope that your searching atheists find the proper moment in time. 
Be a pity if they missed out after seeing the way.





From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com  Fri May 22 23:23:05 2009
From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra Pan)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 23:23:05 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gv6vtf+an4p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gv7c4p+6scd@eGroups.com>

Petra barges in:
 
The most frustrating aspect of arguing about this issue for 
me has always been the confusing of the inductive argument 
for a deductive argument.  And vice versa.
 
To me, there's a place for both types of arguments.  When 
it comes to things we don't KNOW with a degree of certainty
that is fully satisfying, inductive arguments are pretty 
much the only options, no?
 
As our knowledge base grows, more and more issues can be
argued using deductive arguments that produce conclusions
that are ever more sound.
 
Not knowing when to use which is problematic.  So is not 
knowing when to STOP using either one.  IMO, this is a 
personal choice rather than one that *must* apply to every
human...or even just everyone in a discussion group.
 
Insisting that an inductive argument INDEED HAS the logical 
strength of a deductive one isn't better than insisting 
that an inductive argument MUST have provable premises
(which would effectively make it a deductive one).  And 
vice versa.
 
When we are in pursuit of an ever-growing education, surely 
both should be taken into consideration, neither should be
dismissed out of hand.  Arguably, having to accept the 
presence of That Which Cannot Be Proven True or False in
our lives is just a part of the human condition.
 
Just my two knuts.
 
Petra
a
n  :)
 
 
 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat May 23 23:17:11 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 23:17:11 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God - GOF
In-Reply-To: <gv49mr+dn0s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gva05n+7s1e@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:

-> > My only question is who the other death (mentioned by Voldemort in the opening chapter) had to be. Were they planning to murder Mr. Crouch from the beginning? That doesn't make sense. He was already Imperiused.
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> I've also wondered about the other death, but it just can't be anyone but Crouch Sr. He was not Imperiused in the first chapter, they didn't get to him yet. Maybe LV planned to kill him, but then decided it would be better to try and use the Imperius curse on him.
>
Carol responds:
I guess you're right. Barty Jr. had not yet been rescued. It was still just Wormtail and Voldie.

Carol, who has a vague recollection that the British version says "curse" rather than "kill" but doesn't have that edition available to check




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat May 23 23:25:33 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 23:25:33 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God - GOF
In-Reply-To: <gva05n+7s1e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gva0ld+qtc6@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Carol, who has a vague recollection that the British version says "curse" rather than "kill" but doesn't have that edition available to check

Geoff:
Your recollection is accurate.....

Our version says "curse".





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun May 24 00:35:57 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 00:35:57 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God - GOF
In-Reply-To: <gva0ld+qtc6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gva4pd+38ca@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:

> Our version says "curse".


zanooda:

In this case it's possible that they planned to Imperio Crouch Sr, not to kill him from the very beginning. Maybe "curse" means the Imperius curse :-). I don't understand why American editors feel the need to change things like that. "Curse" is definitely not the same thing as "death". LV could have meant any curse, not necessarily the Killing curse. They just confuse us, those editors (please don't take it personally, Carol :-)).






From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun May 24 17:42:36 2009
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 24 May 2009 17:42:36 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/24/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1243186956.9.58550.m5@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday May 24, 2009
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2009 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20090524/57d68e0f/attachment.html>

From catlady at wicca.net  Sun May 24 23:44:57 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 23:44:57 -0000
Subject: Merlin's Left What? / Hogwarts Transportation Security / One More Curse
Message-ID: <gvcm5p+bcij@eGroups.com>

Ali wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39377>:

<< I've actually only ever heard the phrase in terms of "Merlin's saggy left bottom" when said completely, so maybe that's what Ron (thereby JKR) was going for. >>

Do you hang around with people who actually cuss by Merlin in real life? 

There's fantasy novel, THE GOBLIN TOWER, by L. Sprague de Camp, where the protagonist likes to vary his profanity according to a pattern; I recall 'by Imbal's iron pizzle' but can't remember the alliterative deities for 'brazen balls' and 'titanium testicles'.

Annemehr wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39341>:

<< Actually, the whole Hogwarts transportation situation is pretty sketchy. It seems none of the kids ever use the floo, so mustn't the fireplaces be blocked? But in HBP, it seems not being able to fly in on a broom is new security, which makes me wonder why people like Fred and George seemed only to use secret passages. >>

Flying in/out by broom (or flying car) shares certain dangers with walking in/out on foot at ground level. One is the risk of being seen by patrolling teachers and any watch-beasts (like Kneazles) who report to the staff; the other is the risk of being attacked by wandering monsters even more aggressive than Snape and Filch. The Acromantulas might come out of the Forest to catch you on the walkway; the Threstrals might catch you on your broom. Also, it doesn't rain or snow as often in the tunnels.

Carol wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39342>:

<< My only question is who the other death (mentioned by Voldemort in the opening chapter) had to be. Were they planning to murder Mr. Crouch from the beginning? That doesn't make sense. He was already Imperiused. >>

As Zanooda pointed out in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39351>: << [Crouch Sr.] was not Imperiused in the first chapter, they didn't get to him yet. >>.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Bloomsbury, it says First Edition but I don't find where it says which printing, but I pre-ordered it from amazon.co.uk. In fact, I just noticed tht the pages are yellowing. Chapter One: The Riddle House.

page 15, ninth line: "come, Wormtail, one more obstacle removed and our path to Harry Potter is clear".

page 16, thirtieth line: "One more curse ... my faithful servant at Hogwarts ... Harry Potter is as good as mine, Wormtail."

Whether the word is 'curse', 'murder', or 'obstacle', I don't understand the 'one more'. Surely there are TWO more obstacles to remove. The senior Crouch is not only an obstacle to collecting the junior Crouch ('faithful servant'), but also an obstacle to rigging the TOurnament: he might even have prevented the illegal fourth name drawn from competing. The real Moody is an obstacle to messing around at Hogwarts; he might even guard the Triwizard Cup with his paranoia so no Death Eater could tamper with it.

In the event, the next steps in they carry out are TWO Curses, Imperius for old Barty and something like Stupefy for poor Moody. 

Do you think it was that LV didn't know yet that DD had called on Moody to guard Harry for the Tournament year? So he thought he had to deal only with with Crouch Sr? Barty Jr would disguise himself as Barty Sr, rig the Tournament from his office at MoM, and be physically at Hogwarts less than half the time.





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon May 25 00:49:44 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 00:49:44 -0000
Subject: Merlin's Left What? / Hogwarts Transportation Security / One More Curse
In-Reply-To: <gvcm5p+bcij@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvcpv8+8k6f@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:

> Do you think it was that LV didn't know yet that DD had 
> called on Moody to guard Harry for the Tournament year? 
> So he thought he had to deal only with with Crouch Sr?


zanooda:

According to the book, he knew :-). He found out about Moody's new job from Bertha Jorkins. Barty Jr said so in "Veritaserum" chapter: "She told him the old Auror, Moody, was going to teach at Hogwarts" (p.687 Am.ed.) :-).




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon May 25 00:54:53 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 00:54:53 -0000
Subject: Legal Term: Inheritance to the Eldest Son?
In-Reply-To: <gv6qsn+356v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvcq8t+seq5@eGroups.com>

Steve asked:
> > > ... a legal term for the  process by which the Eldest son
> >  always inherits everything.
> > > 
> > > Can someone tell me what that term is?

Shaun responded: 
> > Are you thinking of primogeniture?

Steve again:
> Right, that it.
> 
> Thanks Shaun.
> 
Carol notes:

In the case of 12 GP, though, there's an additional provision, an entail that made it inheritable by the next male with the last name Black in the absence of sons. In the absence of any male heir, it would have gone to the oldest relative in the Black line, Bellatrix, if it weren't for Sirius's will. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that it Bellatrix or either of her sisters had been male, he could not have overridden the entail.

Carol, whose idea of entails comes from Jane Austen, not from any knowledge of estate law!




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon May 25 06:29:24 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 06:29:24 -0000
Subject: Merlin's Left What? / Hogwarts Transportation Security / One More Curse
In-Reply-To: <gvcpv8+8k6f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvdds4+kad5@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:

Catlady: 
> > Do you think it was that LV didn't know yet that DD had 
> > called on Moody to guard Harry for the Tournament year? 
> > So he thought he had to deal only with with Crouch Sr?
 
zanooda: 
> According to the book, he knew :-). He found out about Moody's new job from Bertha Jorkins. Barty Jr said so in "Veritaserum" chapter: "She told him the old Auror, Moody, was going to teach at Hogwarts" (p.687 Am.ed.) :-).

Geoff:
I don't think that it follows absolutely that he knew that Moody 
was there to guard Harry; you might pick it up as an implication:

'"My master had found out that I was still alive. He had captured 
Bertha Jorkins in Albania. He had tortured her. She told him a great 
deal. She told him  about the Triwizard Tournament. She told him 
the old Auror, Moody, was going to teach at Hogwarts. He tortured 
her until he broke through the Memory Charm my father had placed 
upon her. She told him I had escaped from Azkaban. She told him 
my father kept me imprisoned to prevent me from seeking my 
master."'
(GOF "Veritaserum" p.597 UK edition)

JKR uses the phrase "she told him" five times. It doesn't follow that 
these are all interrelated pieces if information. It could be that Moody 
was merely taking up the ill-starred post of DADA teacher...

