From davidjfein at hotmail.com Thu Nov 1 00:03:41 2001 From: davidjfein at hotmail.com (davidjfein at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 00:03:41 -0000 Subject: Lagging in Transfiguration? In-Reply-To: <9rq1c4+86rk@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rq3gt+vsrn@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28563 Could someone explain why you can only be an anamagi for one type of animal (which is also your patronus), but you can tranfigure yourself into anything? What am I missing? Why doesn't transfiguration trump the limits of being an animagi? From Calypso8604 at aol.com Thu Nov 1 00:16:18 2001 From: Calypso8604 at aol.com (Calypso8604 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:16:18 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lagging in Transfiguration? Message-ID: <102.b31587d.2911ee52@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28564 In a message dated 10/31/01 6:28:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, cynthiaanncoe at home.com writes: > Are the students far behind in Transfiguration, and if so, why? > I don't believe they are, it just seems as if the books never go too deeply into what exactly they learn and what they can do. We don't really know how complex of a charm they are able to perform or how complex of a potion they are able to brew either. ===== Calypso "Aw, c'mon James, think of the possibilities of having a giant hamster!.." Sirius Black, The Marauder Chronicles [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From szabinasnape at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 00:34:18 2001 From: szabinasnape at yahoo.com (Szabina Snape) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:34:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lagging in Transfiguration? In-Reply-To: <9rq3gt+vsrn@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <20011101003418.21111.qmail@web20909.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28565 --- davidjfein at hotmail.com wrote: > Could someone explain why you can only be an anamagi > for one type of > animal (which is also your patronus), but you can > tranfigure yourself > into anything? What am I missing? Why doesn't > transfiguration trump > the limits of being an animagi? Szabina responds: I don't have an answer for you (kinda wondered myself why animagi are so rare when it is obviously common to transfigure living objects). However, I'm wondering about your statement that the animal you are an anamagi for is also your patronus. If I understand the concept of a patronus correctly, it is a protective image/spell. In cannon, Harry is not an animagi. His patronus is a stag. The stag represents his father (who would naturally be protective of him and was a stag animagus). In canon it is rare to be an animagi. So most wizards/witches could not have their patronus be their animagus form. Does it say in one of the books that the patronus of animagi is always the form of the animal they turn into? I don't remember that from the books. Szabina ===== >^..^< Dogs have owners. Cats have servants >^..^< >^..^< The ancient Egyptians worshipped cats. Cats have never forgetten this. >^..^< __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com From sherratt at mediaone.net Thu Nov 1 00:40:25 2001 From: sherratt at mediaone.net (Wanda Sherratt) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 00:40:25 -0000 Subject: How powerful is/ will Harry as wizard? In-Reply-To: <9rq0bv+2del@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rq5lp+docv@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28566 This is one reason I like Harry - he's not easily characterized. He's not the best at everything, he isn't even universally beloved, as we see him get the cold shoulder from his fellow Gryffindors over losing them so many points. He's a good flier, but he has his weak points, but at moments of crisis he can reach down deep and demonstrate amazing power. I think Snape and Riddle at different times say that he's rather an ordinary wizard, but I'm sure we're going to find out that that's not true. Speaking of youthful ability, how powerful must Tom Riddle have been when he was a student? He killed his father and grandparents the summer before his last year at Hogwarts! And he used the Avada Kedavra, didn't he? Now, when (fake)Moody was teaching that in the DADA class, he said it needed a whole lot of magic to carry out. In fact, the whole class could point their wands at him and say the words and nothing would happen, so Riddle must have been a seriously powerful wizard at a very young age. Wanda --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Cindy C." wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Rafe" wrote: > > > > Aside from this there several points in the text that suggest he's > > reasonable powerful: > > > > 1) Learning to Patronus (many grown wizards can't do it) > > 2) Resisting Imperious > > 3) Cruciatas (sp?) does effect him, but as much as others? (This is > > MoldyVoldy doing the casting remember). > > 4) A rather impressive long disatnce summoning chalm. > > 5) Banishing chalm (to his urprise his cushions landed on top of > > Hermione's) > > 6) Voldemort and Priori Incatem - he forced Voldemort' wand to give > > up its spell - seems like a power contest almost. > > > > Add: > > 7) Harry's ability to fly well. > 8) Harry's ability to handle Buckbeak. > > > We can compare this list of Harry's magical strengths with a list of > magical areas for potential improvement (aka weaknesses): > > 1. Has trouble with his Confusing Concoction. > 2. Doesn't "See" very well in Trelawney's class (although he was on > the money in his exam in which he saw Buckbeak flying away). > 3. Doesn't seem to do as well as Hermione in transfiguration (only > Hermione could change her tea kettle into a turtle). > 4. His shield charm could use some work. > > Then there are areas where we don't have much information, like > Herbology. > > > >Whats this suggest > > to me is there is a certain amount of latent power. > > Agreed! So far, Harry seems ahead of the game. > > Cindy From animalsbaby_1999 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 00:43:12 2001 From: animalsbaby_1999 at yahoo.com (laura hickman) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:43:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Will Harry go to live with Sirius? In-Reply-To: <9rjnla+v7ts@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <20011101004312.81290.qmail@web20010.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28567 To your idea about if Harry and Sirius ever living together, let alone Sirius ever being cleared... my husband (almost as crazy about HP as me) came to me with a an idea.... HIS IDEA NOT MINE: that Dumbledore knows he won't live forever, either by old age (probably not) or other means, he seems to be getting Sirius ready to take over. Proud member of S.I.N.I.S.T.E.R. Gotta pray for the best for both Harry and Sirius!!!!! I still believe Sirius is wonderful and just needs time to adjust to live outside of Axkaban... once again sorry so late... I've been very busy!!! Laura > Now back to my original point. As much as I'd like > Harry to go live > with Sirius, I don't think it will happen. it's too > tidy and > too 'happily ever after' for this series. To be > truthful I don't even > think Sirius will be cleared, Fudge is far too > narrow minded. It's a > dream for Harry. If you let it happen then what will > he have to keep > him going? If Harry ever is truly happy (during > these seven books) if > everything in his little world is perfect then he'll > lose the will to > keep fighting. And then he won't be Harry anymore. > > I'd love some replies to this, > Sofie xxx > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com From animalsbaby_1999 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 00:43:00 2001 From: animalsbaby_1999 at yahoo.com (laura hickman) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:43:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Will Harry go to live with Sirius? In-Reply-To: <9rjnla+v7ts@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <20011101004301.25671.qmail@web20006.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28568 To your idea about if Harry and Sirius ever living together, let alone Sirius ever being cleared... my husband (almost as crazy about HP as me) came to me with a an idea.... HIS IDEA NOT MINE: that Dumbledore knows he won't live forever, either by old age (probably not) or other means, he seems to be getting Sirius ready to take over. Proud member of S.I.N.I.S.T.E.R. Gotta pray for the best for both Harry and Sirius!!!!! I still believe Sirius is wonderful and just needs time to adjust to live outside of Axkaban... once again sorry so late... I've been very busy!!! Laura > Now back to my original point. As much as I'd like > Harry to go live > with Sirius, I don't think it will happen. it's too > tidy and > too 'happily ever after' for this series. To be > truthful I don't even > think Sirius will be cleared, Fudge is far too > narrow minded. It's a > dream for Harry. If you let it happen then what will > he have to keep > him going? If Harry ever is truly happy (during > these seven books) if > everything in his little world is perfect then he'll > lose the will to > keep fighting. And then he won't be Harry anymore. > > I'd love some replies to this, > Sofie xxx > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com From neilward at dircon.co.uk Thu Nov 1 02:09:49 2001 From: neilward at dircon.co.uk (Neil Ward) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 02:09:49 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: All movie-related posts to new list from 1st November Message-ID: <008101c1627a$4a2119e0$863470c2@c5s910j> No: HPFGUIDX 28569 cc: Announcements/OT Chatter Hi everyone, Yeah, I'm still doing the rounds in this shiny uniform. Look: I've even put my hair in a beehive, all special, like... ****ALL MOVIE DISCUSSIONS GO TO OUR NEW MOVIE LIST All Saint's Day (that's the 1st November) is the official launch date for our new offshoot list for discussion of the Harry Potter movie. Depending on your time zone, we're there or almost there, so please move ALL your movie messages to:- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie ...or get there via the floo network from this lovely log-cabin fireplace that John set up: www.hpfgu.org.uk/movie ****A FEW POINTS TO CONSIDER 1. Tabouli was right to point out that the release dates for the first film are staggered, with some countries not launching until well into 2002, incidentally. That was another factor that had to be considered in deciding where to discuss it. It seemed easier to avoid an entire list than to worry about whether someone would inadvertently spoil in a post to the main list. 2. You may wish to join HPFGU-Movie ahead of time and set yourself to "Only special announcements" (same as webview/"no emails" but you get important ADMIN messages as e-mails) until you have had a chance to see the film; or to Digests, which you can attempt to leave unopened in your in- box. If you join and set yourself to receive individual emails, please bear in mind that every message posted there will have the potential to spoil. 