From silmariel at telefonica.net Sun Jun 4 16:20:21 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 18:20:21 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DADA vs. Potions teacher for Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200006041820.21913.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 89952 > bboy_mn: > When Umbridge inspects Snape's class, she comments that Snape has > applied for the DADA job everytime it has been vacant (paraphrased). > That certainly indicated that Snape has some interest in the job. I think it can indicate that he had to apply for the job because Voldemort would expect that. The DADA position would be good as a way of controlling/teach the new generation of DE, so part of Snape's masquerade is to apply for the job. Of course, as expected, DD reasonable move in this spy war is not to allow a former DE to have the work (amongs other reasons, I'm only speaking about what Voldemort would understand). silmariel From silmariel at telefonica.net Mon Jun 5 17:11:47 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 19:11:47 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mended noses (Was: Mimble Wimble) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200006051911.47882.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90006 > Carol asked: > This is a silly little observation and hardly worth mentioning, but if > Madam Pomfrey can mend broken noses "in a thrice," surely the healers > or mediwizards at St. Mungo's can do it, too, yet several characters, > including Dumbledore and Ludo Bagman show signs of broken noses that > weren't magically mended. I wonder why. I'll include Moody, also. 1) Made by magical damage, or in an incurable way. 2) No access to medical facilities during healing time (Going in hiding or be kidnapped/tortured should count). 3) Not caring about small injuries repeatedly done during years (ie sports play). 4) The bearer of the scar doesn't want to lose it, as Molly from Neuromancer whose scars remembered her how stupid she had been, so she didn't remove them. 5) Scars hide secret runes (ok, don't shoot) silmariel From silmariel at telefonica.net Mon Jun 5 17:22:01 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 19:22:01 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hey Lexicon Steve! McGonagall/Riddle SHIP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200006051922.01853.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90007 Carol wrote: > But a fourteen-year-old boy seems like a child to a seventeen-year-old > girl (though not necessarily the other way around). Look at the > relative emotional maturity of Hermione and Harry/Ron in GoF. Yes, > Krum is interested in Hermione (more than she is in him), but he's > eighteen. Ron doesn't have a clue about the source of his own jealousy > and Harry is still fumbling for words when he speaks to Cho. But Tom knows how to charm people, and I know a personal case of a boy that at 14 was told by one of the proffesors that 17 year old girls were too old for him, because he happened to charm them too easily, he just knew how to do it, so that age gap doesn't represent a problem to me in the special case. I admit this boy is very intelligent, but Tom also was, wasn't him? silmariel From silmariel at telefonica.net Mon Jun 5 22:49:11 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:49:11 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hey Lexicon Steve! McGonagall/Riddle SHIP In-Reply-To: <003901c3e806$af8b5de0$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> References: <200006051922.01853.silmariel@telefonica.net> <003901c3e806$af8b5de0$755f2f04@dslverizon.net> Message-ID: <200006060049.11591.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90016 Silverthorne Dragon (Anne) wrote: > > 'Charming' does not immediately equate with dating though. Children 'charm' > people all the time--from parents to teachers--to get what they want, if > they have that particular skill. And you can bet that it DOESN'T include > kissing, dating, etc. in that case. I'm sorry if I haven't been more explicit or specific, I was referring to sexual charm, of course, wich I found Tom (not Voldemort, but yes 15-year old Tom) very capable of. If I don't make myself clear, that's my fault, I'm ESL and certainly not high skilled at written English. I suppose for 'charming' in the way of being able to convince people I'd have used 'manipulator' instead, my vocabulary is restricted. > I don't see it being as a 'dating' boyfriend-girlfriend > kind of thing. Probably more along the lines of cleverly manipulating her > into things he needs her to do to help his cause along...a 'weapon' wholly > different in type from the :"oh, I love you, can you do this thing for me?" > gambit... Oh, well, I do see him dating older girls, it's the feeling I get from CoS. Silmariel From silmariel at telefonica.net Wed Jun 7 21:37:37 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:37:37 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Possession In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200006072337.37974.