Babbling newbie (death of L&J, Rule-breaking, Ron, Peeves...)

[milz]

No: HPFGUIDX 5578

Hi Kimberly!

Looks like I'll have to 'fess up about the Death Pool thing *hangs 
head in shame*. Never meant it to depress anyone, but it was based on 
a speculation that Rowling might decide to say good-bye to other 
characters in the remaining books.

I'm not a subscriber to the "Voldemort didn't go alone to Godric's 
Hollow" theory. I think the act of Lily begging to spare Harry and 
offering herself in his place is what conferred the immunity. I agree 
with you that it seems like Voldemort had no initial intention of 
killing Lily. I brought up a theory a couple of months ago that Lily 
might have been a Death Eater and that she knew Voldemort was going to 
kill James, but was double crossed when he(Voldy) went after Harry, 
thereby causing her to beg for Harry's life. But it's a bit disturbing 
to think the Lily could be a Death Eater.

Good point about the affects of the Mirror and the veelas on Ron. But 
if I recall correctly, the veelas make men want to show off: during 
the Dark Mark incident at the World Cup, some wizards were influenced 
by the veela and were telling her things to elevate themselves. Ron's 
Mirror desire was to gain some kind of recognition, which probably 
made him more veela vulnerable.

The Bloody Baron is somewhat of a mystery. Although he's covered in 
blood, no one knows how he died. But his ghastly appearance is 
intimidating to Peeves and the other ghosts. Perhaps the Baron died in 
a very foolish accidental way, foolish enough that he's quite happy 
with everyone thinking it wasn't.

:-) Milz
  
--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, "Kimberly " <moongirlk at y...> wrote:
> Hi all~
> I'm new to the group, and only ever intended to lurk and enjoy all 
> your great observations and analysis.
> 
> I have enjoyed all of that immensely, except when you were all 
making 
> me cry discussing who was going to die, but I find that all of this 
HP 
> stimulation has made my fingers itchy to respond.
> 
> There were a few things that I wanted to touch on, so let me see if 
I 
> can stay coherent:
> 
> -Did someone find a reason to think that Voldemort didn't kill 
James, 
> that someone else did?  Because I just reread SS/PS and am pretty 
sure 
> that He tells Harry during their confrontation that he did kill 
James 
> himself (and that he said he killed him before Lily).  Was wondering 
> about that.
>   -Also along those same lines I wanted to toss out my theory for 
the 
> person who wondered why James' death didn't protect Lily the way 
> Lily's death protected Harry.  I think maybe it's because James 
didn't 
> die solely to protect them.  I don't know why V wanted to kill 
James, 
> exactly, but I had inferred that it was because James had set 
himself 
> against V and his cause in some substantial way.  In this light, 
James 
> was dying as much for a cause (the 'resistance' for lack of a better 
> term) as to protect his family.  He may, in fact, have believed that 
> Voldemort would not hurt his family, unless he knew what we don't, 
> which is why originally V wanted Harry dead.  This would be 
supported 
> also by V's words to Harry in their first confrontation, when he 
tells 
> him that his mother need not have died.
> Just a thought.
> 
> -I also had a thought about the glorification of rulebreaking 
thread.  
> I don't think she's encouraging kids/people to break the rules.  I 
> think it's an indictment of unreasonable/unnecessary reliance on 
> rules.  Society uses rules to keep order.  Unfortunately, it often 
> degenerates to the point that rules are relied upon for the 
> functioning of society (ie beaurocracy).  In this vein, rules that 
> were designed to go along with the development of moral/ethical 
> decision-making often become the replacements for these things, and 
> (again like with beaurocratic rules designed to make things better 
> that inevitably make things worse) do more harm than good.
> The supreme example of what I think she intended would be in the 
> Bible.  Jesus was constantly getting into trouble with the Pharisees 
> for 'breaking rules' by healing people on the sabbath, interacting 
> with 'unclean' people, and 'forgiving' sins, which was considered 
> blasphemy.  The writers of the Bible were not glorifying 
> rule-breaking, they were pointing out the inherent problems with 
> applying rules without using compassion and discernment as 
guidelines.
> (note - not intended to make HP/Bible paralells, just a useful 
> example)
> 
> -On a lighter note, let me just say Yay Gwen! to the other newbie 
who  
> had such an eloquent defense of Ron.  My inner child is in love with 
> Ron (I had to wrestle her to the ground to keep her from picking a 
> fight with the anti-Ron posters earlier on), and while I wouldn't be 
> surprised if Ron were tempted by the 'dark side', I know in my heart 
> that when push comes to shove Ron will, as he has done in the past, 
> risk his life for his friends, and for the greater good. 
> This said, I do have a question - one person mentioned that Ron was 
> susceptible to the Imperius Curse.  I also recall that he was more 
> influenced by the veela than Harry.  But at the same time he was not 
> as susceptible to the mirror of Erised as Harry.   What do you think 
> about that?  Seems interesting, but I don't know what it implies.
> 
> -One last question - this is in regards to the possibility that 
> someone mentioned that Peeves is somehow a part of Dumbledore's 
> personality.  I find that thought intriguing.  How would you (or 
would 
> you at all) explain the connection between Peeves and the Bloody 
> Baron?
> 
> Sorry for my long ramblings.  I promise to try to be less verbose 
from 
> now on.
> Thanks for your time,
> kimberly (newbie)