Cedric as Captain; Werewolves; "Problems" in GoF; In defense of Steve; Draco & CoMC

[Hillman, Lee]

No: HPFGUIDX 25867

Hi, folks!

Many things to say, some of which are short, so I'm being good and
combining.


I. Cedric as Captain:
Luke wrote:

> If you have made this inference from the sentence in POA (Chapter 9, 
> Page 168 U.S. Hardcover) which reads "They've [referring 
> to Hufflepuff's Quidditch team] got a new Captain and Seeker, Cedric 
> Diggory" then it's quite a reasonable one and you may be right, but 
> there are two viable alternatives:
> 1) The "new" refers only to his being made captain and he was already 
> on the team as seeker.
> 2) The "new" refers both to his being made captain and seeker, but he 
> was previously on the team under a different position.  (He certainly 
> isn't quite normal seeker build so perhaps he started out playing a 
> heavier position like chaser or keeper and then filled in at the 
> loss of the previous seeker.)
> 
> Anyway, just pointing out the possibility.  I may also have 
> overlooked 
> some more conclusive canon evidence.
> 

Cedric could also have been on the reserve team and brought up from that.


II. Werewolves
Catherine wrote: 
> 
> Are there werewolves in the FF?  Is it a myth, created to scare the 
> Hogwarts students?  If so, why don't more of them have more common 
> sense about this, because either:
> There is a community of werewolves who live in the forest, all the 
> time, whether they are wolf or human
> or:
> Werewolves apparate there at the time of the month so they are away 
> from humans and are contained there.
> or:
> werewolves couldn't possibly be found in the FF if not one of the 
> above.
> 
> Plausible?
> 
> Finally, do werewolf cubs exist?  Is the condition genetic?  Or is it 
> only passed on by biting etc.???
> 

1. You can't Apparate or Disapparate on the grounds of Hogwarts. (Thanks,
Hermione)
2. If this is the case, and there are regular werewolves in the FF, then why
is Lupin being loose on the grounds, either during their schooldays or the
night of the Shrieking Shack episode in PoA, such a big deal? 

I think because of the "uncontrollable" nature of werewolves, and the fact
that they will target humans above any other prey, there cannot be
werewolves in the FF on a regular basis. As for living there while human,
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me. I wouldn't be surprised
it there were werewolf enclaves, but I'd expect them to be further removed
from any civilisation. 


Susan:
> Didn't JKR say in an interview that there are no werewolf cubs?  I 
> think I remember her saying that Riddle was lying when he said the 
> Hagrid raised werewolves under his bed.

Just because Riddle was lying doesn't mean there are NO werewolf cubs. She
could have indicated the second but not the first. Does anyone have a
reference for this interview?

Which brings me to:
3. Rita points out that FB states werewolves are always bitten. However,
Remus says he was bitten as a small child (PoA, ch. 18), and when they
discuss the "joke," Remus mentions that Snape would have met a fully grown
werewolf. These two clues combined makes it reasonable, I believe, to guess
that Remus's wolf form corresponded in part at least to his actual age. So
for example when he was 5, the wolf could have been a cub, and by 8, his
wolf form could have been a pup, or at least a young wolf--still dangerous,
probably, but not a full-grown wolf. At some point, the wolf would mature,
probably by the time Remus entered puberty.

Again, Remus mentions that it "haunts" him that WPP came so close to losing
control of him so often--it suggests that their presence in the FF was an
anomaly.

OTOH, perhaps it is actually Remus to whom the legends of werewolves in the
forest refer. Oops, Rita said that too. Well, I think that's the basis for
the rumours.


III. "Problems" in GoF
Cindy:
> > Then there was Harry's failure to 
> > use a Summoning charm to obtain the Marauder's Map when his leg was 
> > stuck in the stair.  I would have liked to see him mentally 
> chastise 
> > himself for not thinking of this faster.  
> > 

Actually, I wondered about that for about 5 seconds. Then I realised: 
a. he couldn't chance making any noise; 
b. even if he'd managed to whisper the spell and not be overheard (by Filch
OR Mrs. Norris), the sight of a piece of parchment spontaneously blowing up
from the floor, past a tapestry, and once past the tapestry, out of sight
altogether would have given him away as surely as looking at the map itself;
and 
c. it's just possible he doesn't have his wand with him. This may not be
true, since we learn in QttA that wizards generally keep their wands with
them at all times, and he might have wanted it to wipe the map just in case,
but really, he didn't expect to need his wand. He already had the egg, and
the map, and Rowling mentions how cumbersome it was to move under the
Invisibility Cloak carrying these two items. He was in his dressing gown and
pyjamas, not his robes, and he didn't expect to see anyone. The wand is
never mentioned and he doesn't bother to stop the map while he's in the
bath, so it's possible he doesn't even have it during the episode.

So that's why I figured he didn't try to Summon the map.