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90091 This reply is general, for the thread: Kneasy: >The "Lord Voldemort is my past, present and future." quote is a >worry. Is it Diary!Tom emphasising that he is only an episode from >Voldy's lifeline or is it an indication that Voldy was there before Tom >became aware of him and Tom is dependent on Voldy for his future >existence? I wish we could ask Grindewald. One thing that makes your idea credible for me is the coincidence in dates of Tom's 7th year and the defeat of Grindewald. Not entering in details it seems too near to defeating Voldemort in Harry's 7th year. Pity I don't know if another Dark Lord was defeated by the time of Grindewald coming of age. Julie: >What I am talking about is >empowered. They were presented with a choice (much like LOTR ring) >and chose to be empowered by whatever this "power source" was. Just >as LOTR (Smeagoll/Gollum specifically), the choice was always before >them. Power is so easy to adquire and so difficult to control and maintain. I kept Julie's quote so no one acuses me of not leaving open the 'choose' option. If the character does not choose, I'm not talking of that kind of possesion, ok? At least for Tom and Harry, Ginny and Imperios are other matter. But there is a kind of possesion that we haven't considered, I think. We don't have the entity whispering the correct phrases to mislead the character. Or we may have it and haven't noticed. If harry is being attacked in this way, he hasn't realised, so we also haven't. I think we all know that trick, in tv series is usually made in a transparent way to the audience, so it is clear what thoughts are from the character and what are being inserted by whatever entity into his/her mind. For what I remember, the character is always able to resist/fight the possesion. The first time in OoP that I read Harry complaining about everything he had done and how it wasn't recognised by others [+eternal ramblings],... he didn't seem Harry. I know the first explanation is Harry is young, hormones... but I'd like to left open the possibility of external bad 'feelings' being poured drop by drop without Harry or the readers noticing it, I'd like to read a good case of slow, subtly done soul corruption from the victim's PoV. silmariel From silmariel at telefonica.net Thu Jun 8 17:27:46 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:27:46 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] James Potter Bio Facts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200006081927.46805.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90144 This reply is to the thread, some points have been raised that I would like to comment. Debbie Roberson: >Maybe I am just over skeptical, but as far as I can tell, no one's >ever TOLD Harry that his Dad was Gryffindor, he's always just assumed >so - probably based on the fact that the Weasley's are all >Gryffindors and the Malfoys are, as far as we've seen, Slytherins. I agree. No one has done it, we have strong hints but that's all, and with Rowling strong hints are not always enough. If it's so obvious that MWPP were in Gryffindor, someone could have commented that, if only Jame's affiliation given he is Harry's father, so it seems natural that in 5 years he would have adquired that knowledge, but no, he only assumes he was a Gryffindor, but he doesn't know. Carol: >I have a feeling that Hagrid doesn't really sit down and think things out. >("Oh, yeah. Sirius Black must have been a DE, mustn't he? So there was one >from Gryffindor.") Of course, he didn't know that the traitor was really >Peter Pettigrew, who must have been a Gryffindor if James was. I can't >seem them acting as a foursome without sharing a House, and since >they're all boys in the same year, that would also mean that they >shared a dormitory. >If it had been McGonagall or Dumbledore who made that initial remark, >I would trust it, but Hagrid is not given to precision. That phrase is priceless. Rowling can write whatever she wants in Hagrid's statements and she gets sure that no one is going to take him seriously. Hagrid defenders, please? Hagrid is other matter where strong hints of him being 'not given to precission' can't be taken at face value. Hagrid is a lot more than he shows, and he can be as precise as required. See how the mask of Hagrig functions? DD sais he would trust him with his life, and authomatically McGonadall suposses he's speaking only of who has his loyalties Hagrid with. Hagrid could have past the last 50 years developing his magic skills with DD. No one would now. Hagrid, that clown? Who is going to suspect him of being able of doing anything except babycaring mosters? But the wizard that defeated Grindgewald would trust him his life, how curious. I've got a the feeling that Sirius is one of the things present in Hagrid's mind. He should have past, as any L&P friend, some time mentally killing that Slytherin scum (Sirius), or that Gryffindor scum, right after they were murdered. And in PS, the year in wich he saw Harry again, memories were likely to have been raised about his parents and their death, if only by association including the scum. So I think that even if he was generalicing(and ignoring the few, peripheral to his mind, rotten apples in other houses), he wouldn't have done that if Sirius was a Gryffindor, that would be too hypocrite. --Oh, yes, Slytherin is the worst of this world, but look at how I don't tell you that precisely your parents murderer (the one I should remember now seeing you after 10 years) is a Gryffindor, the best house of the world-- Unless Hagrid knew who killed them really, I'll put that comment in the 'pro' list for Sirius being in Slytherin. Carol again: <> Naturally. Well, then she could throw a line informing Harry that 'MWPP all in Gryffindor' and that's all, instead of dropping hints troughout the books. <> But the quote from Geoff was: "'What they're saying.' she pressed on, 'is that last night Voldemort turned up in Godric's Hollow. He went to find the Potters. The rumour is that lily and James Potter are - are - that they're dead.' Dumbledore bowed his head. Professor McGonagall gasped. 