In the next sentence but one, Crouch says "My master conceived a 
plan". Could it be that the scheme began from there?




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon May 25 19:37:52 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 19:37:52 -0000
Subject: Doors
Message-ID: <gves2g+rm2q@eGroups.com>

Perhaps Geoff, or resident Brit, can help me with this, though
I readily admit it is not a point of any importance.

It has to do with doors in British home, and the question is,
why so many?

I'm watching "Keeping Up Appearances" with Patricia Routledge.
I notice that every room has a door on it, and it is invariably
a door that gets used. I think this might even be true of the 
Dursley's house in the movies. 

For example, Hyacinth Bucket (pronounced 'bouquet') has a door
on her kitchen, every time she goes in or out, she opens and
shuts the door. The lounge room also has a door that is open then
closed each time someone enters or exits.

Maybe we are just lazy in the USA, but if we are using a room,
the door usually stays open. In fact, in many US house, the 
door have been removed. 

In my parents house, the kitchen has a doorway, but no door. 
That doorway leads to the dinning room off which are a double
doorway to the 'TV room' and another to the living room. Off
the living room is another double doorway to the hall with the
stairs that lead upward. Upstairs are bedrooms which naturally
all have doors. But not a single door downstairs except on 
closets. And for the record, my parents house was built around
1925. 

Again, this is nothing of any importance or significants, but
I wondered why a modern double glazed house like Hyacinth's 
would have so many doors? 

I notice the same is true of the neighbors house (Elizabeth) 
and of Daisy and Onslow's house. Also true of the house in the 
BBC series 'Butterflies' and 'As Time Goes By' with Geoffrey 
Palmer.

So, whats with all the doors?

Just curious.

Steve/bluewizard




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon May 25 20:01:25 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 20:01:25 -0000
Subject: Doors
In-Reply-To: <gves2g+rm2q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvetel+9cgg@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:

Steve:
> Perhaps Geoff, or resident Brit, can help me with this, though
> I readily admit it is not a point of any importance.
> 
> It has to do with doors in British home, and the question is,
> why so many?

<snip>

> Again, this is nothing of any importance or significants, but
> I wondered why a modern double glazed house like Hyacinth's 
> would have so many doors? 
> 
> I notice the same is true of the neighbors house (Elizabeth) 
> and of Daisy and Onslow's house. Also true of the house in the 
> BBC series 'Butterflies' and 'As Time Goes By' with Geoffrey 
> Palmer.
> 
> So, whats with all the doors?
> 
> Just curious.

Geoff:
It is a standard practice with almost all UK houses that each room 
has a door - unless they are one of the occasional houses built in 
"open-plan" style. My eldest son has a house where the stairs go 
up from the corner of the living room without a door because they 
are open-sided but that is unusual because stairs tend to go up 
from the hallway and are doorless anyway.

Nowadays, it is also fairly common for the fire services to 
recommend the closing of internal doors if people are out to help 
contain a fire should one begin; this was also true when I taught 
and we were asked to close our classroom doors at the end of 
lessons. I have to admit that I was a bit of a maverick and almost 
always taught with my door open to the corridor.

Since getting married, we have lived in houses built in 1928, 1914
and 1935 respectively and they all have doors to every room. When 
we moved to our current house in 1999, we had one door removed; 
it led from the kitchen into a tiny larder and got in the way so much 
that its removal was almost the first thing the builder was asked to 
do.

It is fairly common for main doors to be left open during the day 
except perhaps on winter days. Our doors to the kitchen, living room 
and to the bedrooms and study upstairs generally stay open during 
the day and we leave the toilet and bathroom doors slightly ajar to 
indicate that they are not in use - that is when they *are* not in 
use. :-)








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon May 25 20:13:17 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 20:13:17 -0000
Subject: Merlin's Left What? / Hogwarts Transportation Security / One More Curse
In-Reply-To: <gvcm5p+bcij@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gveu4u+76iq@eGroups.com>

---  "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
>
> Ali wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39377>:
> 
> << I've actually only ever heard the phrase in terms of 
> "Merlin's saggy left bottom" when said completely, ... for. >>
> 
> Do you hang around with people who actually cuss by Merlin
> in real life? 
> 
> ...
> 

bboyminn:"One more curse ... my faithful servant at Hogwarts ... Harry
> Potter is as good as mine, Wormtail."
I've always said that since Dumbledore controls the protective
enchantments, he also controls the exception, which when 
extended also implies that he controls the degree of those
exception.

For example, the Apparation Lessons, Dumbledore has modified
the anti-apparation jinx to allow apparation only within the
bounds of the Great Hall. I suspect regular lessons are held
in Hogsmead just a the advanced lessons were later in the 
same story. 

We notice that in HBP, Dumbledore had to specifically remove
or modify the anti-fly-in enchantments to allow Harry and
himself to fly directly to the 'lighting struck tower'. 

But notice that Charlies friends easily fly in to pick up
Norbert the dragon. 

So, why the difference? Well, security for one thing. When
Harry first comes to school, the have been experiencing 
a decade of peace and prosperity. Security was low, because
the need for security was low. The gates weren't locked, the 
front door wasn't locked, and reasonably, they fly-in 
restriction wasn't in place.

However, once Voldemort was back, the enchantments and general
security we much tighter. Like from POA onward, security got
progressively tighter. 

As to the Floo network, while we see Floo communication can
occur, we never see Floo travel without Dumbledore creating
an exception. Likely to keep the students under control, travel
by Floo is generally blocked, but communication by Floo is 
allowed. 

Though, Floo communication is allowed, I think few students 
would want to carry on a conversation in the commons room for
all to see and hear. It would be a little embarrassing and 
would afford little privacy. So, while it is allowed, I don't 
think it is used much. 

Also notice that at one point Harry Portkeys directly from
the Ministry to Dumbledore's office. Again, Dumbledore 
controls those enchantments, and as such he controls the 
exceptions. He likely made an exception for his office 
during that localize emergency. 


> Carol wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39342>:
> 
> << My only question is who the other death (mentioned by 
> Voldemort in the opening chapter) had to be. Were they 
> planning to murder Mr. Crouch from the beginning? That 
> doesn't make sense. He was already Imperiused. >>
> 
> As Zanooda pointed out in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39351>: 
<< [Crouch Sr.] was not Imperiused in the first chapter, they 
> didn't get to him yet. >>.
> 
> Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Bloomsbury, it says First Edition...Chapter One: The Riddle House.
> 
> page 15, ninth line: 
> "come, Wormtail, one more obstacle removed and our path to 
> Harry Potter is clear".
> 
> page 16, thirtieth line: 
> "One more curse ... my faithful servant at Hogwarts ... Harry
> Potter is as good as mine, Wormtail."
> 
> Whether the word is 'curse', 'murder', or 'obstacle', I don't
> understand the 'one more'. Surely there are TWO more obstacles
> to remove. The senior Crouch is not only an obstacle to 
> collecting the junior Crouch ('faithful servant'), but also 
> an obstacle to rigging the TOurnament: he might even have 
> prevented the illegal fourth name drawn from competing. ...
> 
> In the event, the next steps in they carry out are TWO Curses,
> Imperius for old Barty and something like Stupefy for poor 
> Moody. 
> 
> Do you think it was that LV didn't know yet that DD had called
> on Moody to guard Harry for the Tournament year? So he thought
> he had to deal only with with Crouch Sr? Barty Jr would 
> disguise himself as Barty Sr, rig the Tournament from his 
> office at MoM, and be physically at Hogwarts less than half 
> the time.
>

bboyminn:

I wonder if people aren't taking this too literally? I wonder
if Voldemort isn't just marking his progress forward. Saying,
I'm 'one more' step closer to my goal. Not one last step
closer, but one more step closer. 

Not everything everyone
says is absolutely literal. Though it probably occurs more
often in book, than in real life. None the less there is room
for common generalized speech even in a book; not everything
is significant.

And whether he says 'curse' or 'murder', is he saying 'one more' 
for a total of two, or is he ignoring several steps and looking
at the end where one more last curse and my problems will be
solved? 

"come, Wormtail, one more obstacle removed and our path to 
Harry Potter is clear"

This could mean, one more obstacle has been removed, and
now our path to Harry Potter is clearer. 

Or it could mean, one last obstical has been removed, and
now our path to Harry Potter is completely clear. 

Personally, I think the former is more likely.

"One more curse ... my faithful servant at Hogwarts ... Harry
Potter is as good as mine, Wormtail."

Could mean, one more curse which will put my faithful servent
at Hogwarts and Harry Potter is as good as mind. Meaning as
soon as I get control of Moody and put Barty Jr at Hogwarts,
Harry Potter is as good as mine.

Or it could mean, one more curse unrelated to Moody, and then
my faithful servant at Hogwarts, and Harry Potter is as good
as mine. 

The implication is that these are either two related events,
or they are two unrelated events. In this case, I'm not 
sure which. And in any case, I'm sure if you count up every
thing that is happening, it is not going to total TWO. 

