No: HPFGUIDX 30426
Greetings to our many newbies! I hope you come to love this list as
much as I do.
Joshua wrote:
> I wouldn't make too much of this. Eagle owls are the largest
variety
> of owl in the world, making them especially appropriate for certain
> things -- such as dreams in which people ride them, carrying large
> packages, or being owned by rich snobby Hogwarts students. Great
> snowy owls are almost the same size, actually, but since eagle owls
> are a Eurasian species and snowy owls are north American, it makes
> sense that you'd see a lot more eagle owls and very few snowy owls.
All good points, but I also get a pricking in my thumbs when I read
about eagle owls. Every mention of them, IIRC, is associated with
Dark wizards--explicitly with Malfoy and Harry's dream, indirectly
when he sees it while watching Hagrid digging. It seems just the kind
of thing JKR would plant as either a subtle warning or a red herring.
The next time I see one in the books I'm going to be on the alert.
Cassie (EvillClaudeRains) wrote:
> I was just rereading SS when I noticed this little beauty of a line:
> "I can't, there isn't a reserve seeker. If I back out, Gryffindor
can't play
> at all."
> It made little sense that they played that last game, even if it
*was* the
> last game. Why would have to forfeit. After all, without a seeker
they
> couldn't win the game!
You can't win the game without a Seeker, since only the Seeker is
allowed to catch the Snitch (QTTA page 30; anyone but a Seeker
touching the Snitch is called snitchnipping and is forbidden).
However, anyone can be a Seeker; they could draft a reserve Chaser to
fill the bill, or draft Neville for that matter. It's like a
triple-overtime basketball game where you're using your worst,
benchwarming forward as center because your centers are so exhausted.
You probably haven't got a snowball's chance of winning, but it's
either that or forfeit.
So I think Harry overstated the case slightly. Technically, they can
play without him, and they do when given absolutely no alternative.
But for all intents and purposes, they can't because no one else is
really capable of doing the job; they'd just be a warm body filling
the Seeker spot. Make sense?
Poor Wood--what a mercy we don't have to witness him tearing out his
hair when he learns Harry isn't going to be able to play. I imagine
him pacing outside the hospital wing 10 minutes before the game,
Harry's Quidditch robes in hand, hoping he'll wake up just in time,
until Madam Pomfrey chases him away . . .
Jason wrote:
> First, I believe that Dumbledore's look of triumph has to do with
> Voldy being reborn with the hand of a servant indebted to HP and
the
> blood of HP...somehow this will end up being Voldie's Achilles
heel.
> It does further tie these two wizards.
Cindy wrote:
> when Harry
> tells Dumbledore what happened in the graveyard, he doesn't mention
> that Wormtail cut off his hand. A rather large omission, no? Maybe
> JKR just doesn't tell us that Harry mentions this.
I think the latter is the case. She fades into generalities at "He
took a deep breath, and began to tell them" and doesn't go into
details again until "When Harry told of Wormtail piercing his arm with
the dagger . . .
" (this is all from GF 36).
However, if it were the "flesh of the servant" that was so important
to V's downfall, why wouldn't Dumbledore get his look of triumph then?
D seems to be responding to the fact that Voldemort can now touch
Harry, or possibly to what V said about using Harry's blood. He
listens quietly in his chair until Harry mentions Voldemort's taking
his blood--then "he stood up so quickly that Harry started."
Gabriel wrote:
> I wonder if LV trained his people to "resist" the Cruciatus Curse so
that they would not break
under torture?
That wouldn't be a good idea. He needs it to control them, and they
aren't likely to be tortured by the MOM, I would hope. I don't
suppose the MOM signed the Geneva Convention or they'd have to shut
down Azkaban, but they probably draw the line at interrogation by
torture.
Eleri's lurking husband wrote:
>For instance, a lot of the classes involve practicing what seem to
be
>simple movements and incantations repeatedly until you get it 'just
>right'. The number of variations for such simple actions are
finite, I'd
>think. I mean, how many ways can you swish, flick and say 'wingardum
>leviOSa'? And Lockheart talks about being really good at memory
charms. But
>all it is is a wave and "Obliviate". Just how much skill can go into
that?
We on this list periodically mull over just what the nature of magical
ability is. There is definitely a mechanical aspect to performing
magic, but I think there is more to it than just "swish and flick"
combined with the "magic gene." It sounds like a talent like drawing
or piano or archery: inborn to some extent, but requiring a
tremendous amount of training and practice. There are so many ways to
do it wrong, so few ways to do it right.
Dave Hardenbrook wrote:
> Related question: Are the offspring of squibs also squibs?
Some are, some aren't? If a witch can be born to two Muggles (Lily,
Hermione) then why not to two squibs?
Alex P wrote:
>Who is responsible for this FILK?
> Filk - Wild Phoenixes
Are you saying you didn't write it and you want to know who did? Or
you wrote it and want to know what happens with it next?
It's very good, whoever wrote it!
Amy Z
who highly recommends the Flying Burrito Brothers' rendition
--------------------------------------------------------
"Ha, ha, ha," said Hermione sarcastically. "Goblins
don't need protection. Haven't you been listening to
what Professor Binns has been telling us about goblin
rebellions?"
"No," said Harry and Ron together.
-HP and the Goblet of Fire
--------------------------------------------------------