'Lily and James.... I can't believe it... I didn't want to believe it... Oh Albus.'" (PS "The Boy who lived" p.14 UK edition) and he said: Ok, I know she's strict and all, but: 1) When people have just died one tends to slip a bit of the protocol and use his names. I mean, I suppose that a considerable amount of the students and teachers that usually thought of CD as Diggory all of a sudden were thinking of 'Poor Cedric'. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't have idea if this is true for the British. 2) Lily should have been one of her best students, she was Head Girl, from Gryffindor. She married another Head Boy. McGonadall should remember her more than other students. Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is that the link that mades McG remember James can be being Lily's husband. Carol again: <> Snape isn't one of her favourite characters? I've got the feeling that we perceive with more affection those characters only because Harry perceives them that way. That we have loads of Gryffindors? Naturally, Harry is one. 80% of his life interact with Gryfss and he has his house prejudices, so he likes them better and they share a lot of screen time. Hitomi: <<>> You said it, that's the problem with the movies. There's also a McGonadall in the same plaque but it's clear that Rowling didn't saw that, unless he was usually a chaser except in the year of the plaque, wich seems pretty plottles. <<>> My problem is that asuming MWPP were Gryffindor gives me the feeling I'm being fooled by 'just hints' that do not seem conclusive enough to establish a fact. I think that, until proven with canon, MWPP in Gryffindor is only a theory. <> He was not the exception. He was as good as a wizard as them, he was not weak, only played that part as a good actor. If he is Gryffindor he is brave. I don't know how many Gryffindors are able to cut their own hand. I just had to defend Peter, I think he's quite impressive a wizard. Silmariel From silmariel at telefonica.net Fri Jun 9 16:31:05 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:31:05 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Holly and Yew / Dragons and Rebirth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200006091831.05848.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90253 > Sawsan: > I wonder why Hermione hasn't noticed or mentioned anything about > Harry's scar and the eihwaz rune, now that I actually looked it up and > thanks to the people who noticed it before, I am surprised at > Hermione's not even showing any remote interest in the similarities. Rune knowledge is very alien to me, so if in the next books Rowkling says --hey, that was the scar all the time, didn't you see it was a rune?-- I'll answer 'What? Please explain' and 'How was I supossed to know? There are runes everywhere in fantasy novels, but I don't have to know what they mean in order to follow the book, the characters do that work for me'. Not that I'm saying you are not correct, only that I'd feel lost, and I don't know how would feel the medium teenager reader, so I supposse that rune must be only one detail in a collection of them, all telling the same thing. > I also want to know if there is something in the eihwaz rune that has > something to do with the "more wonderful and more terrible than death" > part of the prophesy, considering it has strong ties to death and > rebirth and so on. Halloween, that I understand. It is also tied to death and rebirth and was the night of the attack on the Potters. > Also, considering the rebirth part of the rune, I almost want to think > that since Harry was the only known person to survive the AK curse, > that he might be the only known person to come back from the dead as > well. I know that is farfetched, but JKR always likes to throw in the > fact that Harry might not live at the end of the series, but I find it > unlikely that if he does die that he will stay dead. Do I make any > sense? :P Oh, well, let's just theorice, I don't know about runes but yes about dragons. One extented idea in fantasy is that a Dragon's heart that has been treated somehow has rebirth powers. Sometimes it is also included the detail that it's better (or required) if the Dragon is a venomous one. Using the heart kills the dragon, but that's not a problem in the Potterverse, they sell them per ounzes in Diagon Alley. So let's go to canon: Norbert, who has a chapter tittle, is a venomous dragon. There was a philosopher stone (also tied to life power) available at Howgarts. We saw Hagrid crying. The kids assume it's because N goes to Rumania, but it may be because he knows N is virtually dead. He'll be sacrificed if required. The scape in the middle of the night is strongly hinted in the book to have been prepared by the teacher's staff. I think a 15 year old Harry wouldn't have bought that charade. Dumbledore has studied dragons and published the 12 uses of the dragon blood, so if someone has to know about what could be done with a Dragon's heart, it's him. Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus. Silmariel From silmariel at telefonica.net Sat Jun 10 15:55:59 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 17:55:59 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mimble Wimble In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200006101755.59873.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90308 Carol observed: > Second, the "mimble wimble" scene occurs nine pages before the > attempt > to turn Dudley into a pig. and LizVega replied: References: Message-ID: <200006152301.06157.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90607 Kneasy: > A few more thoughts on the theme that Voldemort is more than just Tom > Riddle after a make-over. On random thoughts, the 17th chapter is not titled Tom Riddle, just 'The Heir of Slytherin', which can have an entirely different meaning. Quotes are from CoS Bloomsbury paperback (1999) Tom was not only charming. He was very convincing. I believed Diary!Tom the first time I read it. His intensity in some points(ie why he changed his name to Voldemort), his cruelty, the picture he was creating. Quite a manipulator, wasn't him? The big head of Slytherin, between its feet Ginny and a tall, black-haired boy leaning against the nearest pillar. That's a picture and how Harry knows Diary!Tom in 'person'. A big part of what we know about the Chamber has been told by Diary!Tom, so in an analysis I can't trust that information. Diary!Tom should be doing his work and not letting Harry know the real problems of the Chamber, if there are. I don't believe Tom when he sais he was searching the Camera for years. I've tried to do it, but questions arise if I try to imagine how he did it. How did he know he was a parsel, if the last known was so long ago? And, supossing that he knew it and could control it at will, I'm sorry if I find ridiculous the idea of Tommie walking up and down corridors and H's empty spaces during years saying 'chamber, will you open? I summon you, open to the Heir...' Yes, he could have spent 5 years looking for information about the location of the chamber, not just wandering up and down, but that brings more questions, because that implies the location of the chamber could be found not being a parsel, at least have a good guess of where it was, so it contradicts Binn's statements about how the chamber was searched for, that, if he is so prone that he bores to give facts as exact as he can, should be somehow different, telling the chamber can be more or less located but it can't be found because you need a parseltongue to prove if that's true. "It had taken me 5 whole years to find out everything I could about the Chamber of Secrets and discover the secret entrance... as though Hagrid had the brains, or the power!"(17:230) Now what is he telling here? That brains count because trough investigation the chamber can be found? Either that or it's little Tommy running up and down corridors... but if brain counts, is he telling that there hasn't been a wizard with brains in nine centuries? He's lying. I think he was attracted to the Chamber somehow and he's trying to cover that fact up. > But all we see is a Basilisk. That's it, is it? One measly Basilisk > is the sum total of the malice of a twisted old looney? Come now, > surely he could do better than that. One basilisk quite easy to kill. With Fawkes help, of course, but you don't leave a secret weapon like that. Hermione said Wizards are not the best at logic, but they usually are at setting different protections, see the trials to get to the philisophers stone. I can't imagine old Salazar thinking, ok, I'll left the typical creature that is doomed if blinded and can be killed with my enemy's sword. My (possessed or not) heir will dominate the world with it. No, really, just a monster is not enough. > And possession is how you do it. An Heir inherits possessions ('scuse > the pun) and the first to enter gets possessed. Can't have some > do-gooder ruining Salazars little plan, can we? So there was something > in there that trapped whoever entered and took them over for Salazar's > own ends. That brings a new light to the scene in Diary!Tom when we see Tom having nothing to say. << "What do you mean?" said Dippet, with a squeak in his voice, sitting up in his chair. "Riddle, do you mean you know something about these attacks?" "No, sir," said Riddle quickly. But Harry was sure it was the same sort of 'no' that he himself had given Dumbledore. >>(15:The Very Secret Diary:182) I think it was Pippin who suggested that MWPP's big fault was the secrecy. It could also be what left Tom without more chances to choose and turned into Voldie. That secrecy play could have lasted months, with Tom losing a bit every day. "In my fith year, the Chamber was opened and the moster attacked several students, finally killing one"(15:180) Then we have Aragog. Why precisely an indicator of basilisks right there? Why a +900 years period of complete silence and then a unique parseltonge case is concurrent with Aragog? What are the chances of that? And how do we know there have not been previous parsel tongues? We are told only about Salazar and Tom, but we are also told of parseltongues in the FB entry about Runespoors. So either Tom was the second or knowledge of others has dissapeared. Are they more frequent in other world areas, maybe the parseltonges previous to Tom were found too 