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bluewizard








From macloudt at yahoo.co.uk  Mon May 25 20:24:48 2009
From: macloudt at yahoo.co.uk (Mary Ann)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 20:24:48 -0000
Subject: Doors
In-Reply-To: <gves2g+rm2q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gveuqg+l317@eGroups.com>

Steve wrote:

> It has to do with doors in British home, and the question is,
> why so many?

I think part of the answer lies in winter heating.  My childhood home in Montreal was built in 1927 but was pretty much open plan downstairs.  Despite its age it was built complete with central heating.  When we moved there in 1974 there was the original, huge, scary-looking by-then-converted-to-oil coal furnace which heated the water for the radiators, which were huge as well.  I remember not setting foot in the furnace room 'til that scary furnace was replaced (hey, I was six!).

I'm currently living in my second 1930s British home.  Both houses have/had doors everywhere and were only centrally heated during the 1990s.  By having doors everywhere heat could be contained within one room without the heat escaping.  Winters may not be as cold here as in Canada but the awful damp cold prevalent in southwest England gets right to your bones.  The original heating source was coal fires, with the smallest bedrooms not even having fireplaces.  After World War II gas and electric heating became popular, but these heating sources still only heated one room at a time.  When I first moved to the UK I lived in a flat built in 1972 which had electric storage heaters and doors for every room.  If you look at British real estate adverts they still list central heating as a feature of the house, though nowadays most houses, certainly in urban areas, are most likely centrally heated.

I could be completely wrong, but that's my theory. :)

Mary Ann, who has a life-long love of Britcoms 





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon May 25 22:02:21 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 22:02:21 -0000
Subject: Doors
In-Reply-To: <gveuqg+l317@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvf4hd+g82c@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mary Ann" <macloudt at ...> wrote:

Steve: 
> > It has to do with doors in British home, and the question is,
> > why so many?

Mary Ann:  
> I'm currently living in my second 1930s British home.  Both houses have/had doors everywhere and were only centrally heated during the 1990s.  By having doors everywhere heat could be contained within one room without the heat escaping.  Winters may not be as cold here as in Canada but the awful damp cold prevalent in southwest England gets right to your bones.  

Geoff:
Not if you were brought up a Brit....
....speaking as someone who lived in the North until he was 9 and doesn't 
consider the southwest to be particularly damp and cold. - I think it comes 
of living in Devon. You should relocate to Somerset.
:-)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue May 26 01:26:16 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 01:26:16 -0000
Subject: "Freshman"
Message-ID: <gvfgfo+b9ka@eGroups.com>

Shaun wrote on the main list:

"You use the term 'freshman' in this paragraph, and I think that illustrates part of the reason why I am focusing on this. It's an American term applied in American education. It's a cultural construct that would very possibly be relevant in any discussion of a school story set in the United States and which Americans would understand far more instinctively without any need for it to be debated or discussed in comparison to those of us from other educational cultures."

Carol responds:

I just want to respond to this one snippet because a copyeditor for the Oxford New Dictionary of Biography called my use of the word "freshman" to refer to a friend of P. B. Shelley's at Oxford an Americanism. Actually, it's no such thing and may well have been in use in England in Shelley's time, whether it is now or not.

It was first used in England c.1550 and meant "newcomer" "novice" (a "fresh" man). The sense of first-year university student is "attested from 1596." according the the Online Etymology Dictionary.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=f&p=12

IIRC, it was first used in the colleges (Eton or possibly Harrow) and "man" was used loosely to mean a new student, not necessarily in his first year. 

The first American university, Harvard, was founded in 1636, forty years after "freshman" came into use to mean a first-year student.

Sorry. Had to point that out. It's a pet peeve of mine thanks to that copyeditor.

Carol, who yielded to the copyeditor and changed "freshman" to "first-year student" but has since seen "freshman" in another New DNB article




From brian at rescueddoggies.com  Mon May 25 21:30:31 2009
From: brian at rescueddoggies.com (Brian)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 18:30:31 -0300
Subject: Doors
Message-ID: <4A1B0DF7.5010200@rescueddoggies.com>

The design probably goes back to when there were individual fireplaces 
in each room.  It was a lot easier to heat one room than a whole house.  
Even now, central heating is much less common in Britain than in the 
US.  I don't think I ever lived in one house in the UK with central heating.

Brian



From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue May 26 22:38:14 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 22:38:14 -0000
Subject: Doors
In-Reply-To: <gvetel+9cgg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvhr0m+4b6h@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:

> ... we have lived in houses built in 1928, 1914 and 1935 


Geoff, what material houses are built of in the UK? I remember I was really surprised to find out that they build wooden houses here in the US. Just curious :-).


zanooda




From brian at rescueddoggies.com  Wed May 27 00:02:09 2009
From: brian at rescueddoggies.com (Brian)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 21:02:09 -0300
Subject: "Freshman"  Americanisms & Britishisms
Message-ID: <4A1C8301.9060504@rescueddoggies.com>

The term freshman IS used in England, but ONLY at university level and 
even there usually the non sexist word "Fresher" is used in its place.
Freshman is NOT a term used in schools (nor sophomore, junior or senior, although the terms juniors and senior may be used in a loose sense to refer to younger or older students.

www.thesitesofbrian.com/cultural  A guide to Britishisms for American 
writers

Brian



From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed May 27 03:06:34 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 03:06:34 -0000
Subject: Doors
In-Reply-To: <gves2g+rm2q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvianq+g9el@eGroups.com>

 "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Geoff, or resident Brit, can help me with this, though
> I readily admit it is not a point of any importance.
> 
> It has to do with doors in British home, and the question is,
> why so many?
> 
> I'm watching "Keeping Up Appearances" with Patricia Routledge.
> I notice that every room has a door on it, and it is invariably
> a door that gets used. I think this might even be true of the 
> Dursley's house in the movies. 

Potioncat:
I know you're asking about real British houses, but I happened to think of my own US Southern home with it's various doors, and for some reason, American TV homes. Beaver Cleaver's house had a door from the kitchen to the dining room...and the family ate dinner in the dining room! Also a door to the father's den. Three's Company had a door into the kitchen. 

Can anyone else think of American TV houses, doors or non doors? I'm just wondering if the real reason for all the doors in a TV home is to close off the other rooms when those sets aren't needed, or because the door doesn't really lead to that other room/set.

My own home had two doors that separated the bedrooms from the front of the house, and more importantly, could limit the heated air to the bedrooms and bath. One door opened into the living room, and the other into the dining room. But with both doors open, my friends and I could race around the circle from living room, to central hall to dining room to living room, laughig and screaming until we drove the adults crazy.

Potioncat, whose dining room was only used for holiday meals. The rest of the year it was for homework and projects.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed May 27 03:09:48 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 03:09:48 -0000
Subject: Doors
In-Reply-To: <gvianq+g9el@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gviats+ecjk@eGroups.com>

 
> Potioncat:
> I know you're asking about real British houses, but I happened to think of my own US Southern home with it's various doors, 

Potioncat again{
I do know it should be "its various doors." I'm typing in the dark and squinting at the screen...which also explains any other typos or mispelled words in the previous post.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed May 27 04:52:30 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 04:52:30 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <002d01c9dad8$12f02950$38d07bf0$@com>
Message-ID: <gvigue+bqd4@eGroups.com>

md wrote:
> I could of course argue that Atheist are simply people who are still searching for the truth and only await the proper moment to embrace God to realize that they are wrong and that they are only skeptical because they have not yet seen the way.

Carol responds:

Wouldn't that definition be more applicable to agnostics than to atheists?

Carol, resisting the temptation to provide the etymologies because you probably already know them





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed May 27 05:07:26 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 05:07:26 -0000
Subject: Question about Merlin's pants.
In-Reply-To: <b6e131bf0905220629h3477ff5cqbd6aaa820a17bc11@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gvihqe+bnr6@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen" <alexisnguyen at ...> wrote:
>
> Geoff:
> > It might have
> > been something blander such as "buttock"....
> 
> I've actually only ever heard the phrase in terms of "Merlin's saggy
> left bottom" when said completely, so maybe that's what Ron (thereby
> JKR) was going for.
> 
> ~Ali
>
Carol responds:
Our only clues as readers (unless we're familiar with a similar expression; I'm not) are Mrs. Weasley's reaction (she obviously knows what he's going to say and disapproves) and Ron's behavior elsewhere in the later books (for example, exchanging obscene gestures with Draco Malfoy). "Testicle" seems like the obvious word to fill the blank, especially since "buttock" is innocuous enough to spell out, and about the only other body part that might be saggy (aside from flesh on the arms, which certainly isn't what Ron had in mind) is what a fifteen-year-old boy of my acquaintance calls a "man boob."

We can clearly rule out arm, armpit, elbow, hand, leg, knee, ankle, and foot. That leaves eyebrow, earlobe, nostril, and the body parts already named.

I wouldn't put it past JKR to have intended "testicle," given all the double entendres in the last book (and maybe in HBP though I don't recall them). It's not clear whether Ron intended a double meaning for "wand work," but JKR certainly did.

Carol, who supposes that such references make the book (and Ron) more realistic but could easily live without them




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed May 27 05:12:33 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 05:12:33 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God - GOF
In-Reply-To: <gva0ld+qtc6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvii41+4fu6@eGroups.com>

Carol wrote:
> 
> > Carol, who has a vague recollection that the British version says "curse" rather than "kill" but doesn't have that edition available to check
> 
> Geoff:
> Your recollection is accurate.....
> 
> Our version says "curse".
>
Carol responds:

Thanks. Wonder who changed it and why? If it was the American copyeditor, he or she was stepping outside the bounds of acceptable changes.