3. We're asking posters to the new movie list to continue using spoilers on anything that might spoil the film for others, *up to and including the day of 16th November*. After 16th November, we'll assume that anyone taking part in discussions on that list is discussing a film they have already seen and that spoiler space is not, therefore, necessary. 4. The ADMIN files that apply to this list also apply on the movie list. 5. If you post movie-related stuff to OT Chatter or Announcements after 16th November, please use spoiler space when appropriate. "HPFGU-Movie is a non-smoking list. Please extinguish all smoking materials. Yes sir, that does include your beard!" Thanks! Neil _____________________ Flying Ford Anglia Mechanimagus Moderator Question? MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com From ebonyink at hotmail.com Thu Nov 1 03:17:11 2001 From: ebonyink at hotmail.com (Ebony) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 03:17:11 -0000 Subject: Whom would you like to date, and why? In-Reply-To: <3BE04044.9070505@swbell.net> Message-ID: <9rqern+e73p@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28570 As of GoF (and actually, in descending order) If I were 14: Harry, but then again, perhaps not at that age. He's wonderful, but at 14 is really not the best date in the world. Poor Parvati! If I were 17: Fred! He's funny and he likes to dance... so many guys at that age think they're too cool to get on the dance floor. I like George, but "Fredder is better"! If I were 30: Sirius (go *away*, Carole!)... I am silly, but the fact that Lupin's a teacher's a turnoff. I am a teacher myself and while I respect Lupin's skills in the classroom, I can't seem him romantically. If I were having a female midlife crisis: Crouch-as-Moody. What, you didn't think all that "Constant Vigilance" shouting was sexy? If I were a senior citizen: Dumbledore. Be nice to go for dinner and dancing... he and I would probably enjoy the same music, actually. If I were into other women: Cho, because she seems really nice and fun and pretty. I want to join Tabouli's C.I.N.E.M.A. because I think she gets a really bad rap. And if I were 2: That little toddler at the Quidditch World Cup who laughed at his parent, saying "You bust slug". Tyke has a sense of humor, doesn't he? But alas, I'm 24... and our age bracket is not all that well represented in canon. --Ebony AKA AngieJ (who consoles herself with the fact that, according to NHN Deathday Dating, she's only two months older than Angelina Johnson is in canon and therefore could have been a seventh year in GoF) From nlpnt at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 04:04:41 2001 From: nlpnt at yahoo.com (nlpnt at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 04:04:41 -0000 Subject: Whom would you like to date, and why? In-Reply-To: <9rqern+e73p@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rqhkp+d4e3@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28571 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ebony" wrote: > > But alas, I'm 24... and our age bracket is not all that well > represented in canon. > > --Ebony AKA AngieJ (who consoles herself with the fact that, > according to NHN Deathday Dating, she's only two months older than > Angelina Johnson is in canon and therefore could have been a seventh > year in GoF) I'm 27, and graduated from HS in 1992- whether you go by Deathday dating or copyright-date dating, it's a Professor Binns fact that I'm too old to have been at Hogwarts in GoF. -Noel,(whose prejudice against daethday dating is melting in the face of knowledge that, going by it, Cho's of legal age in 2001) From lydaclunas at xfilesfan.com Thu Nov 1 04:26:37 2001 From: lydaclunas at xfilesfan.com (Lyda Clunas) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 04:26:37 -0000 Subject: Who would you like to date and why?? In-Reply-To: <20011031230523.32345.qmail@web20803.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9rqitt+7g2b@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28572 NO ONE from the Harry Potter books would be my kind of date, not really. Oh, sure, Remus is a nice, mild-mannered academic type, but you've got to take into account the werewolf issues. Not cool. Fred and George are certainly good, fun, likeable sorts, but they aren't serious enough, IMO. Harry is a courageous, loyal, and determined young man, but he's just not my type. And Sirius is a protective, caring, and dedicated person, but the prison time isn't too appealing, and I think he may lean into being overprotective. Of course, there's Draco, who is ambitious, cunning, and has a quick wit (it seems), but he's also completely horrible, if you ask me. Percy is smart, goal-oriented, and a fairly nice person, but very uptight. Bill seems like a rebel with a good heart, and Charlie appears to be the friendly outdoors type, but both of them are rather underdeveloped. Ron is funny, dependable, and good-natured, but altogether too immature. Cedric was good looking, hard working, and genial, but really didn't have much of a personality to speak of. Dumbledore is wise, trusting, and pleasantly quirky, but the 132-year age difference is a drawback. And Snape, who is highly intelligent, intrinsically honorable, and devoted, still has the reformed criminal self-loathing issues. Now, if JKR would introduce a character that was a nice combination of Snape, Fred/George, and Lupin, *then* there would be a clear-cut choice... :) Lyda From bookraptor11 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 04:45:11 2001 From: bookraptor11 at yahoo.com (bookraptor11 at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 04:45:11 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: TIME Magazine Nov 5. 2001 Issue In-Reply-To: <9rpicb+p7ak@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rqk0n+p88q@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28573 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Milz" wrote: > > Spoiler Warning. > > > > > > > > 1. No Peeves. The last I heard, and this was a while ago and I don't remember the source, Peeves was going to be added as a special effect and he'd be voiced by Rik Mayell(sp?) of Young Ones, Drop Dead Fred, and a few appearances on Blackadder. Maybe they just meant that no person would be portraying him bodily on screen, like John Cleese and the other ghosts. Hopefully, Donna From morsethanatos at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 04:45:57 2001 From: morsethanatos at yahoo.com (morsethanatos at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 04:45:57 -0000 Subject: The torn bag problem. Message-ID: <9rqk25+ndfg@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28574 Hi, I was re-reading POA(lost count of how many times a while ago) and as I was going through the part where Crookshanks slashes Ron's bag to get at Scabbers, an idea hit me. Bags are getting torn quite often in the books. Harry get's his torn by the dwarf, Hermione's bag splits from all the books, Ron's is ripped apart, Harry splits Diggory's bag, and I think there are some more. First of all how do they replace/fix these things? But more importantly is this just a technique that JKR seems to like or could there me something more to this? Morsethanatos From cleffa at start.com.au Thu Nov 1 04:35:17 2001 From: cleffa at start.com.au (Kanna Ophelia) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 14:05:17 +0930 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Three favourite and three least favourite characters. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 28575 Well, here's my everchanging list... 1. Hagrid. ::cuddles my beloved Hagrid doll:: Because I tend to be a bit silly over my pets myself... ::g:: Because he's kind - to Harry, and especially to Hermione when she was quarreling with the others, that was so sweet. Becuase he's sentimental, and I adore that in a man. And because you've just got to love a man who is enough himself to carry a pink umbrella. 2. Hermione - becuase I was the smart girl with few social skills, although I trended to be quiet rather than bossy. And I love her idealism. Finally, I love that she rejected the whole Cinderella thing - being all femme and pretty is nice for a change, but not what her life is about. 3. Neville. The darling... All that awful stuff for a child to deal with, his past, his grandmother, Snape and the other kids, and he still keeps bumbling along like a little sweetheart. Nearly made the list: Lupin, Percy and Ginny. least Favourites: 1. Dumbledore. I can't even say why, he just gets on my nerves. 2. Both Dursley snrs. Among other things, Dudley is as much a vitim of child abuse, in a different way, as Harry. Cruelty to children, whether it's the Roald Dahlish cruelty towards Harry or the more ill-in-the-head abuse by overindulgence of Dudley, is just unforgivable. 