'good' or unqualified to serve, so why bother possessing them? >I was re-reading CoS and I was struck by the number of times that >Diary!Tom refers to Lord Voldemort in the third person, as if he were >someone else entirely. It could be a verbal tic, but I wonder. Twice >Diary!Tom proclaims the greatness of himself and of Voldy. He says that >he is the greatest wizard in the world, and of course Harry puts him >straight. Everybody remembers that passage. >But a few lines earlier he >says that Voldemort is the greatest wizard in history. Wow! That is >something else. Do you really think that Tom believes he is greater >than his hero Slytherin? Not from the way he refers to Salazar, you >wouldn't; he talks like a disciple not a superior. No, really, it would be as a war leader discrediting a national hero from centuries ago, and it doesn't get well with the lines: "[...], so that, one day, with luck, I would be able to lead another in my footsteps, and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work". (17:230) and "Speak to me, Slytherin, greatest of the Hogwarts Four" (17:234) -- we don't see the head talking, but it's curious the 'summon protocol' includes a 'speak'. There is something that the Diary says, that can be a hint if the name you are born with matters in the WW (that seems to happen in the books). "You see?" he whispered. "It was a name I was already using at Howgarts, to my most intimate friends only, of course. You think I was going to use my filthy Muggle father's name for ever?[blablabla]No, Harry, I fashioned myself a new name, a name I knew wizards everywhere would one day fear to speak, when I had become the gretest sorcerer in the world"(17:131) How well he expresses himself. But ignoring the excuse he makes, it stands that he renounced to his name. He was Tom no more, he was the Heir of Slytherin, The Dark Lord. If I were prone to possess my Heir, I would change his name too, my names have more Dark Style than 'Tom', to start, and I don't want him remembering he's human, also. Since when is 'Anakin Skywalker' a good name to terrorice and be manipulated? If a birthname is tied to something in the WW, then Tom lost that something. Enough for know. Silmariel From silmariel at telefonica.net Fri Jun 16 17:10:27 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:10:27 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200006161910.28171.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90690 > Amanda: > > I submit that Snape probably cannot perform Expecto Patronus. It's not > > that I doubt his power or will--but I doubt he has sufficiently happy > > memories. > > > > Kneasy: > I bet he's got at least one. > > He'll have danced a little jig the day James died, don't you think? > *chuckle* Slytherin won the House cup 7 years in a row :) And I've got the feeling that while he disscusses Quidditch with MacGonadall he's happy. silmariel From silmariel at telefonica.net Fri Jun 16 18:29:03 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:29:03 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can Ghost eat? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200006162029.03338.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90692 Fred asked: > The reason I ask this is, in SS/PS, chap 7 (the sorting hat), page > 123 US, it says: > "That does look good," said the ghost in the ruff sadly, watching > Harry cut up his steak. > "Can't you - ?" > I haven't eaten for nearly four hundred years" said the ghost. > > Then in CoS, chapter 8, (the deathday party), page 133, it goes on > to say: > Sir Nicholas De Mimsy-Porpington > Died 31st October, 1492 > > Which is 500 years since his death. > If the year before he had not eaten for "nearly 400 years", did he > eat during the first 100 years after his death? He was trying to do a joke by substracting a century? I see this very OOC for Nick. You know the commonly accepted answer, that it's a flint. It is difficult to explain if taken at face value, so only (very wild) speculation here. Maybe he died twice, first as human and later as vampire. He'd be the strangest ghost in history, but it explains eating after dying(if vampires die to become so, of course). Maybe not all ghosts are inmediately aware that they are dead and he is the extreme case, he needed 100 years so the period he remembers as not eating is 400 years. Maybe ghosts can 'eat' in some sense for a given period. They usually feed of blood. I'm talking of two cases I recall: a) Japanese (the Eye) and Chinese (I believe, but I don't trust the source of the information very much, it is White Wolf) b) Greek (the Golden Fleece, Robert Graves, 1944) Silmariel From silmariel at telefonica.net Sat Jun 17 17:37:05 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:37:05 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Possession In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200006171937.05833.