Carol, hoping that the revised American edition, if any, will go back to the original reading




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed May 27 05:17:16 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 05:17:16 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God - GOF
In-Reply-To: <gva4pd+38ca@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gviics+2tn2@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10@> wrote:
> 
> > Our version says "curse".
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> In this case it's possible that they planned to Imperio Crouch Sr, not to kill him from the very beginning. Maybe "curse" means the Imperius curse :-). I don't understand why American editors feel the need to change things like that. "Curse" is definitely not the same thing as "death". LV could have meant any curse, not necessarily the Killing curse. They just confuse us, those editors (please don't take it personally, Carol :-)).
>
Carol responds:
Not at all. :-) There's good editing and bad, and that change was a bad one. Some of JKR's misplaced modifiers, though, could have used a bit more editing, IMO. *And* JKR should have checked any proposed changes more carefully. It's the author's responsibility to accept or reject any editorial changes and to respond to editorial queries.

Carol, who prefers clients who *know* they need a copyeditor and are grateful for the help 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed May 27 05:33:52 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 05:33:52 -0000
Subject: Merlin's Left What? / Hogwarts Transportation Security / One More Curse
In-Reply-To: <gveu4u+76iq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvijc0+2f18@eGroups.com>

bboyminn wrote:
> <snip> As to the Floo network, while we see Floo communication can occur, we never see Floo travel without Dumbledore creating an exception. Likely to keep the students under control, travel by Floo is generally blocked, but communication by Floo is allowed. 

Carol responds:
Unless you count Snape's summoning Lupin to his office via the fireplace and Lupin arriving by Floo. But I agree that we never see travel into or out of Hogwarts by Floo except for the "one off" arrangement in, IIRC, HBP, and in OoP even communication by Floo is monitored and Sirius Black is nearly caught.

Blocking travel by Floo would do more than help to keep the students under control. It would help to keep out intruders (Sirius Black in PoA, DEs from OoP onward).

Carol, wondering about all those magical protective enchantments that Snape mentioned in OoP and why they so dramatically failed in DH





From md at exit-reality.com  Wed May 27 06:31:51 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 02:31:51 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gvigue+bqd4@eGroups.com>
References: <002d01c9dad8$12f02950$38d07bf0$@com> <gvigue+bqd4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001a01c9de94$d2063cc0$7612b640$@com>


-----Original Message-----

md wrote:
> I could of course argue that Atheist are simply people who are still
searching for the truth and only await the proper moment to embrace God to
realize that they are wrong and that they are only skeptical because they
have not yet seen the way.

Carol responds:

Wouldn't that definition be more applicable to agnostics than to atheists?
:::::::::::::::

I was arguing from the pov of the Christian who refuses to believe that
anyone could truly not believe in god but instead insist that we all believe
and just need to accept that belief, or moreover, the idea that the arguing
Christian is really saying there's no such thing as atheist, but that we are
either believers, heretics or agnostics.

md 




From md at exit-reality.com  Wed May 27 06:39:26 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 02:39:26 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Question about Merlin's pants.
In-Reply-To: <gvihqe+bnr6@eGroups.com>
References: <b6e131bf0905220629h3477ff5cqbd6aaa820a17bc11@mail.gmail.com> <gvihqe+bnr6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001b01c9de95$e1664880$a432d980$@com>



-----Original Message-----
Re: Question about Merlin's pants.

I wouldn't put it past JKR to have intended "testicle," given all the double
entendres in the last book (and maybe in HBP though I don't recall them).
It's not clear whether Ron intended a double meaning for "wand work," but
JKR certainly did.

Carol, who supposes that such references make the book (and Ron) more
realistic but could easily live without them

::::::::::::::::::
I've never heard "Merlin's" (you know, in the muggle world) but "sagging
left testicle" or something similar has definitely been spoken by those
older than eye, the "wand" comments are a play-on-words for the adults,
someday the kids will grow up, re-read and go "oh, how'd I miss that!"

md 




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed May 27 06:56:20 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 06:56:20 -0000
Subject: Doors
In-Reply-To: <gvhr0m+4b6h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvio6k+eotv@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:

Geoff: 
> > ... we have lived in houses built in 1928, 1914 and 1935 
 
zanooda:
> Geoff, what material houses are built of in the UK? I remember I was really surprised to find out that they build wooden houses here in the US. Just curious :-).

Geoff:
The great majority are built of brick - older ones can be a mixture of 
stone and brick. Our 1918 house fell into that category.

Stone is used more in rural areas where, as for instance in the Cotswolds, 
local stone makes the housing in the area very recognisable.

Wooden buildings are very, very much in the minority and were very often 
only used for chalet type buildings and second home type constructions 
at the seaside or for self-catering accommodation in tourist areas. There 
are now experimental type building projects in some areas with 
Scandinavian style houses - often designed as low carbon footprint 
buildings.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed May 27 06:58:10 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 06:58:10 -0000
Subject: "Freshman"  Americanisms & Britishisms
In-Reply-To: <4A1C8301.9060504@rescueddoggies.com>
Message-ID: <gvioa2+8m6u@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Brian <brian at ...> wrote:

Brian:
> The term freshman IS used in England, but ONLY at university level and 
> even there usually the non sexist word "Fresher" is used in its place.
> Freshman is NOT a term used in schools (nor sophomore, junior or senior, although the terms juniors and senior may be used in a loose sense to refer to younger or older students.
> 
> www.thesitesofbrian.com/cultural  A guide to Britishisms for American 
> writers
 
Geoff;
Even then, only at a few universities, not universally.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed May 27 07:07:12 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 07:07:12 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <001a01c9de94$d2063cc0$7612b640$@com>
Message-ID: <gvior0+at1n@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:
 
md:
> > I could of course argue that Atheist are simply people who are still
> searching for the truth and only await the proper moment to embrace God to
> realize that they are wrong and that they are only skeptical because they
> have not yet seen the way.
 
Carol:
 
> Wouldn't that definition be more applicable to agnostics than to atheists?

md: 
> I was arguing from the pov of the Christian who refuses to believe that
> anyone could truly not believe in god but instead insist that we all believe
> and just need to accept that belief, or moreover, the idea that the arguing
> Christian is really saying there's no such thing as atheist, but that we are
> either believers, heretics or agnostics.

Geoff:
I'm ouzzled by what you mean by "the arguing Christian".

As regards belief, I recently commented that I acknowledged the faith 
of the atheist, who unlike me, believes fervently that there is no God.





From macloudt at yahoo.co.uk  Wed May 27 10:54:24 2009
From: macloudt at yahoo.co.uk (Mary Ann Jennings)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 10:54:24 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Doors
Message-ID: <46034.73468.qm@web25806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>


Geoff wrote:

>>>....speaking as someone who lived in the North until he was 9 and doesn't 
consider the southwest to be particularly damp and cold. - I think it comes 
of living in Devon. You should relocate to Somerset.
:-)<<<

Mary Ann:

I lived in Weston-super-Mare for 9 years.  Not only does that qualify me for living in Somerset, it knocks a few thousand years off my time in Purgatory. ;)

Mary Ann, who is a temperature wimp and doesn't like hot or cold




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed May 27 12:47:11 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:47:11 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gvior0+at1n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvjcof+ui0d@eGroups.com>


> 
> md: 
> > I was arguing from the pov of the Christian who refuses to believe that
> > anyone could truly not believe in god but instead insist that we all believe
> > and just need to accept that belief, or moreover, the idea that the arguing
> > Christian is really saying there's no such thing as atheist, but that we are
> > either believers, heretics or agnostics.

Potioncat:
I'm with Geoff and Carol. An atheist has made up his mind and is not seeking. Now, a waivering atheist..just like a waivering any-belief-person may be seeking.

But, if your comment was in response to an earlier poster who said their lack of belief was treated as a "stage" by a parent...that's different. It's difficult sometimes for a parent to accept that a child (adult, teen whatever) has rejected something the parent holds as crucial. My mom had the same reaction when I announced I no longer believed and had become an atheist. "Oh, it's just a stage." I was in my mid twenties and quite certain I had outgrown "stages".  I'm still sure I had, and it wasn't a stage, but I have since returned to our side.

Do you know any Cristians who believe no can be an atheist? I've never met one. 




From md at exit-reality.com  Wed May 27 13:43:00 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:43:00 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gvjcof+ui0d@eGroups.com>
References: <gvior0+at1n@eGroups.com> <gvjcof+ui0d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007501c9ded1$0de43300$29ac9900$@com>



-----Original Message-----


Do you know any Cristians who believe no can be an atheist? I've never met
one. 



