CoS implausible

[foxmoth at qnet.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 27397

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., prefectmarcus at y... wrote:

> I've already complained about Dumbledore's negligence.  
<excerpt from previous message>
 It has always bothered  me that Dumbledore had access to 
the exact clues as Harry, yet he couldn't figure it out.  He knew 
Moaning Myrtle had died from the last attack.  If asked, she would 
have told him about the sink (where).  He knew Hagrid was 
involved 
somehow.  If he had asked, Hagrid would have told him all about 
Aragog and the monster he refused to name.  The monster 
petrified 
people.  A little time in the library would have shown him it was a 
basilisk (what).  Putting a watch on the bathroom sink would 
have 
shown him Ginny (who).  Further investigation would have 
revealed the 
diary (how).  He already knew the -why-.    
  
I have to speak up for my favorite character here. 
    While Dumbledore knows that Myrtle died in the last attack, he 
doesn't know that pipes were involved and has no reason to be 
suspicious of the sink. In fact Binns says Dumbledore searched 
the whole school, including presumably the bathroom. He must 
have missed the snake scratched on the sink, but it may well be 
undetectable to anyone who's not a Parselmouth , as Seamus 
implies (CoS 9).
     Dumbledore wouldn't neccessarily know that the gaze of a 
basilisk could Petrify: that is not in Hermione's excerpt or in 
Fantastic Beasts, which both state that the gaze causes instant 
death. Hermione's insight appears to be original, not a finding of  
her research.
	    Hagrid would  *not*  tell Dumbledore about Aragog , lest 
Dumbledore inform the Committee for the Disposal of 
Dangerous Creatures. In fact, Hagrid is careful to wait until 
Dumbledore has left the cottage before dropping his "follow the 
spiders" clue. 
	   As for putting a watch on the bathroom, that was done. Harry, 
Ron and Hermione have something of a time avoiding the 
watchers, and are nearly caught on various occasions by Filch, 
Percy and McGonagall. How Ginny evaded being seen we aren't 
told
perhaps Tom also knows Dumbledore's method of being 
invisible without a cloak.  If she was invisible, that might protect 
her from the dreaded gaze as well. In fact, if Tom was invisible 
when Myrtle blundered out of her stall, it would explain why she 
never saw him, wouldn't it?
   According to my theory, the lack of deaths was intentional. 
Tom/Ginny carefully chose victims who would be protected from 
the full gaze of the monster, both to keep the school from being 
closed and to divert suspicion from basilisks. I  don't suppose 
Tom expected to kill even Myrtle (which gives his speech to 
Hagrid an extra frisson of irony) Either her glasses didn't protect 
her, or she wasn't wearing them at the time. Perhaps she'd 
taken them off to wipe her eyes.
   
Barb wrote
>How did Ron make it through his second year with a 
malfunctioning wand?

Probably the teachers  have a bit of  a soft spot for Weasleys, 
with the exception of Snape, of course, but there's little "foolish 
wand waving" in Potions. I can see McGonagall and Flitwick 
allowing  Ron a not -at-all-stellar passing grade, can't you? He 
would have had a hard time with finals, but they were cancelled 
that year.


Pippin, who likes CoS very much, except for (shudder) Dobby.