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90764 John: > If Voldemort is possessed, he is not a bad guy. No, John. As Carol has kindly explained, there's a kind of possesion that slowly corrups the soul but to wich you can resist, if you want. Tom Riddle wanted power and found a power able to control him, but as in lotr, that power doesn't instantly corrupt you, and it counts who the victim is. If anything, Tom chose to open the Chamber, and if we are to believe him, he maintained that desition during 5 years. A small desition, maybe? Cedric chose to share the cup with Harry and that was the last thing he decided. Now a couple of things: We have an example of independent mind embebbed with some powers in an object during 1000 years, wich was also present at the Chamber showdown: the Sorting Hat. How could Tom forget about the healing powers of a Fenix? Was he trying to get Harry survive or what? He had studied(*) it about 2 years ago, and he was supossedly top class. How could he forget about a creature that is famous for bringing terror to impure hearts? Didn't he took 'impure' as personal? (*) Not necessary, but FB is a school book since 1927, and 'Of course... phonix tears... I forgot' suggests he had studied it. It's in the same book where the basilisk is described, to start. silmariel From silmariel at telefonica.net Sat Jun 17 23:21:47 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:21:47 +0200 Subject: Dark SHIPS [HPforGrownups] ( was Re: Possession) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200006180121.48145.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90777 Kneasy: >Let me briefly summarise my thinking, mostly as an escape from the posts >of the fevered bunch who have succumbed to the SHIPping-itis outbreak. >Fortunately, some of us have been innoculated against romance, or maybe >it's a function of age. Then: > Sawsan, who chooses to ignore Kneasy's comment on SHIPpingitis and > snide remarks about Harry and DD. *Silmariel, who is going trough TBAY deprivation, tries to recompose herself* Well I won't ignore it, because I'm not inoculated against romance and definitely in the age for it, I'm just inmune to adolescent pairing in general, but show me couples with dark or adult material and you'll have my eye, if they make any sense in the plot. Say Snape, Lucius, Tom/McG, Lupin... Silmariel, remembering where FEATHERBOAs come from, and smiling. From silmariel at telefonica.net Tue Jun 20 20:39:43 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:39:43 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A Question about Werewolves/Lupin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200006202239.43880.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 90995 > Ali responds: > > I was also really interested in the PoA prop. But, at this stage, I > would have to argue that the prop is not "canon". We have no means > of knowing whether JKR "okayed" it before it was used as a prop. I > thought that there was some evidence that the material had in fact > been used in a previous film. Thus, it could perhaps have been > reused by people not as LOONy as ourselves. FB, in the section about werewolves, states clearly that the only way to become a werewolf is being bitten by one. Not providing exact quotes because I translate on the fly. Now in the link provided says: http://hp4unews.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_hp4unews_archive.html#10762697 [header `WEREWOLVES` and page number 395] "There are several ways to become a werewolf, they include being given the power of shape shifting through sorcery, being cursed by someone who you have wronged in some way - called Lycacomia curse - being bitten by a werewolf and being born to a werewolf. In case the blood becames tained or cursed." Which is a direct contradiction. "In real werewolves a physical change to wolf (at will), or can be forced by certain cycles of the moon and certain sounds (such as howling)." FB: "Once a month, with the full moon, the victim transforms into a killer beast." At will? "...his fight against lycantropy" "Trough primarily a true wolf while in wolf form, There is some proof that the werewolf retains enough knowledge to assist his killing, recognitions of victims, evation of traps, have all been seen on werewolf cases." This may be right. FB: The werewolf prefers humans as prey. "The tainted, sub human blood greatly alter the subjects own mind and personality, even physical appearence, therefore, look for symptoms in your human suspects that include increasing violence, increasing agression, unprovoked rages, insomnia, restlessness, and other bizarre behavior" Excuse me. Where did this came from? FB: When it is not full moon, the werewolf is not dangerous, as any other people. Silmariel From silmariel at telefonica.net Fri Jun 23 18:54:53 2000 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (Carolina) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:54:53 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: PoA Plot does not work. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200006232054.53772.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 91179 Naama: > JKR is not doing time lines here. She is doing classical timetravel - > when you travel back in time, you travel to the very same time (or, > the same time line) that happened already. It's weird talking about > time as though it were a place, but it's the best way for me to think > about it: when Harry returned to the past, he returned to the very > same past he had occupied before. Which means, that there have ALWAYS > been two Harrys and two Hermiones at that point in time. She's only using a timeline, but I don't agree that implies by default that two Harry's had ALWAYS been there. Determinism is not a necessity for PoA to be explained. As a reference, 'The End of Eternity' by Asimov plays with a unique timeline being rewrited multiple times. silmariel