3. Draco. Cowardly - thinking of his muscles - spiteful, tedious, racist and, well, his pleasure in Cedric's death was just too much. He's the equivalent of a rich kid who gets bitter over imagined slights and joins the National Front, if you ask me - a Nazi in the making. Nearly made the list: Fudge, Lucius. XXX Kanna-Ophelia cleffa at start.com.au www.geocities.com/diversiontactics/ ffnet: KannaOphelia __________________________________________________________________ Get your free Australian email account at http://www.start.com.au From tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com Thu Nov 1 05:09:47 2001 From: tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com (tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 05:09:47 -0000 Subject: Lagging in Transfiguration? In-Reply-To: <9rq3gt+vsrn@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rqler+kctn@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28576 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., davidjfein at h... wrote: > Could someone explain why you can only be an anamagi for one type of > animal (which is also your patronus), but you can tranfigure yourself > into anything? What am I missing? Why doesn't transfiguration trump > the limits of being an animagi? Sorry, I can't quote page numbers as I don't want to sneak into my my son's room and risk waking him after an exhausting hallowe'en, so memory will have to do. The difference between transformation and animagi is that an animagi retains human conciousness* while a transformed human (a la Malfoy the ferret) does not. So they are quite different spells, actually.It is implied that becoming an animagus is so difficult and complicated is either beyond the magical gifts of most wizards, or at least beyond their motivation. The two spells do share the common characteristic that any similarities which exist prior to the change seem to help. Therefore the students begin by tranforming objects which are similar (match to needle), and animagi turn into animals with which they have some sort of symbolic character link (PP to the "rat" he is, Sirius to the "loyal" dog). This is not canon, but gut response, but I think that a patronus and an animagus animal are not connected. I doubt that Peter would summon a rat patronus, or that such a patronus would be effective. Assuming that Rita Skeeter could summon any positive thoughts at all, would a beetle in anyway represent those thoughts? * side note - What happens when someone half transforms through transfiguration? (a la Krum with the shark's head) Do they retain semi-conciousness? Are they influenced by their animals nature? Is this why Krum bit wildly at Hermione's ropes, without considering the consequences? Cheers, -Cornflower O'Shea ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* "Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" - Albus Dumbledore ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* From tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com Thu Nov 1 05:21:43 2001 From: tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com (tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 05:21:43 -0000 Subject: Info, Lockhart's exploits, wizard orphans In-Reply-To: <005301c16161$27308de0$a6846fcb@price> Message-ID: <9rqm57+dsbp@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28577 What of Tom, anyway? Didn't his witch mother have relatives to take care of him? (*His* entire family obviously couldn't have been wiped out by Voldemort!) > Ah, but he is the LAST remaining decendent of Salazar Slythrin, which would seem to imply no relatives at all... > Cheers, -Cornflower O'Shea ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* "Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" - Albus Dumbledore ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* From tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com Thu Nov 1 05:32:04 2001 From: tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com (tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 05:32:04 -0000 Subject: How powerful is/ will Harry as wizard? In-Reply-To: <9rpqu8+2nvv@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rqmok+lij1@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28578 > Aside from this there several points in the text that suggest he's > reasonable powerful: > > 1) Learning to Patronus (many grown wizards can't do it) > 2) Resisting Imperious > 3) Cruciatas (sp?) does effect him, but as much as others? (This is > MoldyVoldy doing the casting remember). > 4) A rather impressive long disatnce summoning chalm. > 5) Banishing chalm (to his urprise his cushions landed on top of > Hermione's) > 6) Voldemort and Priori Incatem - he forced Voldemort' wand to give > up its spell - seems like a power contest almost. > Rafe We should also add being a parselmouth. Dumbledore says of this, when Harry questions his gift/curse, that Harry has the gift BECAUSE Voldemort has it. What other strengths of Harry's are connected to V. and will they disappear when V. is defeated? Will the defeat of V. render Harry a muggle (the penultimate sacrifice)? Cheers, -Cornflower O'Shea ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* "Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" - Albus Dumbledore ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* From jane_1w at yahoo.co.uk Thu Nov 1 08:38:29 2001 From: jane_1w at yahoo.co.uk (Janie) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 08:38:29 -0000 Subject: Whom would you like to date, and why? In-Reply-To: <9rqern+e73p@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rr1m5+roe8@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28579 Well, to answer the question, i'd have to say either Fred or George! (they make me laugh, i like men who can make me laugh!). I just hope that they still feature in the books as much once they leave hogwarts! janie xx From sofie_elisabeth at yahoo.co.uk Thu Nov 1 09:51:40 2001 From: sofie_elisabeth at yahoo.co.uk (Sofie ) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 09:51:40 -0000 Subject: How powerful is/ will Harry as wizard? In-Reply-To: <9rqmok+lij1@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rr5vc+6koj@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28580 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., tenpinkpiggies at h... wrote: > Will the defeat of V. render Harry a muggle (the penultimate > sacrifice)? I don't think harry will become a muggle when Voldemort is defeated because he was a wizard child anyway. Waht I do think is thta he might not be all that special once V. is gone. Not at Neville standard or anything but I still maintain he's had some kind of memory charm placed on him so he'll forget about what happened to his parents. But maybe Harry will just become a wizard with average ability like Ron. Sofie From shanerichmond at hotmail.com Thu Nov 1 10:07:45 2001 From: shanerichmond at hotmail.com (shanerichmond at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 10:07:45 -0000 Subject: Who killed James & Lily? Message-ID: <9rr6th+qrf0@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28581 Hi all, I was reading the Lexicon at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/timeline_potters.html and was surprised by the contention that someone other than Voldemort killed James and Lily Potter. It argues that, since the spell that rebounded from Harry to Voldemort is not seen during Priori Incantatem, then it must have come before the spells attacking Lily and James and therefore Voldemort (who was, by then, incapacitated, did not kill them). This seems to ignore a lot of evidence: Voldemort: "Better save your own life and join me... Or you'll meet the same end as your parents... They died begging me for mercy." PS Ch.17 You might of course argue that, though they were begging Voldemort for mercy, they were in fact killed by someone else. However: Voldemort: "Yes, boy, your parents were brave... I killed your father first but he put up a courageous fight... but your mother needn't have died... she was trying to protect you..." ibid. So is Voldemort lying when he says he killed James? Or perhaps he was mistaken, and killed someone disguised as James? And why would Lily have been trying to protect Harry if the spell had already backfired on Voldemort? Surely it would have been clear to her that she HAD protected him? And then: Harry: "No one knows why you lost your powers when you attacked me... I don't know myself. But I know why you couldn't kill me. Because my mother died to save me." CoS Ch.17 Now if Voldemort couldn't kill Harry because his mother died to save him, then this would suggest that Lily died BEFORE Harry was attacked, wouldn't it? And it would also serve to negate the theory that Voldemort killed imposters posing as Harry's parents, since only a dying mother could have created such powerful protection over Harry. That last excerpt seems to prove that Lily died before Harry was attacked, and Voldemort, quoted above, says that he killed her - something that Harry also hears in PoA: "Not Harry! Not Harry! Please, I'll do anything-" "Stand aside girl-" PoA Ch.12 Further evidence: Voldemort: "His mother died in an attempt to save him - and unwittingly provided him with a protection I admit I had not foreseen [...] His mother left upon him the traces of her sacrifice [...] My curse was deflected by the woman's sacrifice." GoF Ch.33 Which again suggests that Lily died before Harry was attacked. It seems that the Lexicon takes one fact, that the attack on Harry is not represented by the spells seen in Priori Incantatem, and uses it to draw a wild conclusion. In doing so, it ignores a central thread of canon evidence. I have two possible explanations: 1. We already know of an error within Priori Incantatem, perhaps there is another, which led to the omission of the spell which backfired from Harry to Voldermort. 