------------------------------------
I have yet to meet a Christian and breached the topic not to find that they
believed that I was only confused, that God must be in my heart because they
believed he's in everyone's and that my denial of God is a lack of faith not
a logical conclusion and that eventually I would come around. So yes, I have
yet to meet a Christian who can really accept that some of us actually
believe that God is no more real than faeries and a moon made of cheese.
That's not a slight on Christians, they won't convince me there is a god and
I won't convince them there's not, one of us is right and only in death will
we know who.

md




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Wed May 27 14:34:51 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 07:34:51 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <002d01c9dad8$12f02950$38d07bf0$@com>
References: <003e01c9daab$0270f5f0$0752e1d0$@com> <gv5ust+lurp@eGroups.com>
	 <002d01c9dad8$12f02950$38d07bf0$@com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90905270734q6be51171l70146e828695f5fe@mail.gmail.com>

>md wrote:
>I could of course argue that Atheist are simply people who are still
>searching for the truth and only await the proper moment to embrace
>God to >realize that they are wrong and that they are only skeptical
>because they have not yet seen the way.

No.Limberger responds:
As a species, humans are highly inquisitive.  Our minds seek to
understand as much as possible.  Our ancient ancestors could
not explain life, death, their existence, why some people get
sick and some don't, etc.  Their minds then created the notion
of deities: some ruling over life, some over death, some over hunting
(since hunting was essential for survival), some over farming
and agriculture (as that became another important source of
food), etc.  As beliefs in various deities evolved, the notion of
a single all-powerful deity that controls everything also emerged.
One of the first manifestations of this was "the Aten" as believed
by the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV, who renamed himself
Ankenaten; but upon his death, the original polytheistic Egptian
religion was restored.  Monotheism also came into existence
in Judaism and in Zoroastrianism, both of which contributed to
Christian beliefs, along with ideas taken from polytheistic Pagan
religions.

Were religions enough to satiate human curiosity and the
desire for self-knowledge, as well as the world & universe
around us?  No.  As people began to emerge into the
Renaissance in Europe, they began to rediscover things
that had once been known and come up with entirely new
ways to understand the natural world, such as Isaac Newton,
whose three laws of motion continue to be just as valid
today when discussing speeds well below the speed of
light and the exclusion of atomic and subatomic particles.
After Galileo Galilee was imprisoned by the Roman Catholic
Church for daring to publish that the sun, and not the earth,
is the center of the solar system, Johannes Kepler was
able to calculate planetary motion after abandoning the
notion that the planets were required to orbit the sun in
"celestial spheres" whose dimensions would be defined
by perfect solids: an idea that was propagated by belief
in a perfect supernatural deity that would clearly not
create something imperfect.  When Charles Darwin
began to examine various species of life on remote
islands, he didn't do so with the intent of showing that
creationism as defined by the bible is invalid; evolution
was simply the logical conclusion formed from scientific
research.  Genetics has further proven evolution, which
then connects to cosmology and particle physics: all
life is based upon organic compounds comprised of
carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen.  At the time
of the Big Bang, the only known elements to exist at
that time were the two simplest: hydrogen and helium
with many a trace amount of lithium.  Where, then,
did all of the heavier elements come from?  From
the hearts of stars where these elements are fused
through atomic reactions, and in the violent & explosive
deaths of stars.  Is there any evidence, therefore,
that life is the product of some unknown, untestable,
and unprovable action of one (or more) supernatural
being(s)?  Or, is life the natural consequence when
all of the right materials and conditions are present for
it to begin on its own?  Given that there is absolutely
no scientific evidence whatsoever for the existence of
any supernatural beings, and, even if any do exist
(perhaps as life consisting of pure energy), there is
equally no evidence that any such beings would have
any regard for any organic life, let alone have the ability
to "create" organic life.  Thus, to believe that they do,
if they exist in the first place, is simply a presumption.

Now, as to specific religions, who's to say that one
is better than another, or that a particular sect within
one religion is better than other sects within the same
religion?  Unlike science, no religion or religious sect
can demonstrate the validity of its beliefs, yet followers
of particular religions or particular religious sects may
view themselves as being superior over others.  In
other words, it is based purely upon personal bias
and unsubstantiated concepts.  When religion attempts
to impose its views into scientific, medical or civil
issues, again, it is based purely upon bias and
unsubstantiated concepts.  Unfortunately, those with
strong personal religious convictions are often so
convinced that anyone who disagrees with them is
wrong or "evil", that compromise is rarely attainable.


-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limburger!"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed May 27 15:32:23 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:32:23 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gvior0+at1n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvjme7+ngo7@eGroups.com>

> Geoff:
> I'm ouzzled by what you mean by "the arguing Christian".
> 
> As regards belief, I recently commented that I acknowledged the faith 
> of the atheist, who unlike me, believes fervently that there is no God.

Magpie:
Not all atheists have a fervent believe that there is no God. That just lack the belief in any gods. Unless you just mean any enduring belief is fervent. It just sounds like a bit more effort.

-m




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed May 27 15:33:53 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:33:53 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gvjcof+ui0d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvjmh1+6bqa@eGroups.com>

> Potioncat:

> Do you know any Cristians who believe no can be an atheist? I've never met one.

Magpie:
I have. They have explained that we are all born with a belief in God, and atheists just actively deny it. They have to actively deny it, because we're born with the knowledge inside us.

-m




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed May 27 17:29:57 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:29:57 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <007501c9ded1$0de43300$29ac9900$@com>
Message-ID: <gvjtal+jg61@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:

( attributed to potioncat): 
> Do you know any Cristians who believe no can be an atheist? I've never met
> one. 

md:
> I have yet to meet a Christian and breached the topic not to find that they
> believed that I was only confused, that God must be in my heart because they
> believed he's in everyone's and that my denial of God is a lack of faith not
> a logical conclusion and that eventually I would come around. 

Geoff:
Well, we haven't met.... As I have said twice, it is faith in that you are 
prepared to accept that this world, with all its man made failings, is all 
that there is. My experience (which I quite agree is subjective) suggests 
otherwise.

md:
> So yes, I have yet to meet a Christian who can really accept that some of us 
> actually believe that God is no more real than faeries and a moon made of 
> cheese. That's not a slight on Christians, they won't convince me there is a 
> god and I won't convince them there's not, one of us is right and only in death 
> will we know who.

Geoff:
That could make for an interesting outcome. Bit like waiting for exam results?
:-)





From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Wed May 27 19:51:44 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 19:51:44 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and God
In-Reply-To: <gvjtal+jg61@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvk5kg+c4cf@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> md:
> > So yes, I have yet to meet a Christian who can really accept that some of us 
> > actually believe that God is no more real than faeries and a moon made of 
> > cheese. That's not a slight on Christians, they won't convince me there is a 
> > god and I won't convince them there's not, one of us is right and only in death 
> > will we know who.
> 
> Geoff:
> That could make for an interesting outcome. Bit like waiting for exam results?
> :-)
>
jkoney:
I'm guessing that's when the atheist starts praying to the "great God of partial credit". ;-)




From heidi8 at gmail.com  Wed May 27 21:11:30 2009
From: heidi8 at gmail.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:11:30 -0400
Subject: Azkatraz Formal Programming Schedule is Online
Message-ID: <5913e6f80905271411y5e1307a5g9fa5cbe89a5cd60b@mail.gmail.com>

But first, a quick note regarding Infinitus. There have been rumors on
the net over the last few days positing that the Wizarding World of
Harry Potter would not be opening until late 2010. However,
Infinitus2010.org chair Jenn Clack confirmed with Universal today that
it *will* be open in time for Infinitus in July of 2010. Hope to see
you there!

But before that, we have Azkatraz - and at Azkatraz, the main feature
of each day (other than Friday - more about that below) will be our
formal programming. The schedules for each day have been uploaded to
our website and you can follow the links at
http://www.hp2009.org/?q=node/103 for details!

Friday, there's no formal programming - instead, you can explore San
Francisco, recuperate from the HBP showing and Leaky Mug and/or head
down to Golden Gate Park on the Official Azkatraz Bus for a day of
fantastic Quidditch play. We've announced the details for our
Quidditch Tournament at http://www.hp2009.org/?q=node/99 - there are
still spaces on all eight teams, so sign up soon! The sign-up fee,
which covers transportation, a personalized shirt, a pizza lunch and
water and other hydrating beverages, is $30 through June 5, and $35
thereafter.  We're also having pick-up Quidditch at mid-day on Friday
- click that url for more information.

Tickets are still available for Wrock Around the Rock, and if you have
friends who'd like to go without registering for Azkatraz, tickets are
now available to the general public at http://www.tinyurl/WrockAz - if
you're already registered, you can add tickets by modifying your
registration at
https://guest.cvent.com/EVENTS/Register/IdentityConfirmation.aspx?e=f819871c-99ce-45a7-9c71-28234ff6a033
- and don't forget to pre-order your Azkatraz tee shirt while you're
at it.

See you in a few weeks!

- Team Azkatraz



From blimeybung at yahoo.com  Wed May 27 23:10:45 2009
From: blimeybung at yahoo.com (blimeybung)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 23:10:45 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Party
Message-ID: <gvkh9l+kbpt@eGroups.com>

The Half Blood Prince Release Party!!
Where: FunCity Costumes 2820 E. University Dr Mesa, AZ

480-654-5113

When: July 7th (starting @ 12 noon)

Who:  Harry Potter fans!!  All ages welcome!!





Costume Contest ? dress up ?lots of HP Costumes in stock! - as
your favorite H P Character for a chance to win great prizes



Fun and games all day!! Trivia Tournament?Scavenger Hunt?Bertie
Botts Tasting contest?Guess the beans?Gnome toss for the
littlest of wizards!!