Cindy continued 
> > By my measure, then, the really horrible one is the only one that 
> > jumped out at me on my first reading:  the wand order.   I will say 
> > this, though.  I don't entirely understand why everyone is so 
> unhappy 
> > about the way this was fixed.  Perhaps someone will enlighten me.
> > 

Well, I joined this group after GoF, so the hype isn't my problem with it.
My problem is purely aesthetic--the scene doesn't read as well in the new
order. It makes more dramatic sense the other way 'round, when his father
comes out first and says, "your mother's coming. She wants to see you." It's
just more touching. Add to this the awkward change about saying that the
woman was the one he'd been thinking of more than any other that night...
Harry wasn't actively thinking about his mother. He _was_ thinking about his
father. I just thought the fix was executed in a careless and haphazard
fashion, when it's possible that with a little more effort, the scene could
still read for dramatic effect as well as the original.


IV. In defense of Steve:
Steve (VdA) wrote:
> 
> Good grief, some of you seem to be taking offense that I say this. 
> But it's me, guys, the editor of the Lexicon. I'm not going over to 
> the Dark Side or anything here. I've just become a bit more realistic 
> as time goes by. That doesn't mean I like the books any less or that 
> you need to defend JKR against me. I'm not attacking her! But I don't 
> think she's a writer on par with C.S. Lewis or Natalie Babbitt and 
> that's okay. Hardly any writers are. That doesn't mean that only 
> those few writers who are at the absolute top of the pile are worth 
> reading. Not at all. But by the same token there's nothing wrong with 
> being realistic about it and calling it like it is.
> 

Bravo, Steve! I too am sometimes disturbed by the attitude that frequently
pervades these discussions: the idea that Rowling can do no wrong.

She's human. She has file boxes of notes, but sometimes even the most
meticulous planner can miss something, or gets an inspiration that
contradicts an earlier inspiration. How many of us proofread and proofread
and proofread, and satisfied with our email, hit the send button, only to
find three typos in the message when we read it on the list? Pointing out
the errors should not negate the quality of the work.

I remember recently a discussion somewhere (I think here) where folks were
highly disappointed that _The Amber Spyglass_ won a book award over _Goblet
of Fire._  I didn't get the debate then, and I don't now: GoF is a wonderful
book. It's a great book in a very top-notch series of great books. _The
Amber Spyglass_, IMO, is a groundbreaking book. It's the difference between
an enjoyable story with many levels of understanding and nuance and all the
genres (to quote William Goldman, "Fencing, fighting, pirates, true
love..."), and a majorly mind-blowing conceptual piece that does all that,
and also changed how I think about life and the universe. And that's just
one example.

There are things about Rowling's writing style that bug me. I can't stand
that she writes in the passive voice so often ("had done," "had been
watching," etc.). I hate the housist tendencies and the seeming invisibility
of houses H and R--though I hope that OoP will see that change. Some of her
characters are so caricatured I can't even imagine them developing in the
series, and her poetry and incidents like the school song scene frankly make
me cringe.

But, despite these faults, I have managed to amass more HP merchandise than
I ever thought I'd want, I spend an inordinate amount of time reading,
writing, and participating in HP fandom, I bounced fit to make the entire
row of seats shake the last time I was in a movie theatre that showed the
trailer, I talk about HP all the time, and it rivals, and may even outstrip,
my other major hobby for demands on my time (and that's a hobby I've spent
12 years pursuing!). I'm completely, totally, horrendously obsessed with HP.

That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge things I'd prefer to see, avenues I
wish she'd take, or even improvements I'd suggest were I on her editing
team. But we love a person or a thing despite its failings, regardless or
even because of its flaws.

Let's remember that we're all here because we wish to be here. It's not
heresy to point out a flaw, or even a Flint. I thought we were supposed to
be adults? Can't adults approach issues like the relative perfection of a
series of books without foaming at the mouth if someone dares utter a word
of criticism?

The L.O.O.N.s are actually great examples of this. Their pleasure and
pasttime is to find the flaws, eke out the errors, and spot the snafus, and
then try to figure out why they are there. As Joywitch pointed out recently
on this list, their nitpicking doesn't mean they hate the books. They still
love the books. But the more closely one scrutinizes a thing, the more one
sees through the chinks in its armour and finds spots of rust that didn't
pop out the first time, or even, for some of us, the 375th time. And while
there was some lively discussion about how right/wrong it was to pick those
nits, there was little to no condemnation of their right to point out the
nits. I believe it had more to do with perceiving a lean in the group
toward, "Hey, let's trash the rags!" which was not, in reality, the case.

Okay, I'm babbling now. I'll stop. Anyway, I just want to chime in a big "Me
too" and congratulate Steve (and others who have spoken out) for being
willing to admit on list that though the books are "All That," they are not
necessarily "All That and a Bag of Chips."


V. Draco dropping CoMC (to end this on a fun note):
 
Amy Z listed "Some possibilities:"
> 
> (a) "Elective" is a tricky term; they choose which classes to 
> take but they 
> don't choose how many.  He has to take *something.*
> 
> (b) Quitting would be quitting.  He's going to stick it out 
> and outlast 
> Hagrid.
> 
> (c) He really wants to learn Care of Magical Creatures, the better to 
> oversee the gamekeeper back home when he inherits the 
> mansion, and because 
> Lucius won't let him have a fire crab until he can take care 
> of it himself.
> 

d. Just because it's an "easy A."


Gwendolyn Grace