2. Perhaps only spells which can be represented in some way (ie. by the body of the person who died, their screams of pain, or their missing hand) were visible from the wand. Harry did not die, or lose a limb and, since he was a baby and unaware of his circumstances he may not even have screamed. Perhaps the spell did come out of the wand but we simply didn't see it? Either way, who is prepared to join with me in laying this preposterous Lexicon theory to bed? From shanerichmond at hotmail.com Thu Nov 1 10:12:01 2001 From: shanerichmond at hotmail.com (shanerichmond at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 10:12:01 -0000 Subject: Who killed James & Lily? In-Reply-To: <9rr6th+qrf0@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rr75h+5dsq@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28582 A slight typo in my first post. The first para should read: I was reading the Lexicon at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/timeline_potters.html and was surprised by the contention that someone other than Voldemort killed James and Lily Potter. It argues that, since the spell that rebounded from Harry to Voldemort is not seen during Priori Incantatem, then it must have come before the spells attacking Lily and James and therefore Voldemort who was, by then, incapacitated, did not kill them. Sorry! From Calypso8604 at aol.com Thu Nov 1 10:14:16 2001 From: Calypso8604 at aol.com (Calypso8604 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 05:14:16 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who killed James & Lily? Message-ID: <16a.33937a6.29127a78@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28583 I believe the wand order thing just had a couple mistakes on JKR's part. People just nitpick on details too much. They already had to change the chapter once because people flipped out about James coming out first. Or maybe Priori Incantatem only shows spells that worked. Seeing as how ir *didn't* kill Harry, his ghost/shadow couldn't come out, now could it? ~ Calypso [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From oppen at cnsinternet.com Thu Nov 1 10:36:32 2001 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 04:36:32 -0600 Subject: Who would I date? Who would I befriend? Message-ID: <018a01c162c1$159b6440$dbc71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 28584 Welll...being a straight male and happy that way, my options are limited. My age (40) also doesn't make things easy, since quite a few of the female characters would be majorly off-limits due to age one way or another. If I were the right age...I'd definitely go for Hermione in a big way. Watch out, Ron! Hermie and I have a lot in common, being both bookish as all-get-out, although I was never as idealistic as she was (childhoods from hell, albeit not as bad as Harry's, tend to do that) and I'm frankly rather lazy about studying. Never really _needed_ to study to get acceptable grades, so why worry? Failing that, Cho Chang would be high on my target-list, were I of her age. She's Asian by ancestry (a big plus for me, I adore East Asian women; my current GF's Chinese-American) smart (another plus) and nice (she'd have had to be a total b*tch to dump Cedric just because Harry asked her to the Yule Ball IMNSHO---there are words for this sort of behavior, and none of them are complimentary). My guess is that she and I would get on like a house on fire. ("THAT was a stupid mistake---I showed her my home, she took one look at my bookshelves, and now she won't leave!") At my real age, I'm about limited to Madam Rosmerta down at the Three Broomsticks. As for who I'd befriend, were I a student at the same time as the Trio: I'd probably get along splendidly with Hermie. Ron would sometimes get on my nerves, and I don't know how Harry and I would take to each other. I'd probably end up in Ravenclaw by default (too lazy for Hufflepuff, not ambitious, so Slytherin's right out, and I don't think I'm particularly brave, so no Gryffindor am I) and of the Trio, Hermione's the most Ravenclawish. I wonder if she doesn't have a bunch of friends there that we just don't see. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Nov 1 10:40:29 2001 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 10:40:29 -0000 Subject: Bill the rebel? (was dating) In-Reply-To: <9rqitt+7g2b@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rr8qt+7f66@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28585 Lyda wrote: > Bill seems like a rebel with a good heart, and Charlie > appears to be the friendly outdoors type, but both of them are rather underdeveloped. and somebody else also described Bill as a rebel. Surely not: He works for a *bank*. He knows what clothes he likes to wear, and explicitly states his employer doesn't mind. He stands his ground with his mother over his personal appearance, but in his late twenties that's hardly Leon Trotsky. He turns up to major family functions and even goes on family holidays. In the final crisis, he and Molly are as one in their response to Dumbledore. Of course, Molly turns out to be less in agreement with the MOM than we might have thought. David, who agrees with Jen about the shortage of decent female talent in HP. Well, OK, I'd love to have Hermione as a friend but she's not my type. From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 11:48:46 2001 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 11:48:46 -0000 Subject: Who killed James & Lily? In-Reply-To: <9rr6th+qrf0@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rrcqu+22n8@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28586 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., shanerichmond at h... wrote: > Hi all, > > I was reading the Lexicon at > http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/timeline_potters.html and was > surprised by the contention that someone other than Voldemort killed > James and Lily Potter. Oh for pete's sake...read the whole page. Particularly that introductory paragraph: NOTE: According to JKR (Diane Rehm show, 10/20/99), "Voldemort killed James and Lily, then tried to kill Harry." This is clearly what she intends. It is not, however, what it actually says in the books. This page discusses what the actual text states and what that would mean. Clearly, JKR doesn't intend this to be the way the story goes. But this IS the way it's written. Also, yes, I am well aware of the fact that JKR has confirmed many months ago in an email that "Lily came out first." I, like many fans, don't like the messy way this mistake was "fixed," but that mystery is clearly solved. Many questions remain, however... There IS no "theory" to lay to rest. Steve From shanerichmond at hotmail.com Thu Nov 1 12:24:25 2001 From: shanerichmond at hotmail.com (shanerichmond at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 12:24:25 -0000 Subject: Who killed James & Lily? In-Reply-To: <9rrcqu+22n8@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rretp+9e60@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28587 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., hp_lexicon at y... wrote: > Oh for pete's sake...read the whole page. Particularly that > introductory paragraph: > > NOTE: According to JKR (Diane Rehm show, > 10/20/99), "Voldemort killed James and Lily, > then tried to kill Harry." This is clearly what > she intends. It is not, however, what it actually > says in the books. This page discusses what the > actual text states and what that would mean. > Clearly, JKR doesn't intend this to be the way > the story goes. But this IS the way it's written. > Also, yes, I am well aware of the fact that JKR > has confirmed many months ago in an email that > "Lily came out first." I, like many fans, don't > like the messy way this mistake was "fixed," but > that mystery is clearly solved. Many questions > remain, however... > > There IS no "theory" to lay to rest. > > Steve Hi Steve, I hope that tone of my previous message was not too aggressive. I like the site very much and the other mysteries presented in http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/puzzles.html are fascinating and perceptive. These are mysteries that we can expect to be addressed by JKR in future books. My problem is this: you seem to be presenting the James & Lily question as if it is a mystery of the same nature ie. one that JKR will address in future. It seems clear from canon that this is not the case. I know, I know: >"Voldemort killed James and Lily, > then tried to kill Harry." This is clearly what > she intends. It is not, however, what it actually > says in the books. This page discusses what the > actual text states and what that would mean. But I'm not sure that disclaimer is correct. Voldemort killed James and Lily IS what JKR says in the books - in every single case except one - Priori Incantatem. Since we know that there was an error with the wand order it's safe to assume that this is an ERROR (or, as I said in my post, that there is some reason - in HP's world - for the spell not to appear). In which case, what is the point in speculating on its meaning: it has no meaning, IT'S AN ERROR! Just a suggestion for the site - it would be cool if you could separate out those mysteries in canon that we can reasonably expect to have solved and those that are simply errors/flints on the part of JKR or her publishers. Because speculation over the meaning of a flint seems pointless... From tabouli at unite.com.au Thu Nov 1 12:36:41 2001 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 23:36:41 +1100 Subject: Farmer Hagrid, hairy sisters, more pro-Cho, transfiguration musings Message-ID: <000f01c162d1$f98ae1c0$0493aecb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 28588 You know, a few months ago I thought the next farm buyer would be Lupin, but after everyone howled me down (hee) with JKR's comment that he'll be playing a major role in Book 7 (he could still do this as a ghost, of course, though this is unlikely - and would his ghost still transform every month?), I'm increasingly coming to suspect that the next significant death may be Hagrid. That would "crucify" Jo to write, and could easily happen on his mission to the giants or with one of his dodgy pets or something. Plus it would be a true sacrifice (horrifying the Trio and many readers alike) but one not insurmountable in plot terms. (buy the farm, kick the bucket... who thinks up these metaphors?) (found a support group for Hagrid's ongoing good health if you dare...) Amy Z: > To me, the name Weird Sisters does suggest the core of the band is two or more sisters, but the rest could be anyone. Ah yes, but you see, Harry observed that they were ALL hairy, which he could see because they had torn robes. Now, I think these are two arguments in favour of maleness - for one thing the *body* hair he must be referring to, and for another the greater peek-a-boo naughtiness of witches in torn robes (just had a vision of a hairy chested Britney in skimpy outfit, ick...) More Amy Z: > Thanks too to Tabouli for defending Cho, who lets Harry down as nicely as anyone could do (what, would we like her better if she ditched her date?). Ebony: > If I were into other women: Cho, because she seems really nice and fun and pretty. I want to join Tabouli's C.I.N.E.M.A. because I think she gets a really bad rap.