Large selection of Alivans merchandise in stock!!



We are also collecting for Sunshine Acres Children's Home?

If you could bring one of the following items it would be greatly
appreciated!!

For every item you bring you will receive one raffle ticket towards
prize drawings*

Otter Pops---Water Bottles---Fruit Cups---Juice Boxes---Or any
non-refrigerated snack item
                                                                                                                          
*must be present for all drawings


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Thu May 28 14:27:30 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:27:30 -0400
Subject: Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and God - GOF)
In-Reply-To: <gvii41+4fu6@eGroups.com>
References: <gva0ld+qtc6@eGroups.com> <gvii41+4fu6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <33CACEE93A5C48B7990AC45D160670A9@FRODO>

[Carol]:
| Thanks. Wonder who changed it and why? If it was the American 
| copyeditor, he or she was stepping outside the bounds of 
| acceptable changes.
| 
| Carol, hoping that the revised American edition, if any, will 
| go back to the original reading

[Lee]:
Personally, I resent that there has to be an "American" edition and a
"British" edition.  It would be, IMHO, a wonderful challenge for young
people to learn the vernacular of other English-speaking people.  Maybe it
sounds stupid, but it really does annoy me!

Cheers,
Lee (Pout, Grumble)

Do not walk behind me,    | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead;   | N2FGC
Do not walk before me,    | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu May 28 15:45:51 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:45:51 -0000
Subject: Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and God - GOF)
In-Reply-To: <33CACEE93A5C48B7990AC45D160670A9@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gvmbjf+1uck@eGroups.com>

> [Lee]:
> Personally, I resent that there has to be an "American" edition and a
> "British" edition.  It would be, IMHO, a wonderful challenge for young
> people to learn the vernacular of other English-speaking people.  Maybe it
> sounds stupid, but it really does annoy me!

Magpie:
It's also, I think, just a matter of how marketing works. Bloomsbury only owns the rights in the UK, and JKR sold foreign rites in many different countries that are then published by different publishers. What you're objecting to is probably changes in the language--that's where kids would learn. Though it would also just be a case of putting the book into the standard copy style of the US publisher. Iow, changing the style of punctuation along with putting out their own edition re: book design and font styles and all that.

-m




From md at exit-reality.com  Thu May 28 16:41:51 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:41:51 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and God - GOF)
In-Reply-To: <gvmbjf+1uck@eGroups.com>
References: <33CACEE93A5C48B7990AC45D160670A9@FRODO> <gvmbjf+1uck@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007601c9dfb3$3458baa0$9d0a2fe0$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sistermagpie
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:46 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and
God - GOF)

Magpie:
It's also, I think, just a matter of how marketing works. Bloomsbury only
owns the rights in the UK, and JKR sold foreign rites in many different
countries that are then published by different publishers. What you're
objecting to is probably changes in the language--that's where kids would
learn. Though it would also just be a case of putting the book into the
standard copy style of the US publisher. Iow, changing the style of
punctuation along with putting out their own edition re: book design and
font styles and all that.

-m



------------------------------------
They specifically "Americanized" the first books fearing the audience
wouldn't "get" the English phrases, it specifically started with the term
"philosophers stone" which, you know, us stupid Americans would never
understand! By the 4th book they were popular they stopped the heavy-handed
editing, I own and have read both versions and the last 3 books have very
few changes. My favorite is the British version, I think it's OOP or HPB,
Fred and George say they "keep their peckers up" in the U.S. it's "noses." 

md




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu May 28 16:50:03 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 16:50:03 -0000
Subject: Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and God - GOF)
In-Reply-To: <33CACEE93A5C48B7990AC45D160670A9@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gvmfbr+er5i@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm \(God Is The Healing Force\)" <n2fgc at ...> wrote:
>
> [Carol]:
> | Thanks. Wonder who changed it and why? If it was the American 
> | copyeditor, he or she was stepping outside the bounds of 
> | acceptable changes.
> | 
> | Carol, hoping that the revised American edition, if any, will 
> | go back to the original reading
> 
> [Lee]:
> Personally, I resent that there has to be an "American" edition and a
> "British" edition.  It would be, IMHO, a wonderful challenge for young
> people to learn the vernacular of other English-speaking people.  Maybe it
> sounds stupid, but it really does annoy me!
> 
> Cheers,
> Lee (Pout, Grumble)

Carol responds:

It's standard procedure for American editions of British books to Americanize at least the punctuation (e.g., double quotes and periods inside the end quotation marks), spelling (no "u" in color, for example), and grammar ("the Ministry is" rather than "the Ministry are"). But the vocabulary, I agree, ought to be left alone.

OTOH, any author, even a famous one, needs a copyeditor. Someone (if not the copyeditor then the proofreader) should have caught r-i-t-e for r-i-g-h-t in HBP, for example, and JKR also has a lot of (to me) annoying misplaced modifiers (for example, in GoF, "a pretty girl in a blue dress that Harry didn't know," which sounds as if he didn't know her blue dress).

But changing "curse" to "kill" is an unwarranted liberty by the copyeditor. I can see possibly querying it, but actually changing it is too much. However, it *is* the author's responsibility to examine the edited manuscript and accept or reject all the edits, as well as respond to the queries.

And in a few cases, where American idiom and British idiom differ radically and the wording might seem innocuous to a British reader but off-color to an American reader, I see no reason not to change it so that the meaning is clear. That's obviously not what was happening in this instance, however.

Carol, who quite frequently has to convert American punctuation and spelling to British and vice versa as a routine part of her job




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu May 28 17:46:21 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 17:46:21 -0000
Subject: Doors
In-Reply-To: <gvio6k+eotv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvmild+jur4@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:

> The great majority are built of brick - older ones can be a 
> mixture of stone and brick. 


zanooda:

Good for you :-)! Here, they build wooden houses and then add a layer of bricks on the outside :-). It just seems so unreasonable to use lumber(or is it timber?) for construction, especially here in the South, when it burns so easily (I didn't see so many fires in my entire pre-american life) and needs constant protection against termites. And it rots and gets covered with mold if a house gets flooded. I don't like wooden houses. It is practically the only thing that I actively dislike here in the US (love the rest :-)). Anyway, thanks for satisfying my curiosity, Geoff :-). 




From md at exit-reality.com  Thu May 28 18:28:19 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 14:28:19 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and God - GOF)
In-Reply-To: <gvmfbr+er5i@eGroups.com>
References: <33CACEE93A5C48B7990AC45D160670A9@FRODO> <gvmfbr+er5i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001501c9dfc2$138802e0$3a9808a0$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:50 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and
God - GOF)


OTOH, any author, even a famous one, needs a copyeditor. Someone (if not the
copyeditor then the proofreader) should have caught r-i-t-e for r-i-g-h-t in
HBP, for example, and JKR also has a lot of (to me) annoying misplaced
modifiers (for example, in GoF, "a pretty girl in a blue dress that Harry
didn't know," which sounds as if he didn't know her blue dress).

::::::::::::
It should have been whom or who because a "that" is a thing! 

md




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Thu May 28 22:33:06 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:33:06 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and God - GOF)
In-Reply-To: <gvmbjf+1uck@eGroups.com>
References: <33CACEE93A5C48B7990AC45D160670A9@FRODO> <gvmbjf+1uck@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <CA9AEB518FAA4BC696CB14056806F39D@FRODO>

| Magpie:
| It's also, I think, just a matter of how marketing works. 
| Bloomsbury only owns the rights in the UK, and JKR sold 
| foreign rites in many different countries that are then 
| published by different publishers. What you're objecting to 
| is probably changes in the language--that's where kids would 
| learn. Though it would also just be a case of putting the 
| book into the standard copy style of the US publisher. Iow, 
| changing the style of punctuation along with putting out 
| their own edition re: book design and font styles and all that.

[Lee]:
And why they should be allowed to change so much is beyond me!  It would be
one thing if the books were translated from a non-english language.  But,
IMHO, the only thing that should have been changed was the name of the
publisher and that's it.

End of griping and growling...Can't change what is.

Lee ;(




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri May 29 01:01:44 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 01:01:44 -0000
Subject: Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and God - GOF)
In-Reply-To: <CA9AEB518FAA4BC696CB14056806F39D@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gvnc5o+ctdh@eGroups.com>

> | Magpie:
> | It's also, I think, just a matter of how marketing works. 
> | Bloomsbury only owns the rights in the UK, and JKR sold 
> | foreign rites in many different countries that are then 
> | published by different publishers. What you're objecting to 
> | is probably changes in the language--that's where kids would 
> | learn. Though it would also just be a case of putting the 
> | book into the standard copy style of the US publisher. Iow, 
> | changing the style of punctuation along with putting out 
> | their own edition re: book design and font styles and all that.
> 
> [Lee]:
> And why they should be allowed to change so much is beyond me!  It would be
> one thing if the books were translated from a non-english language.  But,
> IMHO, the only thing that should have been changed was the name of the
> publisher and that's it.

Magpie:
But publishers don't just take someone else's book and slap their name on it. They're buying the manuscript inside just like the original publisher and creating it into their own book just the way the original publisher did. They don't own the original design or cover art or design--if they just put their name on it they'd be stealing. They're starting from scratch. Along with providing paper, art and design they're of course also going to follow their in-house rules for punctuation and spelling. It's not like the books are even necessarily coming out at different times.