< (Tabouli polishes two C.I.N.E.M.A [Cho Is Not an Evil Minx Association] badges and blows them into cyberspace like Aslan in The Silver Chair) Now I think about it, jenny from ravenclaw's comments about feminist backlash and persecution of Fleur for being pretty are, IMO, much more applicable to Cho. Even if Fleur's haughtiness and disdain towards Harry and Ron and Hogwarts can be argued away, it can't be denied that she *has* shown some less appealing traits along with her beauty. In fact, more unappealing traits than appealing ones, so far (the same is true of Snape and Draco, of course, but let's ignore them for the purposes of argument). Cho, on the other hand, has shown that she is good at Quidditch, kind (she doesn't join in and giggle or wear cruel badges when being nasty to Harry becomes the norm), popular (always surrounded by friends) and sensitive (she lets Harry down gently and is devastated by Cedric's death). What's not to like? Why are people demonising Cho other than that she wouldn't chuck Cedric for Harry and that they resent her good looks, popularity and talent? I think this is much more unfair than disliking Fleur. Cornflower O'Shea > The difference between transformation and animagi is that an animagi retains human conciousness* while a transformed human (a la Malfoy the ferret) does not. < You mean Draco might not have any memory of the ferret episode? :-( I wonder what people do retain after transfiguration? Might Draco have a ferret's memory implanted in his (in)human brain now? And what of Hermione's partial transformation? Hey, maybe that's why she has so much empathy for Crookshanks: she's had the inside info on how cats think! Tabouli (S.C.H.A.B.B. life member, defender of Tom Bombadil and SILVER, founder of L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. and C.I.N.E.M.A., abstainer from F.L.A.R.E.S., F.L.O.P.S.I.E., C.R.A.B., S.I.N.I.S.T.E.R. and all the rest, currently bobbing happily among all the major ships on the lifeboat from the Good Ship L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S., which is sadly still anchored at the dock, flag at half-mast, as its would-be first mate died before it ever set sail) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Nov 1 12:45:15 2001 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 07:45:15 -0500 Subject: What is canon (from movie list) Message-ID: <42C0048D.45127B2A.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 28589 Steve said, over on the movie list: > Canon doesn't mean that a fact is completely without inconsistencies. It means that it's clearly stated that way in the books. Although there are inconsistencies with it (there are inconsistencies all over the books on many topics), that date [NHN's death in 1492] is very clearly stated. and then: > Hermione being born in 1980 falls into the same category. It says so in the books, therefore it's canon, even though there are extemely good arguments either way. I don't fully understand. It doesn't say in the books that Hermione was born in 1980. That's why we have all these debates, and, indeed, why the Lexicon includes a lengthy post from Ebony arguing the 1980 date. So is canon what is actually stated in the books? Or is it also what we deduce from them? An example of the former would be that NHN died in 1492. An example of the latter is that his 500th deathday party took place in 1992, which we can only deduce because we can add 500 to 1492 to get 1992. However, if NHN adopted a different counting method, as many cultures have historically done, for example, taking 1492 as his first deathday (just as we have no year zero in our calendar), that would lead to a 1991 date for COS (wow, when I began this post I didn't expect to bowl you *that* curve ball/googly), and 1979 for Harry, etc. So we can define 'canon' in any of the following ways: a) 1492 is canon, no twentieth century date is; b) 1492 is canon, and both 1991 and 1992 are 'alternative canon', because both are possible c) 1492 is canon, and 1992 is canon, but not 1991, because the balance of probability in interpretation lies with 1992. The assertion above, and in the Lexicon, that Hermione was born in 1980, and that that is canon, in my view conforms most closely with definition c). Definition c) is by far the best for constructing sites like the Lexicon, because it allows us to take tentative matters as provisionally settled and make further deductions. But because probability (at least in this context, I don't want to get into a Bayesian debate here) is a subjective matter, it does mean that canon is *not* unique: someone who believes that the arguments for a 1979 date for Hermione's birth outweigh those for 1980 will be entitled to take *that* as canon, for them. Perhaps a better case is large versus small Hogwarts, where more 'objective' evidence is more or less equally ranged on both sides. BTW, Steve, did you write to JKR about trading cards? And if so, was there a reply? David __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop at Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Nov 1 13:26:02 2001 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 08:26:02 -0500 Subject: The Hogwarts Quill Message-ID: <2FF74A7F.56143BFD.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 28590 Of all the things stated by JKR outside of the books, I think the Hogwarts Quill has the most implications for things we discuss here. 1) The nature of wizards. The quill implies that one either is, or is not, magical. There is plenty of other evidence to support this general idea, but I feel the quill is the most decisive. This has implications for Filch and his Kwikspell course in particular, as well as debates about what Muggles would achieve by following a potion recipe. Incidentally, it also defines Hagrid as a wizard rather than a Giant, as I assume Giants don't go to Hogwarts. 2) Neville. If his family had known that Neville's name was in the book, they needn't have gone to the trouble of dropping him out of a window, etc. This implies that the names in the list are kept confidential, or at least, no effort is made to let people know. (There is a possibility that Neville's parents were told before they went mad, but I can't imagine his formidable gran not insisting on her rights as guardian with McGonagall.) 3) Hermione and other Muggle-borns. The quill constrains the debate about Hermione's age, without excluding either option. Firstly, nobody would have known Hermione was a witch until her letter was sent out, at some point after her tenth birthday but not later than her twelfth. This effectively precludes arguments predicated on a possible early start at primary school etc - the Hogwarts system just ignores previous educational decisions and attainments. Likewise, Hermione would have meant nothing to McGonagall until that time - she would just be a name in a book. 4) Baby Voldemort the orphan. It's possible that nobody in the WW knew of his existence, particularly if his mother had no relatives, though the then deputy head of Hogwarts would in theory have had access to the information. In effect Neville's case shows that the WW is very bad at basic record keeping about who is and is not a wizard. The name Tom Riddle would have meant nothing as they were not married. As a baby with apparently no relatives, he was swept up in the Muggle system, with the WW probably just not knowing. 5) What Harry got from Voldemort. We know that Dumbledore suspects (it's not actually certain) that Harry got his Parseltongue gift from Voldemort. He may have got more, for example his ability to see Voldemort in dreams. However, he really is a wizard, because he wouldn't have got a Hogwarts letter if his name hadn't appeared in the book at birth. Harry isn't a Squib. (It's possible that what the quill does is to detect, and maintain a list of, all wizards in the UK and Ireland rather than register at birth. This would make understanding how immigrants and emigrants are dealt with by the system easier. In which case Harry's name might have appeared at the time of 'acquiring' wizard powers from Voldemort. I still think this unlikely because it equates something 'grafted on' with something innate.) 6) Mubdlood prejudice. The quill affirms that there is a solid magical basis for rejecting prejudice against Mudbloods, as all are treated equally. However, it could be used as a basis for anti-Muggle prejudice, as it could be interpreted as a rather Calvinistic 'Book of Life', instead of the administrative tool it is. The same goes for Giants and other Beings not counted. David __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop at Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ From cynthiaanncoe at home.com Thu Nov 1 14:31:08 2001 From: cynthiaanncoe at home.com (Cindy C.) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 14:31:08 -0000 Subject: Farmer Hagrid, more pro-Cho, transfiguration musings In-Reply-To: <000f01c162d1$f98ae1c0$0493aecb@price> Message-ID: <9rrmbc+eafb@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28591 Tabouli wrote: > You know, a few months ago I thought the next farm buyer would be Lupin, but after everyone howled me down (hee) with JKR's comment that he'll be playing a major role in Book 7 (he could still do this as a ghost, of course, though this is unlikely - and would his ghost still transform every month?), I'm increasingly coming to suspect that the next significant death may be Hagrid. That would "crucify" Jo to write, and could easily happen on his mission to the giants or with one of his dodgy pets or something. Plus it would be a true sacrifice (horrifying the Trio and many readers alike) but one not insurmountable in plot terms. (buy the farm, kick the bucket... who thinks up these metaphors?) > > (found a support group for Hagrid's ongoing good health if you dare...) > I have mixed feelings about Hagrid's death. (I prefer the metaphor "cash in his chips.") On the one hand, it makes sense, as you point out. But on the other hand, I don't want the "major" death in the book to be Hagrid because it would be a Big Shrug for me, like Cedric's death. I'm not a big Hagrid fan and I lean toward finding him annoying, so if Hagrid met a rather ordinary death, I would yawn, have another scoop of ice cream, and turn the page, I think. Sorry, but it's true. I want something surprising, shocking, disturbing for Book 5. This will be difficult for JKR to accomplish because I have at various times predicted the death of Lupin, Dumbledore, Hagrid and Sirius, and there are really no other major deaths that are even possibilities. Except Moody. And Moody is so tough that I don't think he is capable of dying. Ginny and Neville would also be Big Shrugs. Arthur Wealsey might be a possibility. His death would be really tragic and leave seven kids fatherless and with no means of support. McGonagal would also have some impact. Snape is just too important to die. Tabouli wrote: > Cho, on the other hand, has shown that she is good at Quidditch, kind (she doesn't join in and giggle or wear cruel badges when being nasty to Harry becomes the norm), popular (always surrounded by friends) and sensitive (she lets Harry down gently and is devastated by Cedric's death). What's not to like? Why are people demonising Cho other than that she wouldn't chuck Cedric for Harry and that they resent her good looks, popularity and talent? I think this is much more unfair than disliking Fleur. > I keep shaking my head and blinking my eyes at the Cho criticism. Huh? What's not to like about Cho? Aside from the things Tabouli and others mentioned, Cho is a head shorter than Harry, which I understand that adolescent males really appreciate. :-) I think we ought to be able to agree that Cho is a class act. Now, if someone wants to have a run at Lavender Brown, well, OK, that might be justifiable. But Cho? Nah. I see Cho as in the same category as Lupin, Dumbledore and Harry: They either are or should be so universally popular and beyond criticism that they do not need a support group at all. Tabouli wrote:> > You mean Draco might not have any memory of the ferret episode? :- ( > > I wonder what people do retain after transfiguration? Might Draco have a ferret's memory implanted in his (in)human brain now? > I think Draco remembers the ferret episode. First, he tells Moody right away that he is going to tell his father about it. Second, Hermione calls him a twitchy little ferret, which suggests that she thinks he remembers this incident. As for Krum, he must have some memory and consciousness while being half of a shark, or he would have eaten Hermione rather than rescue her. > Tabouli > > (S.C.H.A.B.B. life member, defender of Tom Bombadil and SILVER, founder of L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. and C.I.N.E.M.A., abstainer from F.L.A.R.E.S., F.L.O.P.S.I.E., C.R.A.B., S.I.N.I.S.T.E.R. and all the rest, currently bobbing happily among all the major ships on the lifeboat from the Good Ship L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S., which is sadly still anchored at the dock, flag at half-mast, as its would-be first mate died before it ever set sail) > Cindy (who might need to talk to Tabouli about an honorary membership to S.I.N.I.S.T.E.R, and who wonders what on earth Tom Bombadil, Silver, and L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. might be) From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Thu Nov 1 14:41:01 2001 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?Susanne=20Schmid?=) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:41:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Hogwarts Quill and the "late bloomer" In-Reply-To: <2FF74A7F.56143BFD.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: <20011101144101.93790.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28592 dfrankiswork at netscape.net wrote: Of all the things stated by JKR outside of the books, I think the Hogwarts Quill has the most implications for things we discuss here. 1) The nature of wizards. The quill implies that one either is, or is not, magical. There is plenty of other evidence to support this general idea, but I feel the quill is the most decisive. This has implications for Filch and his Kwikspell course in particular, as well as debates about what Muggles would achieve by following a potion recipe. Incidentally, it also defines Hagrid as a wizard rather than a Giant, as I assume Giants don't go to Hogwarts. But if your line of thought is correct, then JKR is contradicting herself: What about the alleged "late bloomer" who will show up in one of the future books, according to what she said in another interview (and we had quite a bit of discussion on this topic some months ago)? If this person will really be introduced, how will his or her past be explained? If this person *is* magical, the name would have shown on the list, he or she would have received a letter and gone to Hogwarts. Or wehave to consider the possibility of parents- and in that case I'd suppose they are rather Muggles than wizards- refusing that their child go to Hogwarts, keeping the existence of the letter from him or her. In that case it might be possible that the person in question arrives at a rather advanced age without becoming aware of his or her abilities. After all, those "strange things" Harry made happen while living with the Dursleys were always due to strong emotional stress. So perhaps, if our late bloomer had grown up in very happy circumstances, accidental magic might not have happened. Just think of Hermione: Obviously, neither she nor her parents had the faintest idea of having a witch in the family, because nothing out of the normal had happened so far. Which makes me think that one of the Grangers could be the person in question, so Hermione would be half-blood and that might have consequences on e.g. Draco's behaviour towards her... There could be some very interesting implications... susanna/pigwidgeon37 __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop at Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ____________________________________________________________ ***Special Announcement from Hexquarters*** After Hallowe'en, please post ALL shapes and forms of discussion of the Harry Potter movie to our new list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie. Join up! Join up! - the projector's rolling... Before posting to any of our lists, you MUST read the group's Admin Files! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/ Questions, list-based or otherwise? contact your personal List Elf or the Moderator Team at MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com. Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com ____________________________________________________________ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Nokia Game is on again. Click here to join the new all media adventure before November 3rd. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Thu Nov 1 14:42:38 2001 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (Hillman, Lee) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 09:42:38 -0500 Subject: Animagus vs. Transfigured (was: Lagging in Transfiguration?) Message-ID: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B055A4@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 28593 Hi, folks! David (?) asked: > > Could someone explain why you can only be an anamagi for one type of > animal (which is also your patronus), but you can tranfigure yourself > into anything? What am I missing? Why doesn't transfiguration trump > the limits of being an animagi? And Szabina responded: > If I understand the concept of a patronus correctly, > it is a protective image/spell. In cannon, Harry is > not an animagi. His patronus is a stag. The stag > represents his father (who would naturally be > protective of him and was a stag animagus). In canon > it is rare to be an animagi. So most wizards/witches > could not have their patronus be their animagus form. Right you are, Szabina. I don't believe the Patronus and the Animagi form are linked in all cases, just in Harry's, because in Harry's case the Patronus happens to represent a force that he must feel protects him. Note that it must have been a subliminal or subconscious desire that determined the form of the Patronus--which I believe makes a good case that no one can make a conscious choice of the Patronus's form, but that it is linked to the psyche of the caster. To answer David's original question with my take on the books, there are differences between an Anigmagus and a transfigured person: 1. The Animagus can only transform into one animal, and does NOT get to choose which. We can only guess that the nature of the mage has some determining factor regarding the type of animal. (This parallels the Patronus as an extension of the individual's psyche, too!) 2. The Animagus can perform this transformation at will and presumably without need for a wand. 3. The Animagus *retains his thoughts and identity* while in animal form; transfigured humans do not. In other words, the Animagus who transforms is still a wizard, whereas presumably if a wizard were to transfigure into an animal, he would for all intents and purposes BE that animal until turned back. It's also implicit in this reasoning that the Animagus transforms himself; another wizard must perform the spells to transfigure one from human to animal and back (or at least back). It should be noted that the Animagus transformation is still a form of transfiguration, though, so Remus and Sirius can use a counterspell to force Peter to return to human form. I rather think this is the same counterspell any mage would perform to help out an attempted Animagus transformation when the wizard got stuck in animal form. Evidence for these differences include the introduction of QTTA, Dumbledore's, McGonagall's, and Hermione's dialogue in PoA, and the entire sequence in the Shrieking Shack. Also when Peter and Sirius transform in the forest later that night, neither has a wand. Gwen From aiz24 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 1 15:06:42 2001 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 15:06:42 -0000 Subject: Animagus vs. Transfigured In-Reply-To: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B055A4@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> Message-ID: <9rroe2+ls3q@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28594 Gwen wrote: > Evidence for these differences include the introduction of QTTA, > Dumbledore's, McGonagall's, and Hermione's dialogue in PoA, and the entire > sequence in the Shrieking Shack. Also when Peter and Sirius transform in the > forest later that night, neither has a wand. No one but we L.O.O.N.s care, but I put a lot of effort into finding the quote when Davidjfein posed the original question, so darn it, I'm going to post it: "The witch or wizard who finds him- or herself Transfigured into a bat may take to the air, but, having a bat's brain, they are sure to forget where they want to go the moment they take flight" (QTTA page 1). Clearly a bit tongue in cheek, but it illustrates the basic difference between Animagus transformations and regular animal Transfiguration, and suggests obliquely why Animagus transformations are (a) superior and (b) limited to one form per wizard/witch. Amy Z -------------------------------------------------------- "And now, before we go to bed, let us sing the school song!" cried Dumbledore. Harry noticed that the other teachers' smiles had become rather fixed. -HP and the Philosopher's Stone -------------------------------------------------------- From cynthiaanncoe at home.com Thu Nov 1 15:19:28 2001 From: cynthiaanncoe at home.com (Cindy C.) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 15:19:28 -0000 Subject: Animagus vs. Transfigured (was: Lagging in Transfiguration?) In-Reply-To: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B055A4@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> Message-ID: <9rrp61+cadi@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28595 Gwen, Thanks for bring some clarity to this. Here are my thoughts: > > 1. The Animagus can only transform into one animal, and does NOT get to > choose which. We can only guess that the nature of the mage has some > determining factor regarding the type of animal. (This parallels the > Patronus as an extension of the individual's psyche, too!) Food for thought: what kind of Patronus is Lupin conjuring on the train? Would it necessarily be a wolf? Surely Lupin isn't conjuring a pitiful formless Patronus? Also, I'm not sure that the wizard has no input on the type of animal he/she becomes. Rita Skeeter might easily have transformed into a slug, or a weasel or hyena, but none of these animals (all of which are consistent with her personality) would help her spy on people. A beetle is helpful, but doesn't have any strong personality associations. Also, if the personality of the wizard affects the type of Animagus, then it seems odd that James and Peter would still trust Peter knowing that Peter turns into a rat. That suggests that Peter became a rat because they needed someone to turn into a small animal, not because he is, um, basically a rat. To confuse things further, my current pet theory is that the size/power of the Animagus relates to the power of the wizard, not the wizard's character. So James and Sirius are big and powerful animals because James and Sirius are powerful and clever. Peter is talentless and is a rat. Rita is really talentless and is a beetle. But this means that McGonagal is less powerful than Sirius and James because she is just a cat. And Dumbledore had better not turn out to be a bumblebee, unless he is going to be one of those bumblebees you see in old Godzilla movies. > > 2. The Animagus can perform this transformation at will and presumably > without need for a wand. > Agreed, otherwise Sirius couldn't transform in Azkaban, because he tells us that he didn't have his wand in prison. > 3. The Animagus *retains his thoughts and identity* while in animal form; > transfigured humans do not. > > In other words, the Animagus who transforms is still a wizard, whereas > presumably if a wizard were to transfigure into an animal, he would for all > intents and purposes BE that animal until turned back. It's also implicit in > this reasoning that the Animagus transforms himself; another wizard must > perform the spells to transfigure one from human to animal and back (or at > least back). It should be noted that the Animagus transformation is still a > form of transfiguration, though, so Remus and Sirius can use a counterspell > to force Peter to return to human form. I rather think this is the same > counterspell any mage would perform to help out an attempted Animagus > transformation when the wizard got stuck in animal form. I'm not so sure about some of this, but I'm willing to be persuaded. We have to figure out what Krum is when he transfigures himself (badly) in the second task. If he is doing a human-to-animal transfiguration, then he would have had to have help, which is prohibited by the tournament rules. Also, we know he performed the transformation right there by the lake with everyone watching, so it had to be something he could do himself. So he must be an Animagus. But becoming an Animagus is hard, and it took Sirius, James and Wormtail 3 years to do it. Krum strikes me as less accomplished than Sirius and James. If Krum starts when he gets the egg, he only has a few months to learn this. If he started working on it years ago, it would be too much of a coincidence that he happened to become a shark. So maybe Krum becomes something else entirely, something we don't yet know about? > > Evidence for these differences include the introduction of QTTA, > Dumbledore's, McGonagall's, and Hermione's dialogue in PoA, and the entire > sequence in the Shrieking Shack. Also when Peter and Sirius transform in the > forest later that night, neither has a wand. > > Quick L.O.O.N. correction -- Sirius has Snape's wand when he transforms to ward off Lupin. Peter has Lupin's wand. Also, there is some chance that Peter has his own wand, which he later uses in the graveyard scene in GoF (don't get me started). One more thing I forgot to put in the original post (remember, "Lagging in Transfiguration"?). The reason I think our trio might be way behind in learning Transfiguration is that James, Sirius and even talentless Peter had learned to be Animagi by their 5th year, whereas our trio is still changing kettles into turtles in their 4th year. So they'd better have a very productive 5th year to reach the competence at transfiguration that Sirius, James and Peter managed by that time. Sorry for leaving that out. Cindy (especially thrilled at the implication that Sirius might be more powerful than McGonagal) From cynthiaanncoe at home.com Thu Nov 1 15:26:48 2001 From: cynthiaanncoe at home.com (Cindy C.) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 15:26:48 -0000 Subject: Bill the rebel? (was dating) In-Reply-To: <9rr8qt+7f66@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rrpjo+r33i@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28596 David wrote: >Somebody else also described Bill as a rebel. > > Surely not: > > He works for a *bank*. Yes, but even banks have some exciting jobs. He's a curse-breaker. Maybe that's akin to a safe-cracker. You know, sneaking around, wearing black, speaking in code. That is cool; the sort of thing that impresses people at cocktail parties, anyway. Besides, David, sometimes when we women say we want a "rebel", we don't want a rebel in the more traditional sense. You know, dirty, unstable, unemployed, quirky. Actually, sometimes we really just want a banker, with a stable job with benefits and a good salary. And an earring. Cindy (who, by this definition, is definitely married to a rebel. Except the part about the earring). From cynthiaanncoe at home.com Thu Nov 1 15:38:02 2001 From: cynthiaanncoe at home.com (Cindy C.) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 15:38:02 -0000 Subject: Animagus vs. Transfigured (was: Lagging in Transfiguration?) In-Reply-To: <9rrp61+cadi@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rrq8q+g8fv@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28597 I wrote: > > Quick L.O.O.N. correction -- Sirius has Snape's wand when he > transforms to ward off Lupin. Peter has Lupin's wand. Also, there > is some chance that Peter has his own wand, which he later uses in > the graveyard scene in GoF (don't get me started). > Ooooops! Peter did not have Lupin's wand when he transformed. I forgot that Harry disarmed him. So my L.O.O.N. alert was issued in error. I suppose there must be a penalty for an erroneous L.O.O.N. correction. An appropriate penalty would be the slow erosion of one's L.O.O.N. status for each infraction. So I suppose I must now begin to refer to myself as a L.O.O. Cindy From rowanbrookt at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 17:00:36 2001 From: rowanbrookt at yahoo.com (rowanbrookt at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 17:00:36 -0000 Subject: only 1 animal animagus In-Reply-To: <9rq3gt+vsrn@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rrv3k+tcoj@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28598 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., davidjfein at h... wrote: > Could someone explain why you can only be an anamagi for one type of > animal (which is also your patronus), but you can tranfigure yourself > into anything? What am I missing? Why doesn't transfiguration trump > the limits of being an animagi? The reason for the whole 1 animal thing is because you turn in to an animal which is largly determined by your charachter (JKR said this was true when a young girl mentioned her observation of this in an interview) Magic determines what animal you turn into when you have mastered the power to change. From Calypso8604 at aol.com Thu Nov 1 17:02:50 2001 From: Calypso8604 at aol.com (Calypso8604 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:02:50 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Hogwarts Quill and the "late bloomer" Message-ID: <27.1d59bfff.2912da3a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28599 In a message dated 11/1/01 9:43:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it writes: > Which makes me think that one of the Grangers could be the person in > question, so Hermione would be half-blood and that might have consequences > on e.g. Draco's behaviour towards her... There could be some very > interesting implications... I don't think it could be a Granger. I think that Hermione's parentage and Draco's prejudice is a good message to be sending to readers and making Hermione a half-blood would ruin the impact. ~ Calypso [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Nov 1 17:02:56 2001 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (foxmoth at qnet.com) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 17:02:56 -0000 Subject: What is canon (from movie list) In-Reply-To: <42C0048D.45127B2A.