-m




From Mhochberg at aol.com  Fri May 29 03:14:43 2009
From: Mhochberg at aol.com (Mhochberg at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 23:14:43 -0400
Subject: Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and God - GOF)
Message-ID: <8CBAE22BF345F86-1738-1F3A@webmail-md19.sysops.aol.com>

While I find the language and spelling changes annoying, there is one thing I love about the American editions. In both the print and audio versions, there are far more "extras". The book has artwork for each chapter. The audio books, especially DH, has more material as well as a tiny bit of music at the beginning and end. For example, the quotations at the beginning of DH are not in British audio book. All the citations are also missing. 

---Mary 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri May 29 09:37:32 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:37:32 -0000
Subject: Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and God - GOF)
In-Reply-To: <8CBAE22BF345F86-1738-1F3A@webmail-md19.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <gvoacs+5ifd@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Mhochberg at ... wrote:

Mary :
> While I find the language and spelling changes annoying, there is one thing I love about the American editions. In both the print and audio versions, there are far more "extras". The book has artwork for each chapter. 

Geoff:
Speaking entirely personally, I prefer not to have artwork. I like to 
generate my own mental pictures of characters and places when 
I'm reading a book.






From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri May 29 14:54:58 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:54:58 -0000
Subject: Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and God - GOF)
In-Reply-To: <gvoacs+5ifd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvot02+k8lv@eGroups.com>

> Mary :
> > While I find the language and spelling changes annoying, there is one thing I love about the American editions. In both the print and audio versions, there are far more "extras". The book has artwork for each chapter. 
> 
> Geoff:
> Speaking entirely personally, I prefer not to have artwork. I like to 
> generate my own mental pictures of characters and places when 
> I'm reading a book.

Magpie:
In this case the artwork doesn't really distract. They've got the pictures on the cover, like the UK children's editions, and then there's just little spot illustrations at the beginning of each chapter. The characters are pretty stylized in them.

-m




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri May 29 19:20:29 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 19:20:29 -0000
Subject: Failed Protections (Re: Merlin's Left What?...)
In-Reply-To: <gvijc0+2f18@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvpcht+3qec@eGroups.com>

---  "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
> ...
> 
> Carol, wondering about all those magical protective enchantments
> that Snape mentioned in OoP and why they so dramatically failed
> in DH
>

bboyminn:

I've had some thoughts on that. 

Though I admit it is probably stretching my memory to the limit.

Referring to DH and the Battle of Hogwarts -

When Harry and Luna are in Ravenclaw tower and Harry defends
McGonagall, (Pg 594 US ed. HB)

Harry: "Professor McGonagall, Voltemort's on the way."

Luna: "Oh, are we allowed to say the name now?"

Harry: "I don't think it makes any difference what we call
him, he already knows where I am."


Well, it does make A LOT of difference as in saying that one
word, Harry destroyed all the protections surrounding Hogwarts.
Later Prof. Flitwick adds new protections, but I doubt that he
could equal the centuries of accumulated protections that had 
been on Hogwarts. 

And it that weren't enough, before Flitwick can add his own
protections, Harry says 'Voldemort' a few more times.

On page 600, Flitwick start adding his own protections.

On page 603, Harry runs into Lupin -

"Harry, what's happening?" said Lupin...

(Harry responds) "Voldemort's on his way, ...."

Damn there went all the protective enchantments again. 

Page 615 as Harry talks to the Grey Lady -

"It's about Voldemort -- defeating Voldemort..."

Damn there goes the protection again. 

Later on the same page -

" --but if you care about Hogwarts, if you want to see 
Voldemort finished...."

And the list goes on an on. It is a wonder Hogwarts had any
protections at all by the time Harry got done blabbing 
Voldemort's name all over the place. 

Steve/bboyminn






From wendymatchen at att.net  Fri May 29 04:39:20 2009
From: wendymatchen at att.net (wendy)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 23:39:20 -0500
Subject: Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and God - GOF)
In-Reply-To: <gvmfbr+er5i@eGroups.com>
References: <gvmfbr+er5i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <C6E5BFE6F0884FA6B8B193B269C2C1D7@DuckmanPC>

>> [Carol]:
>> | Thanks. Wonder who changed it and why? If it was the American
>> | copyeditor, he or she was stepping outside the bounds of
>> | acceptable changes.
>> |
>> | Carol, hoping that the revised American edition, if any, will
>> | go back to the original reading
>>


You know I didn't know til not too long ago that there was a brit version and an amer. version.  I would really have rather read the brit version and would actually still love to.

Wendy
child of the king
wife and best friend to James
mom to 11 so far
http://Writing.Com/authors/ladyblackheart
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/conansangel
www.myspace.com/heartsuntamed
http://ladyblackhearts.blogspot.com/



From md at exit-reality.com  Sat May 30 13:25:05 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 09:25:05 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter and God - GOF)
In-Reply-To: <C6E5BFE6F0884FA6B8B193B269C2C1D7@DuckmanPC>
References: <gvmfbr+er5i@eGroups.com> <C6E5BFE6F0884FA6B8B193B269C2C1D7@DuckmanPC>
Message-ID: <002401c9e12a$0bc5acb0$23510610$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wendy
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:39 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Curse Versus Kill etc. (was Re: Harry Potter
and God - GOF)

You know I didn't know til not too long ago that there was a brit version
and an amer. version.  I would really have rather read the brit version and
would actually still love to.

Wendy

:::::::::::::
You can get the paperbacks form Amazon.ca (Canada) starting at $.01

http://www.amazon.ca/Harry-Potter-Philosophers-Stone-Rowling/dp/155192398X/r
ef=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243689833&sr=8-1

md





From catlady at wicca.net  Sat May 30 23:56:56 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 23:56:56 -0000
Subject: protective enchantments / an atheist / creation / wooden houses
Message-ID: <gvsh48+1086d@eGroups.com>

Carol wondered in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39405>:

<< about all those magical protective enchantments that Snape
mentioned in OoP and why they so dramatically failed in DH >>

Dumbledore undid them all while hurrying to his death, and Snape as Headmaster did not put them back.

MD wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39413>:

<< That's not a slight on Christians, they won't convince me there is a god and I won't convince them there's not, one of us is right and only in death will we know who. >>

If the debate is about whether there is life after death, only if there IS life after death, will the people who believed it see that they were right and the people who disbelieved it see that there were wrong. If there is nothing after death, the people with that belief will never find out that they were right and the other side will never find out that they were wrong. Actually, if there is life after death in terms of another incarnation with no memory of the previous incarnation, people still won't find out if they were right or wrong...

If the debate is about whether God exists, then having life after death doesn't prove that God exists, only that the physical universe has yet another wonder not yet discovered by (live) scientists, but capable of being explained by quantum relatively and dark energy if they did discover it. So the theist and the atheist can continue arguing after they're both dead. Even if, after death, they both see God, they can argue whether what they saw is some kind of illusion, or a powerful but not God being who lies when claiming to have created the universe or even just one complex life-form.

No Limberger wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39414>:

<< all life is based upon organic compounds comprised of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen. At the time of the Big Bang, the only known elements to exist at that time were the two simplest: hydrogen and helium with many a trace amount of lithium. Where, then, did all of the heavier elements come from? From the hearts of stars where these elements are fused through atomic reactions, and in the violent & explosive deaths of stars. Or, is life the natural consequence when all of the right materials and conditions are present for it to begin on its own? >>

As you know, but just in case someone doesn't, the molecules are made of atoms and ions, which are made of electrons and nuclei, and the nuclei are made of protons and neutrons. The electrons and nuclei relate to each other by electromagnetism and some weird quantum effect called orbitals (is that because of conservation of spin? I don't remember), which is just so beautiful and elegant that I can't express it. Electromagnetism is supposed to be made of photons, which is what light is made of.

The protons and neutrons relate to each other through some forces I don't understand called the nuclear weak force (combined with the above into a theory called electroweak), and the nuclear strong force, which has something to do with the protons and neutrons themselvew being made of quarks that are held together by gluons which is called quantum chromodynamics...

And the fact that these elementary particles, photons and electrons and quarks and gluons all just appeared, with their characteristics that cause them to interact with each other to form bigger and more complex things, which in turn form bigger and more complex things, strikes me as just AMAZING. 

The universe could have been made of elementary particles that barely interact with each other, or which interact only by gravitation heaping them into giant undifferentiated globs of crud, or which interact only up to a certain level, such as the equivalents of protons and neutrons that don't interace with each other nor with electrons... AMAZING.

Zanooda wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39425>:

<< Here, they build wooden houses and then add a layer of bricks
on the outside :-). It just seems so unreasonable to use lumber(or is it timber?) for construction, especially here in the South, when it burns so easily (I didn't see so many fires in my entire pre-american life) and needs constant protection against termites. And it rots and gets covered with mold if a house gets flooded. I don't like wooden houses. >>

Here in California, brick and cinderblock buildings are not such a good idea. They are called 'unreinforced masonry' and collapse almost explosively in earthquakes. Even poured concrete buildings need steel reinforcement elements to survive common-size earthquakes. I can't imagine how the few surviving historic adobe houses have survived.