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: <9rrv80+mpno@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28600 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote: > So is canon what is actually stated in the books? Or is it also what we deduce from them? IMO, the term 'canon' should be reserved for texts of the books and interviews with JKR. We rely on the machinery of the publishing and journalism industries to authenticate these, although there's always a possibility we're being Skeetered. However, as to interpretations, no one (not even Steve, bless him!) has the authority to determine what is an orthodox interpretation and what isn't. So although Steve may hold that deductions from canonical information are themselves canonical, I respectfully disagree. We can't rely on deduction because we can't assume that the Potterverse is logically consistent, in fact we know it is not. It is "catastrophic": subject to the whims of its creator rather than to natural law. So the syllogism: All Hogwarts students receive an owl in the year they turn eleven. (JKR interview) Hermione is a Hogwarts student. (PS/SS et sequelae) Therefore Hermione received her owl in the year she turned eleven. is flawlessly logical, and yet may be false, because logical consistency is not a property of the Potterverse. Another example might make this clearer: All werewolves transform when the full moon rises (JKR interview) Remus Lupin did not transform when the full moon rose (PoA) Therefore Remus Lupin is not a werewolf. ;) Pippin "The truth is out there. The lies are all inside your head." --Terry Pratchett From dkgrubb at earthlink.net Thu Nov 1 17:30:29 2001 From: dkgrubb at earthlink.net (dkgrubb at earthlink.net) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 17:30:29 -0000 Subject: form of a patronus In-Reply-To: <9rrv80+mpno@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rs0rl+10pp3@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28601 All the discussion of the difference between transfiguration and the animagus spell is very interesting, but I'd like to draw a distinction between the Patronus and any form of transfiguration. When Hermione describes Lupin's Patronus on the train she says "a silvery thing shot out of his wand", and when she descibes Dumbledore's Patronus she says "Then he whirled his wand at the Dementors. Shot silver stuff at them." It seems that Harry's Patronus is the only one we know of which takes a form at all. Since the Dementors represent to Harry the worst thing that ever happened to him (the loss of his parents), it seems plausible that his Patronus represents, on some unconscious level, getting his father back. Possibly, to other people, who have no such well defined "worst moment", the Patronus doesn't have such a specific form. Two knuts for the day I got movie tickets! Debra From Calypso8604 at aol.com Thu Nov 1 17:34:21 2001 From: Calypso8604 at aol.com (Calypso8604 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:34:21 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] form of a patronus Message-ID: <116.6f6ff50.2912e19d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28602 I believe JKR only had Harry's take form because she thought it would be a cute idea to have a spell that translates into "Expect a Protector/Father" (ther's been disputes about which is actually correct) summon a patronus look like his dad's animagi form ~ Calypso [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meboriqua at aol.com Thu Nov 1 17:53:59 2001 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny from ravenclaw) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 17:53:59 -0000 Subject: How powerful is/ will Harry as wizard? In-Reply-To: <9rr5vc+6koj@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rs27n+5tg9@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28603 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Sofie " wrote: > I don't think harry will become a muggle when Voldemort is defeated > because he was a wizard child anyway. Waht I do think is thta he > might not be all that special once V. is gone. Not at Neville > standard or anything but I still maintain he's had some kind of > memory charm placed on him so he'll forget about what happened to his parents. But maybe Harry will just become a wizard with average > ability like Ron.> I have to disagree with you about this, Sofie. Harry is the product of two pretty special people. We know for a fact that his father was an excellent student and able enough as a teen to learn on his own how to be an animagus. I get the feeling that his mother was pretty powerful too (and still believe she was the one who cast the Fidelius Charm for her and her husband). Lily's love is a big part of what saved Harry's life; I can't think of more power than that. Harry has inherited at least some of these amazing talents from his parents. No one, even the defeat of Voldemort will take those things away from him. --jenny from ravenclaw, who would DEFINITELY date Harry if she was 14 and a witch at Hogwarts ******************************************************************* From cynthiaanncoe at home.com Thu Nov 1 17:54:09 2001 From: cynthiaanncoe at home.com (Cindy C.) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 17:54:09 -0000 Subject: form of a patronus In-Reply-To: <9rs0rl+10pp3@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rs282+ahgv@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28604 Debra wrote: > All the discussion of the difference between transfiguration and the > animagus spell is very interesting, but I'd like to draw a distinction > between the Patronus and any > form of transfiguration. When Hermione describes Lupin's Patronus on > the train she says "a silvery thing shot out of his wand", and when she > descibes Dumbledore's Patronus she says "Then he whirled his wand at > the Dementors. Shot silver stuff at them." It seems that Harry's > Patronus is the only one we know of which takes a form at all. > > Since the Dementors represent to Harry the worst thing that ever > happened to him (the loss of his parents), it seems plausible that his > Patronus represents, on some unconscious level, getting his father > back. Possibly, to other people, who have no such well defined "worst > moment", the Patronus doesn't have such a specific form. > Debra, That makes a lot of sense, a nice sharp distinction. Let me fuzz it up some. :-) In PoA, Harry's Patronus is a stag, which represents the loss of his parents. And when Harry faces the boggart, it turns into a dementor and makes him re-live his parents' death. So the boggart tells us Harry's worst fear, and there's a nice link to the Patronus, which is related to the fear. Very tidy. Well, the boggart also tells us Lupin's biggest fear, which is the moon. So, if the theory holds, Lupin's Patronus ought to be something related to warding off the moon. Maybe Lupin's Patronus is a cloud. Who knows? I think the reason I'm trying to force the issue is because we know what the Patronus is supposed to be: "a kind of anti-dementor -- a guardian that acts as a shield between you and the dementor." We also know the Patronus is unique to the wizard who conjure it. So it is hard to imagine that Lupin purposefully conjurs "silver stuff." But there is one other possibility. Perhaps Lupin's Patronus really is just formless silver stuff. After all, he tells Harry: "I don't pretend to be an expert at fighting dementors, Harry . . . quite the contrary." So maybe Lupin hasn't quite mastered the Patronus charm, and is hardly better at it than Harry is during their lessons. That would explain why Lupin thinks Harry's formless Patronus is quite acceptable, even though Harry isn't happy with it. As for Dumbledore, who knows? Cindy From degroote at altavista.com Thu Nov 1 17:54:56 2001 From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote) Date: 1 Nov 2001 09:54:56 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius vs Snape /teen years Message-ID: <20011101175456.15134.cpmta@c012.sfo.cp.net> No: HPFGUIDX 28605 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From meboriqua at aol.com Thu Nov 1 18:05:08 2001 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny from ravenclaw) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 18:05:08 -0000 Subject: Farmer Hagrid, more pro-Cho, transfiguration musings In-Reply-To: <9rrmbc+eafb@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rs2sk+d5oo@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28606 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Cindy C." wrote: > I keep shaking my head and blinking my eyes at the Cho criticism. > Huh? What's not to like about Cho? Aside from the things Tabouli > and others mentioned, Cho is a head shorter than Harry, which I > understand that adolescent males really appreciate. :-) I think we > ought to be able to agree that Cho is a class act. Now, if someone > wants to have a run at Lavender Brown, well, OK, that might be > justifiable. But Cho? Nah. I see Cho as in the same category as > Lupin, Dumbledore and Harry: They either are or should be so > universally popular and beyond criticism that they do not need a > support group at all.> I have to add my agreement here. JKR has gone out of her way to make Cho as nice as possible. She turned Harry's invitation to the Yule Ball because she had already said yes to Cedric. She certainly did not owe Harry an acception just because he is Famous Harry Potter. As much as I love Harry, even I can see that. I also think Harry accepts that; he doesn't resent Cho after she turns him down, but continues to admire her from afar. Tabouli, add me to you C.I.N.E.M.A. subscribtion list too, please! --jenny from ravenclaw ********************************************* From beyondthelamppost at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 18:11:25 2001 From: beyondthelamppost at yahoo.com (Jamie) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 18:11:25 -0000 Subject: The torn bag problem. In-Reply-To: <9rqk25+ndfg@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9rs38d+e98k@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28607 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., morsethanatos at y... wrote: > Hi, > I was re-reading POA(lost count of how many times a while ago) and as > I was going through the part where Crookshanks slashes Ron's bag to > get at Scabbers, an idea hit me. Bags are getting torn quite often in > the books. Harry get's his torn by the dwarf, Hermione's bag splits > from all the books, Ron's is ripped apart, Harry splits Diggory's > bag, and I think there are some more. First of all how do they > replace/fix these things? But more importantly is this just a > technique that JKR seems to like or could there me something more to > this? > > Morsethanatos Hmmm...I guess I aways just assumed that there was some sort of fix- it charm like Mr. Weasley uses for Harry's glasses in CoS. Not a very exciting conclusion, but you are right that JKR uses this a lot! From pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it Thu Nov 1 18:44:19 2001 From: pigwidgeon37 at yahoo.it (=?iso-8859-1?q?Susanne=20Schmid?=) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 18:44:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] form of a patronus In-Reply-To: <9rs0rl+10pp3@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <20011101184419.8557.qmail@web14706.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 28608 dkgrubb at earthlink.net wrote: between the Patronus and any