Built of wood with a layer of bricks on the outside? Ornamental brick facing is often cute and can be magnificent, but I kind of thought that 'old' houses were framed in wood and walled with lath-and-plaster, while less-old hours are framed in wood and walled with drywall panels.

Granted, I've heard the argument that we can't afford to chop so many forests down and should use light-weight steel to frame houses and other cheap structures instead of wood, as well as using heavy-weight steel to frame skyscrapers.






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun May 31 01:06:55 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 01:06:55 -0000
Subject: protective enchantments / an atheist / creation / wooden houses
In-Reply-To: <gvsh48+1086d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvsl7f+gih1@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:


> Here in California, brick and cinderblock buildings are not 
> such a good idea. They are called 'unreinforced masonry' 
> and collapse almost explosively in earthquakes.


zanooda:

That's understandable. But I live in Texas :-). OTOH, at some point of my life I lived in Israel, which is also in a seismic-active area, and they only have brick and stone buildings there, no wood (not that they have much of it :-)). I suppose they just don't have earthquakes as often as you do in California :-). I've only been through one that was rather strong and the houses stood well. It was very scary though. 


> Catlady wrote: 

> Built of wood with a layer of bricks on the outside? 


zanooda:

I've just found out it's called "brick veneer", I think :-).




From md at exit-reality.com  Sun May 31 03:03:33 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 23:03:33 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: protective enchantments / an atheist / creation / wooden houses
In-Reply-To: <gvsl7f+gih1@eGroups.com>
References: <gvsh48+1086d@eGroups.com> <gvsl7f+gih1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002001c9e19c$626d0730$27471590$@com>



-----Original Message-----



zanooda:

I've just found out it's called "brick veneer", I think :-).



------------------------------------
"Brick Face" is the term (Dad, Mason 15 years.)

They do to types of brick face, one actually uses thin bricks, I think about
1/2 or 3/4" which are basically pressed into a plaster. Either way the cover
the wood with a wire mesh, and coat with a plaster-like mix. They then coat
with a red plaster and scratch away to reveal the white beneath or the cover
with the thin brick just like they do real brick. You can also simply put
brick over a wood structure.

md





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun May 31 17:24:29 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 17:24:29 -0000
Subject: Book: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel - anybody read this?"
Message-ID: <gvuegd+u96r@eGroups.com>

I was in the bookstore the other day, and saw a series of books
called "The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel" by Michael
Scott. Currently, it is a series of three "The Magician", "The 
Alchemist", and now "The Sorceress"; eventually to be a series 
of 6.

I'm wondering if anyone is familiar with these or has read them?

Just trying to get some sense of whether they are worth spending
money on. 

Though on Amazon, out of 59 reviews, 53 have given 5-stars. 

Most claim the book is very engrossing; one of those "can't
put it down" types.

Just curious if anyone has checked this series out.

One drawback for me though, is that we are now three into a
series of 6, that means probably a commitment of another
6 year to finish the series. Just the wait for the next 
"Eragon" book is practically killing me, I'm not sure I can
take a wait of 6 years or more. 

Any thoughts?

Steve/bboyminn




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun May 31 17:42:51 2009
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 31 May 2009 17:42:51 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/31/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1243791771.531.50057.m7@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday May 31, 2009
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2009 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20090531/67f2a0f4/attachment.html>

From wgsilvester at shaw.ca  Sun May 31 17:41:12 2009
From: wgsilvester at shaw.ca (Bill)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 17:41:12 -0000
Subject: HP Collectibles Book
Message-ID: <gvuffo+hqhh@eGroups.com>

I am in the process of writing a book concerning Harry Potter collectibles in conjunction with Krause Publications.

We want to include as many of the Harry Potter items as possible that were issued over the past few years. As the book will be largely pictorial we require high resolution pictures (minimum 300 dpi)in Jpeg or Tif, of Harry Potter items.  

I would like to know if anyone is interested in sending me pictures of items from their collection. You will be fully credited for each picture we use.

I will be happy to answer any questions.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely

William Silvester





From caliburst at cox.net  Sun May 31 18:00:12 2009
From: caliburst at cox.net (Eric Bowling)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 11:00:12 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Book: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel - anybody read this?
References: <gvuegd+u96r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <015501c9e219$a50d93c0$80180744@Caliburst>

  Steve/bboyminn:

  I was in the bookstore the other day, and saw a series of books
  called "The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel" by Michael
  Scott. Currently, it is a series of three "The Magician", "The 
  Alchemist", and now "The Sorceress"; eventually to be a series 
  of 6.

  I'm wondering if anyone is familiar with these or has read them?

  Just trying to get some sense of whether they are worth spending
  money on. <snip>
  

Eric:
I'm reading "The Sorceress" right now! It's okay. Not Harry 
Potter, but then again, it's not trying to be. It's not as 
sophisticated as the later HP novels in terms of reading level, 
but if you liked PoA, it's around that level. There's a lot of 
mythological plot and characters and sometimes even for someone 
like me getting their MA in Childrens Lit, it can seem like 
there's way to much being thrown at you at once, but it is a 
very well-written work despite its few flaws. I'd recommend it 
for a good lazy summer read!!

Eric Bowling




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun May 31 19:58:38 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 19:58:38 -0000
Subject: protective enchantments
In-Reply-To: <gvsh48+1086d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvunhe+kruv@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol wondered in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39405>:
> 
> << about all those magical protective enchantments that Snape
> mentioned in OoP and why they so dramatically failed in DH >>
> 
> Dumbledore undid them all while hurrying to his death, and Snape as Headmaster did not put them back.

Carol responds:

Are you sure? The only one DD undid that I know of is the protection against flying into the grounds and that might have been temporary just to let himself and Harry through. (Why Snape wouldn't put that one back if it was still there, I don't know. He certainly blocked the passages into and out of the school, and he could claim that the anti-flying protection was to keep students in, not DEs out. The only person who flew in or out of the school grounds during DH was Snape himself, and he might have temporarily undone that protection as DD did for himself and Harry.) 

But I was talking about the ancient protections that Snape mentions in OoP during the first Occlumency lesson, not any new protections, such as locks on the gates and anti-climbing spells on the walls that DD added (probably after Snape told him about Draco's assignment to kill DD). Possibly, *those* spells would have died along with Dumbledore, which would explain why the DEs and Draco could escape through what should have been a locked gate. I suppose that Snape didn't put them back on because, with himself as headmaster and the Carrows on the staff, the DEs would have no reason to invade Hogwarts, thinking that it was already under DE control. But the ancient protective spells that Snape mentioned to Harry would not have died with Dumbledore. They should still have been in place. (True, they didn't keep Sirius Black out in PoA, but he wasn't really trying to murder Harry.)

For now, I'm just going to chalk it up to JKR's inability to remember what she's had her character do or say from one book to another, an inconsistency like Lily's letter to Sirius or Draco's Hand of Glory, which Ron should not have known about and Lucius refused to buy.

Carol, hoping that her point in this little digression is clearer now




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Sun May 31 22:38:24 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 18:38:24 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: protective enchantments
In-Reply-To: <gvunhe+kruv@eGroups.com>
References: <gvsh48+1086d@eGroups.com> <gvunhe+kruv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <D01BCA5EAC1D45928195DA43FF93EAA6@FRODO>

[Carol]:
| For now, I'm just going to chalk it up to JKR's inability to 
| remember what she's had her character do or say from one book 
| to another, an inconsistency like Lily's letter to Sirius or 
| Draco's Hand of Glory, which Ron should not have known about 
| and Lucius refused to buy.

[Lee]:
Where's the inconsistency with the letter to Sirius?  I'm missing something.

As far as the Hand Of Glory, that's easy.  Harry probably mentioned it to
Ron since he had seen it; Draco probably went back to B&B when he had some
extra galleons and bought it for himself.


Cheers,

Lee :-)





From d2dmiles at yahoo.de  Sun May 31 22:57:47 2009
From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 00:57:47 +0200
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: protective enchantments
References: <gvsh48+1086d@eGroups.com> <gvunhe+kruv@eGroups.com> <D01BCA5EAC1D45928195DA43FF93EAA6@FRODO>
Message-ID: <689C912CA7FD453E936E3D131DD8EB6E@miles>

Lee Storm wrote:
> As far as the Hand Of Glory, that's easy.  Harry probably mentioned
> it to Ron since he had seen it; Draco probably went back to B&B when
> he had some extra galleons and bought it for himself.

Miles
I agree and disagree ;).
On the one hand, there's no problem about things happening offpage. It's 
necessary to have most of the things happen offpage, unless you write 
Ulysses and happen to be James Joyce. And Draco was interested in the Hand 
of Glory in CoS, and could easily have bought it in the following years, or 
got it as a birthday gift or whatever. And Harry could have told Ron, and 
Ron could remember when he sees it.

But on the other hand, why should Harry remember the hand, Draco's interest 
in it AND talk about it to Ron? Is there any indication that the Trio would 
talk about Draco's private life in their leisure-time? Is there any 
probability that Draco would boast about having a "Dark Object" for burglars 
at home - at least if he is not among Slytherins?

While it is possible that Draco owns the hand and Ron knows about it, it's 
quite unlikely. It's not really a Flint, but if I had to bet, I'd bed on a 
JKR mistake.

Miles